Whether in politics or religion or science or practically any other discussion, many speak to the need for balance.  The argument goes that one is required to look at both sides of a debate in order to truly comprehend the fullness of the issue and reach a logically sound conclusion.  That is stunningly false.

The issue with this line of reasoning is it’s founded on this dramatically erroneous assumption: there are at least two valid sides in every argument.  The premise is wholly unfounded in reality and deceptively misleading.

Let’s take evolution as an example.  Every bit of scientific evidence and every new species discovered in the fossil record strongly reinforce the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.  Missing links are discovered regularly, enough data have been found to establish secure lineages across a spectrum of species (including humans), and continuing research in biology offers increasing amounts of information that help tie together what is alive now with what has lived throughout our planet’s history.  There are still holes, yes, but they are being filled at an increasing rate.  All of that is augmented by carbon dating and geological information, which both supplement and reinforce the biological and fossil records.  To think for a moment that there is another side to the argument is to stand in defiant ignorance.  As science goes, we are always learning and rewriting our theories of how things work or happened (e.g., we’re still tinkering with the theory of gravity because it still can’t explain everything we observe).  That premise, one that defines the very nature of science itself, does not negate the solid understanding we already have (e.g., just because our theory of gravity can’t explain all observable phenomena, it does not mean gravity itself is untrue).  The creation/ID war against evolution is not the other side of the debate for there is no other side; those beliefs are nothing more than mythologies being pushed either as pseudoscience or as a complete replacement for science.  Many believers will say things like this: “Maybe god is causing the carbon dating tests to give false readings and the age of the Earth is really around 6,000 years.”  If only they’d think about that for a moment.  They’re suggesting their deity is intentionally providing false evidence in order to lead people away from the truth.  If that’s the case, he’s a mean old bastard and doesn’t deserve my worship anyway.  Besides, regardless of the claim, it’s a false position that tries to negate the use of our reason and intellect, something they also claim was given us by their various gods.  It’s like handing someone a gun and telling them it’s for self-defense, but they should never actually fire it.  Huh?  In the final analysis, the only valid debate about evolution is in the specifics of the process and the definitive lineage for each existing species.  The theory itself does not have an opposite and valid point of view.

Another example is the abortion debate.  The flaw with assuming there are two sides to argue is that it likewise assumes women are incapable of making their own decisions about their own bodies.  It is also flawed for men to hold the anti-abortion stance.  Abortion itself is not a choice men will ever make; it is not a choice they can ever understand.  I can’t deny fathers have a vested interest in such a decision if the mother of their child is considering an abortion.  Under that circumstance only would a man have any say in the decision.  Aside from that, however, men writing laws about it and making judicial decisions on it are abhorrent indications of presumptuous thinking whereby they stand on a false argument and make bad decisions.  Not only should medical conditions always be left up to the patient and their doctors, but such decisions as can only affect a single gender should always be decided by that gender only.  They are welcome to ask for opinions or to weigh heavily the choice of the father in such cases as include abortion, but I simply cannot fathom how any male feels their opinion is of importance when they are forever relegated to being an outside observer with no ability to comprehend the ramifications and considerations.

The gay marriage debate also is an example of an argument with only one valid side.  Heterosexuals control the mechanisms that enable or hinder homosexuals from enjoying the same rights and privileges in their committed relationships.  They do so based on the premise that homosexuality is somehow wrong and unnatural.  They make these arguments despite thousands of species in the animal kingdom demonstrating the same “choice” as gays.  They also make these arguments based primarily on religious beliefs that, in America at least, should have absolutely no bearing on legislation or government.  In addition, most falsely assume homosexuality is a choice rather than a trait.  None of them can demonstrate when they “chose” to be straight, yet they will argue ad infinitum that gays have done just that: chosen.  This is similar to saying men who prefer blondes are making a choice.  Preferences are not choices in that we have them; they are only choices when we act on them (i.e., do we demonstrate our preference or suffer through what we dislike and is against our nature?).  For a basic example, ask a heterosexual man if he prefers red heads, blondes, or brunettes.  When he answers, ask him then to explain when he made that choice and whether he could easily flip a switch and permanently change that preference to one of the two remaining options (e.g., if he prefers brunettes, can he simply choose to prefer red heads instead and forever deny his like of brown hair?).  I will not deny he could act against his preference, but the truth rests in whether he can change the preference itself or simply live a life in denial of it.  This example is easily extended to preferences of body types, foods and drinks, living in the city or the country, kinds of television programming and movies, monogamy, sexual positions/activities, reading material, and so on.  Our preferences are a part of who we are and never based on an arbitrary choice.  That simple truth invalidates all of the straight arguments against gays, yet few of them can see or are willing to admit they stand upon a false foundation in order to belittle, deride, subjugate, and otherwise discriminate against those who are different.

Many debates that rage on in the public square often are of the sort I’ve discussed here: one valid argument facing one or more invalid arguments.  There is no balance in such cases.  The unfortunate truth is that falsehoods are all too often ingrained in people at early ages and by those in authority, and they are often reinforced by mythologies developed by humans to control other humans.  With these mentalities etched into the very being of people in ways that deliberately hinder them from questioning their validity and authenticity, the truth can never be seen but instead will always be denied via illogical debates.  I’m not saying all questions only have one answer; I am saying many important questions only have one real answer and are generally surrounded by lies and deceit, most of which are imposed on ourselves so that we’re unable to see past them.