SITE NOTICE | MORE..Next Generation APIs! We are pleased to announce that SermonAudio's next generation APIs are now available to all SermonAudio broadcasters. The new APIs are also a key piece in our internationalization efforts. .. click for more info!
Recently a Minnesota lawmaker was recorded giving a defense of gay marriage, and his words have become popular among those who support the homosexual movement. The interesting thing is that, though his words were articulately spoken, he said nothing new. In fact, his entire argument was a regurgitation of the old â€śgay people are born that way, so it must not be wrongâ€ť argument. He went on to say that homosexuals are in â€śholy unionsâ€ť and that they â€śglorify Godâ€ť with their behavior. His most quotable moment came when he asked â€śHow many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?â€ť, a question which was met with an eruption of applause. However, again, this was nothing new. He almost repeated verbatim a statement by Howard Dean, former democratic presidential candidate who said â€śThe overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.â€ť (VandeHei, Jim (2004), â€śDean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions,â€ť cited in http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp)
While watching the video, I was grieved both by his statements and by the apparent support they were rallying. I felt a great deal of pity for someone I feel is very blinded to the truth, and who would be so brazen as to invoke Godâ€™s favor on something that is so obviously in opposition to His will.
I want to take a moment and consider his argument and offer a response. He claims that scientific evidence supports the conclusion that some people are born homosexual. Of course, he sees no reason to cite sources or studies that support this conclusion, but rather he speaks as if this is a commonly accepted fact. This is often how rhetoric is formulated. Statements are made without any support, in the hope that they will be accepted because they seem to be coming from a person in authority. The same type of rhetoric is used to support the claims of those who teach evolution. They say â€śscience proves the evolution of human beings from lower life formsâ€ť and yet, upon further inspection we find that the evidence is not as solid and compelling as the proclamation may make it seem.
In his speech, the Minnesota lawmaker does not give any indication of the reality that many studies have been inconclusive in regard to the fact that there is a specifically â€śgay geneâ€ť which when present would necessarily make a person be a homosexual. One of the most commonly cited cases by those who claim that there is a genetic reason for homosexuality is the study conducted by Simon LeVay. In 1991, LeVayâ€™s study demonstrated what he considered to be a significant difference between the brain activity of homosexual men when compared to that of heterosexual men. However, LeVayâ€™s claims are often disputed because he did not apply many of the necessary standards to ensure that his results would be reproducible; in fact, his work has never been reproduced. In addition, the nineteen subjects used in the study who were homosexual all died of AIDS, a disease which has been shown to decrease testosterone levels. LeVay actually made an important statement which is often overlooked by those who cite his work. He said, â€śItâ€™s important to stress what I didnâ€™t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnâ€™t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brainâ€ť (Byne, William and Bruce Parsons (1993), â€śHuman Sexual Orientation,â€ť Archives of General Psychiatry cited in http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp).
Even though it is often proclaimed by those who support the homosexual movement that gay people are â€śgenetically predisposedâ€ť to this lifestyle, such a claim is not necessarily supported by the evidence. It is simply something that apparently, if it is said enough times, becomes true in the minds of those who make the claim.
Now, at this point I want to address an even more vexing issue. If it were conceded that a person is born with a predisposition to homosexuality, would that then make homosexuality a healthy or righteous lifestyle?
Before answering, first consider other behaviors which are now claimed to be based on genetic factors. For instance,Convicted murderer Abdulmalek Bayout recently made legal history when a court in Italy reduced his sentence because it accepted that Bayout was genetically predisposed to being aggressive and viol ent(h ttp:/ /www. abc.n et.au /rn/l awrep ort/s torie s/201 0/282 6652. htm). It seems that murderous tendencies can and have been blamed on genetics. Based on this, to use the Minnesota Lawmakerâ€™s logic, couldnâ€™t we ask this question: â€śHow many more murderers does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?â€ť
Now, obviously such a question is foolish to even consider; as no one would claim that a murderous predisposition is something that is righteous or appropriate even if a person is â€śborn that wayâ€ť. However, it is this same logic which leads to people saying that homosexuality is appropriate. They say that because they are â€śborn that wayâ€ť that the lifestyle must be accepted as an appropriate one. Well, Abdulmalek Bayout makes the same claim about his violent behavior. Why is he wrong, and they are right?
Perhaps one would, at this point, claim that I am comparing apples to oranges; that I am being unfair in comparing homosexual lifestyles to that of people who commit acts of violence. But I have not compared these two actions at all. I am not saying that homosexuality is tantamount to murder. I am simply making a statement about the supposed claim that because someone is born with a particular predisposition that the predisposed behavior must be accepted as a positive and healthy expression of human behavior within a society. No one would ever accept that murder is an appropriate expression of human behavior, even if it was proved beyond doubt to have a genetically motivated component. However, those who proclaim that homosexual behavior should be accepted as healthy and positive often use as their reasoning the supposed genetically motivated component. If this argument doesnâ€™t work as a reason to accept murderous behavior, why should it be used to accept homosexual behavior?
At this point, I imagine those who would oppose this are seething over the fact that I have even dared to equate the heinous crime of murder with the homosexual lifestyle. But the honest observer will note that I have not compared the two at all. I have simply compared the proclaimed motivations for both. There are people who, like the Minnesota Lawmaker, claim that because a person is born genetically predisposed to homosexuality, that homosexuality must be correct. Logically then, if this rule is followed, all things that people are born genetically predisposed to must be correct. Yet, because murder happens to be one of those things, the logical conclusion of the position must be abandoned upon further review.
In the end, I am not writing to oppose the lifestyle of homosexuality, as I need not. The Word of God is the final authority over all things, and it already has declared that such behavior is both unnatural and an affront to the very character of God; behavior which actually is the result of God giving someone over to their own debased mind (Romans 1:26-27). This writing has been done to oppose the logic of the Minnesota Lawmaker who chose to use a logically inconsistent argument in his defense of the homosexual agenda in his state. As a Christian, I believe it is not only my responsibility to proclaim the Gospel, but also to support the proclamation of truth. All truth is Godâ€™s truth. Thus, when truth is put aside, and replaced with rhetorical devices meant to simply stir emotions but not further a discussion, I believe it needs to be responded to. This is my response.