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.
A person recently posted an important question about the controversy regarding homosexuality and Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson. Since Phil will likely never see the question, I decided to provide an answer.
QUESTION: Dear Phil, I also support 1st Amendment rights so say what you will. My question for you is Biblical,..Lev 11:6-8 tells me the touching of the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football as long as I wear gloves?
MY RESPONSE (Though I admit, I am not Phil): A short question can sometimes require a long answer, so here goes...
To answer your objection from a biblical position, I would first point out that theologians and bible scholars have since the time of Christ made a clear distinction between the moral, ceremonial and governmental laws which were given to Israel. The ceremonial laws include priestly duties, sacrificial regulation and dietary restrictions. These laws were fulfilled in our High Priest, Jesus Christ, when He came to the earth and acted as our High Priest in the performing of His once for all perfect sacrifice. After His atonement was made, the ceremonial laws were completely fulfilled (Jesus Himself said He did not come to destroy the Law, but that through Him it would be fulfilled), and thus we are no longer obliged to perform the ceremonies which accompanied the old testament dispensation including sacrifices, priestly occupations and dietary restrictions. These restrictions were lifted before the very eyes of the Apostle Peter when God gave him the vision of the unclean animals that he was now supposed to take and eat (Acts 10:9-16).
Furthermore, there are laws in the Old Testament which are specific to the theocracy under which the people of Israel lived. God intended for them to be under His rule and to govern themselves by His commands. Thus He includes rules for how retributive justice is supposed to be managed, how judges are supposed to operate and the role of the priests as leaders among the people. These laws were set for the people of Israel during a very specific time period of history.
The moral law of God, however, has seen no abrogation. Murder is still wrong because it is not simply ceremonially unclean, but it is injurious and goes against the purpose for which man is created (i.e. to live and glorify God). Adultery is still sinful, as is theft and and lying, etc. Moral law stands firm as the basis for how a Christian is supposed to conduct him/herself in the world. Part of the moral law of God speaks directly to how sexual relationships are supposed to be managed. Homosexual relationships are forbidden in the New Testament as unnatural and inconsistent with the way God created human beings to relate to one another sexually (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). They are acts of rebellion against God.
Finally, the concern most Christians have against homosexuality is not that it is the vilest of sins, but that it is being promoted as â€śunsinfulâ€ť and â€śgloriousâ€ť by those who support it. Gay Churches have cropped up across our land, and to the Christian this is inconsistent. We would not accept a â€śChurch of Thievesâ€ť or a â€śChurch of Liarsâ€ť because this would mean these churches are founded on support of sin. Thus, when we hear about a gay church, we believe this too is inconsistent and wrong. Sin cannot be the foundation of the church.
Hi Keith Thank you for your response. I admit that you had some great points, and have found myself corrected or enlightened from time to time by your comments. I am enjoying our discussions thus far and feel that they have been...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS: 1. I tried to make this point in my above responses to your comments, but I will again here state that the issue is not that God â€ścannotâ€ť give revelation, the issue is â€śhas Heâ€ť given new revelation? I would argue that He...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Hello Mr. Foskey First of all, sorry again for the slow reply.Â School, work, family etc. have kept me very busy recently.Â But I am very happy to continue our discussion.Â You had some great comments.Â Please see my responses below: COMMENTS:Â ...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
2. If a man came to me for advice, as you suggested, here is what I would say: I would first ask if he believed himself to be a â€śgoodâ€ť person. If he answered yes, I would ask him by what standard he was considering himself good. At this point, he...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
1. I do agree that God can do whatever He chooses, yet at the same time I also recognize that He certainly does not speak from Heaven audibly as a â€śnormalâ€ť form of communication, but instead He has chosen to use the mediating voices of His...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Hello Mr. Foskey I appologize for the delay in my response. I just started a college course and we just had a healthy baby born a month ago, so weâ€™ve been plenty busy. However, I definately wanted to respond to you email. I also give you full...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
(Continued from last post) 4. This is where I believe the most dangerous doctrines of the LDS lies, and I am glad you stated them so succinctly. You do not claim to be â€śaâ€ť church, but instead to be â€śtheâ€ť church of Jesus Christ; and as such all...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
The following exchange is an ongoing conversation between a member of the LDS Church (Mormons) and Pastor Keith Foskey of Sovereign Grace Family Church. Hello Dr. Foskey. My name is Jonathan Hatch. I listened to your talks "Is a Mormon a...[ abbreviated | read entire ]