With the recent development regarding California's proposition 8 I have been in many conversations with regard to homosexuality and my faith, and homosexuality in society. In these conversations I have heard one consistent theme in defense of homosexual people and their "rights". That argument is this: homosexuals were born into this, it is not their choosing.
Here is my response:
In the following article I will endeavor to show that homosexuality is not natural and that I disagree with the proposition that human beings are born homosexual. I will base this conclusion on three main arguments. First, because scripture, as the ultimate authority, says that they are not. Second, because it leads to the destruction of the species and third, because it cannot be shown to be anything other than a choice.
First, we will address the issue from scripture. Scripture says very clearly that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before the Lord, the participants of which will spend an eternity in Hell. Since I am aware that most people do not hold a sovereignty view of scripture I will not go any deeper into this argument. Those who do agree with the sovereignty of scripture already understand the basis of this point so I do not need to unpack it any further.
Second, not everyone agrees that scripture is the ultimate authority and thereby dismiss its teachings. If this is the case then you surely dismiss its teachings on all subjects, including creation and life in general. Your only recourse is to believe in the theory of evolution as a naturalist way of logically deciding issues regarding birth, life, death, creation and all that is in between, one of which would be homosexuality. Evolution is a global belief that necessarily shapes all that you believe, the same way that scripture globally shapes all that I believe, so for those who do not agree with scripture I will argue my point from the evolutionist’s perspective. The fundamental rule of evolution is the “advancement of the species”. All evolutionary scholars accept this as the key point of evolutionary theory. This ruling states that the changes made through evolution are for the purpose of bettering a species, whether that be to better adapt to an environment or to better hunt a specific type of prey that is more prominent is a certain region, or even if it is simply for defensive measures like better camouflage or faster speed. The point is that all the evolving serves the purpose of bettering a species. Homosexuality defies this one fundamental rule. Homosexuality destroys the species and would do so in one single generation. If all creatures of a species were homosexual there would be no following generation. This is definitely not an advance for the species.
There is also the natural, physical incompatibility argument from the evolutionist. Reproductive organs serve the foremost purpose of reproduction. While they do offer pleasure, this is for the purpose of motivating the act of reproduction; pleasure is not the purpose or central focus of those organs. So it follows that if reproductive organs serve the main purpose of reproduction and since it requires two different parties to effect reproduction, that the reproductive organ of party “A” would be compatible with the reproductive organ of party “B”. This is confirmed in the human species by the successful reproduction between a man and a woman wherein the reproductive organ of a man is completely compatible with the reproductive organ of a woman. Any act that puts these organs into a use that is incompatible with their design would be considered unnatural (where unnatural means “not the natural or intended use”). Since the reproductive organ of a man isn’t compatible with the reproductive organ of another man, this use can be logically considered unnatural and against evolutionary theory.
Third and finally, I believe that since homosexuality goes against both scripture’s teachings and the theory of evolution, that it cannot be a state into which they are born, as they claim. It is, and always has been, a choice made willingly by the homosexual person. I would argue this because every state into which a person is born can be clearly defined in the study of genetics. You can see genetically why someone has brown hair, or why someone is black or white, or why someone has green eyes versus blue. Yet there is not genetic evidence of a person’s sexuality. You can examine the genetic basis of both a heterosexual and homosexual and cannot distinguish the one from the other. This clearly refutes the claim that homosexuals were born as homosexuals. Genetically you can tell a boy from a girl, which is to determine their sexuality, but beyond that, there is no evidence.
You might instead propose that rather than homosexuality being a genetic state into which they were born, it is a condition of the body, much like an illness such as nerve damage, or cancer, etc, a condition which they cannot overcome. As with the previous argument concerning the state of a homosexual person’s birth, this “condition” cannot be shown to exist. Other conditions under which we are born are clearly evident, i.e. you can see a cancer cell, you can see damaged nerves, yet you cannot see any basis for a homosexual “condition”.
Note- I do agree that homosexuality is a condition, but rather than being a physical condition into which we are born I believe that it is a condition of the soul. As spoken of in Romans 1 and 2, this is a condition of the soul born out of idolatry, in which we chose to worship the creature rather than the creator and have therefore been given over to defilement through our fleshly desires, to our own destruction.
I believe that the claim by homosexuals that they are born as homosexuals is the product of persecution. Homosexuals have been persecuted for their actions, many times in horrendous and inappropriate ways. I ask myself, “what would I do, or what do I do, when people criticize, condemn and persecute me?” If I am honest with myself I must admit that I would try to shift blame. You would have no right or reason to persecute me if that for which I am being persecuted is outside of my control. If I can convince you that I had no say in the matter you must direct your persecution elsewhere. I believe that this is the basis from which homosexuals claim that they were born homosexual. It is their effort to relieve themselves from persecution.
Therefore, I feel that the above stated evidence leaves only one conclusion, that in spite of your worldview, and despite your desire or opinion of homosexuals as people, the act of homosexuality, and it as a lifestyle, are unnatural. Logically, and based on the evidences seen in science and genetics and cell research, and based on religious teachings, etc. there can be no other explanation except that those who live a homosexual life have chosen to do so.
That said, I do not agree with the persecution of homosexuals and it is not the purpose of this article to malign or defame them as people. In my belief, homosexuality is a sin and is the product of sin and they are no more guilty or worthy of temporal persecution than any other sinner, of which I am one. But as with all sin and the condition of the sinner, there is relief. As I have been redeemed from my sin, so also any other person, including the homosexual, can be redeemed as well. Through the sacrifice of Christ, payment for our sins has been made and provision has been given to us to help us overcome a life ruled by sin, this provision is the Holy Spirit and His work in our life to help renew us into the image of Christ. My desire would be that homosexuals recognize that they have chosen this life, that they are not bound to it in the same way that a person is bound to having blue eyes and that they can choose not to be, they can choose to be redeemed and change their lifestyle.
0 comments:
Post a Comment