.
.

The Ultimate Trump Card


1200px-Playing_card_heart_A.svgYou don’t assert a “right” as a tactic to undermine a standard and it’s not un-American to guard the substance and definition of human rights and ensure that they’re not being played as some kind of trump card to prevent a conversation between the contending ideas as they legitimately exist.

Homosexuality is Inborn

Everything about the homosexual debate as it’s currently being facilitated in our culture today assumes that homosexuality is inborn which is not true. The study that is most often quoted as proof that homosexuality is inborn is the one done in 1991 by Simon LeVay where he examined several cadavers and noticed that a certain region of the brain was larger in heterosexuals than in homosexuals.The scientific community was not unaminous in their acceptance of his findings. Comments from other scientists in response to LeVay’s work are noteworthy. Dr. Richard Nakamura of the National Institute of Mental Health says it will take a “larger effort to be convinced there is a link between this structure and homosexuality. Dr. Anne-Fausto Sterling of Brown University is less gentle in her response. She says, “My freshman biology students know enough to sink this study.1

There have been other studies since then and the verdict is still abysmal. And what it makes it so exasperating is that there’s nothing definitive, let alone substantantial and yet, “…just because scientists don’t know the specific mechanisms that cause sexual orientation doesn’t mean that they aren’t confident that they are biological in nature.2”  In other words, we can’t find anything, but we’re not going to stop insisting that it’s there.

This is the point I was making earlier. Remove the notion that homosexuals are being dictated to by their physiological and psychological makeup and you’ve got an entirely different conversation. It’s no longer about “rights,” it’s about choices.

You Say You Don’t Agree…

You say that you don’t agree. OK. Based on what? You do a good job of connecting the dots, as far as suggesting that I maintain a perspective that defines all homosexuals as lying, immoral, lazy and lost. It just depends on the individual. If you know that the above mentioned study was conducted by a man driven by the depression brought on by the death of his gay lover and was determined to find something in his study to substantiate the idea that homosexuality was inborn or he, “…would give up a scientific career altogether3” – if you’re aware of those dynamics as well as all of the other irresponsible science that supposedly proves homosexuality to be genetic and yet insist that it’s an open and shut case, then, yes, you’re a liar. On the other hand, if you’ve never popped the hood on the nonsensical determination of scientists to prove the existence of a “gay gene” and you merely repeat the matra as it’s broadcast in the media, you may not be a liar, but you’re certainly not accurate.

Meanwhile, the machine continues to run based on the idea that homosexuality is genetic. And as long as that myth is perpetuated, than any kind of criticism or concern is labeled pathetic if not worse. It is not “enlightened” or “patriotic” or “godly” or even “compassionate” to accept irresponsible science as authoritative or to embrace the notion that morality can be edited to suit your particular preferences. You don’t want to accept the Bible as the bottom line, fine. Then what is your foundation? The fact that an Episcopal priest is critical of someone not supportive of gay rights is a perfect illustration of what happens you abandon your transcendent moorings and allow your ship to drift in an endless sea of personal opinions and preferences.

It’s Not Hypocritical

No, sir. I’m bone weary of this debate where you’ve got the wizard off to the side blowing a bunch of green smoke and fire, claiming to possess the moral high ground when the fact of the matter is they’ve got nothing but a perverse determination to eliminate anything that says you’re responsible for your actions. It’s not hypocritical to state that there are moral absolutes that everyone needs to abide by. It’s only hypocritical if I say you shouldn’t be a practicing homosexual all the while living a gay lifestyle myself. And likiing homosexuality to interracial marriage…again, the only way you can equate those two is if you maintain the idea that homosexuality is no different than your ethnicity. If it’s not a choice, then you have a point. If it is a choice, then you’re just regurgitating bogus headlines designed to disguise the issue as a cause as opposed to the plot that it truly is.

Scripture as a Whole or Just Parts?

One last thought: Some want to discount the idea of Scripture serving as philosophical starting point when it comes to defining what’s moral and what’s not.

Scripture as a whole or just certain parts?

You can’t dismiss the whole thing because that just wouldn’t make sense. Our country’s inception was based on the idea that we’re “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable, human rights…” We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coinage. The most often cited / repeated character in the architecture of Washington D.C. is Moses. Read through Washington’s farewell address or the Mayflower Compact or ponder the Marine Corps motto. You can’t punt the whole thing because if you do you wind up losing the very thing that our whole legislative history and infrastructure is based on. So we’ve got to keep parts of it. Who decides which parts?

Does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong? Sure does. Old and New Testament. Could it be that maybe God knew what He was talking about when He said, “No?”

This isn’t about “rights.” It never has been. It’s a group of individuals who want to present their choice as a genetic default and erase any consequence or grounds for criticism by posing as victims thus casting anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle as a villain and any enterprise that condemns them as oppressive. It’s an effective and brilliant tactic, but it’s a tactic and I, nor anyone who sees it for what it is, will ever buy it.

For more reading, feel free to peruse the following:

Is Homosexuality Sinful? -> five part series that addresses those ideas being circulated that say the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology -> solid three part series by Joe Dallas that details the science, the social and the theological arguments in favor of homosexuality and how they’re fundamentally flawed (Part II, Part III)

What if Homosexuality Was a Moral Issue? -> an elaboration on the debate if it were a moral issue and not presented as something inborn

What Are Gay Rights? -> What are gay rights and how are they different than heterosexual rights or any other human rights?

The Real Contest -> beneath the din of words like “justice” and “compassion,” you have a contest that is far more base and far more significant

 

1 . Exodus Global Alliance, “Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part I: Social Justice Arguments”, Joe Dallas https://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/respondingtoprogaytheologypartip344.php, accessed July 5, 2018

2. Politifact, “Tim Pawlenty says there’s no scientific conclusion that being gay is genetic”, Louis Jacabson, accessed July 5, 2018, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-theres-no-scientific-conclusion-/

3. Newsweek, Newsweek Staff, “Homosexuality: Born or Bred?”, https://concernedwomen.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf, accessed July 5, 2018

 



Related articles

Leave a Reply