Saturday, June 25, 2005
Homosexuals Are Not Freaks Of Nature
Coming from a Christian on the religious right, this may sound like a strange statement. Do not get me wrong. I believe that homosexuality is a sin against God, against society, and against nature itself. However, I do not believe that homosexuals are freaks of nature to be hated.
This article is in some respects a response to the debate over the role of homosexuals in society. It seems that the debate should center on this point, and quite often it does.
The question is whether one is born homosexual or chooses to be homosexual. Christians debate whether God makes people homosexual. Evolutionists debate whether there are genetic forces at work in the formation of homosexuals.
With all due respect, neither one of these seems to make sense.
According to Christian theology, homosexuality is a part of those things considered ungodly, unrighteous, unnatural, and even "vile" (Romans 1: 18-32). God therefore allows sinful men to progress on their selfish paths into this type of activity. God does not create it as a natural activity. He condemns it as just the opposite. For people to claim that God made them into anything contrary to the revealed purpose for man, is not correct.
According to evolution, species change over time throught the processes of adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc. Now, the great insult of evolution to homosexuals is that they must by definition be mutations. No homosexuals have passed on genetic content by engaging in intercourse as a homosexual. Until the recent innovations in laboratory conceptions, children were only born by male and female intercourse. If homosexuals were then born through heterosexual intercourse, then they must have been mutations to begin with. Furthermore, they have little hope of adaptation or survival by natural selection, since their genes are only passed on by male-female relations or in a laboratory expiriment. This makes them freaks of nature.
These are not my views, but they are the predominant views. I find them both failures to comport with reality. The solution lies in a different vein. I think that it is the culture that makes them. Culture affects the lifestyle of men and women in these ways:
1. Homosexual communities recruit new members.
2. Media communicate the hopeless message that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
3. The cultural attitude accross the board tells children from an early age that they are "gay" if they are different.
As a Christian, I have to see homosexuals as people making unfortunate lifestyle choices. They are people whom God loves. They are people for whom Christ died. Their sins can be forgiven, just as mine have been (Romans 3:23-24). Finally, they are people who can experience God's loving transformation (Philippians 3:9).
Coming from a Christian on the religious right, this may sound like a strange statement. Do not get me wrong. I believe that homosexuality is a sin against God, against society, and against nature itself. However, I do not believe that homosexuals are freaks of nature to be hated.
This article is in some respects a response to the debate over the role of homosexuals in society. It seems that the debate should center on this point, and quite often it does.
The question is whether one is born homosexual or chooses to be homosexual. Christians debate whether God makes people homosexual. Evolutionists debate whether there are genetic forces at work in the formation of homosexuals.
With all due respect, neither one of these seems to make sense.
According to Christian theology, homosexuality is a part of those things considered ungodly, unrighteous, unnatural, and even "vile" (Romans 1: 18-32). God therefore allows sinful men to progress on their selfish paths into this type of activity. God does not create it as a natural activity. He condemns it as just the opposite. For people to claim that God made them into anything contrary to the revealed purpose for man, is not correct.
According to evolution, species change over time throught the processes of adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc. Now, the great insult of evolution to homosexuals is that they must by definition be mutations. No homosexuals have passed on genetic content by engaging in intercourse as a homosexual. Until the recent innovations in laboratory conceptions, children were only born by male and female intercourse. If homosexuals were then born through heterosexual intercourse, then they must have been mutations to begin with. Furthermore, they have little hope of adaptation or survival by natural selection, since their genes are only passed on by male-female relations or in a laboratory expiriment. This makes them freaks of nature.
These are not my views, but they are the predominant views. I find them both failures to comport with reality. The solution lies in a different vein. I think that it is the culture that makes them. Culture affects the lifestyle of men and women in these ways:
1. Homosexual communities recruit new members.
2. Media communicate the hopeless message that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
3. The cultural attitude accross the board tells children from an early age that they are "gay" if they are different.
As a Christian, I have to see homosexuals as people making unfortunate lifestyle choices. They are people whom God loves. They are people for whom Christ died. Their sins can be forgiven, just as mine have been (Romans 3:23-24). Finally, they are people who can experience God's loving transformation (Philippians 3:9).
Friday, June 24, 2005
From politics to religion to mowing the lawn, it seems that there is a partisan position to hold. It even seems that positions are held out of obligation to oppose the other side in the overall picture.
I, on the other hand, am a mixed bag. I am one of those hated premillenial dispensationalists. I almost always vote Republican. Rush Limbaugh is my favorite journalist.
I have disagreed with my own community of conservatives on several points. First, on the war in Iraq, I am willing to accept that the desire for oil had an influence on the decision. Second, I am for immigration, and for making it easier for more immigration. Third, on homeland security, I believe that it needs to be dissolved. Fourth, I beleive that Christian hotpoints are better left out of regulation altogether, such as abortion and homosexuality. Fifth, I believe that all people should look into their pocket books and give money to the poor around the world. Sixth, I believe that prisoners in Guantanimo Bay should face charges or be released.
One would think that the liberals would have the upper hand on all of these, but they are wrong. The liberals, in my opinion, take the response too far. On the war in Iraq, they refuse to see the positive results. They refuse to answer for the legitimate arguments for going to war, such as the 14 resolutions for regime change at the UN. They refuse to acknowledge the schools, roads, and other infrastructure successes. They refuse to acknowledge the Iraqi people's own opposition to the "insurgency." On the issue of immigration, they flip and flop. On homeland security, they believe that prominent conservative leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes. On Christian hotpoints, they beleive that the governtment should fund the abortions and endorse homosexuality. On poverty, the liberals try to solve it by taxing and promoting class envy. On Guantanimo Bay, the liberals try to shut the whole prison down and prosecute the Secretary of Defense.
On all of these issues, it seems that I can agree with neither left nor right. I have concluded that the solution lies in my mindset. I do not believe that government is the answer in any of these solutions. We cannot change the moral compass of a man by changing a law. Both the conservatives and the liberals are looking to Washington, DC to solve problems that are more easily solved in the back yard. It is for this reason that I often sound liberal on conservative issues. The liberals do not atttract my attention or gain my support because they generally endorse an anti Christian and socialist agenda that makes me even more troubled. I am stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.
I, on the other hand, am a mixed bag. I am one of those hated premillenial dispensationalists. I almost always vote Republican. Rush Limbaugh is my favorite journalist.
I have disagreed with my own community of conservatives on several points. First, on the war in Iraq, I am willing to accept that the desire for oil had an influence on the decision. Second, I am for immigration, and for making it easier for more immigration. Third, on homeland security, I believe that it needs to be dissolved. Fourth, I beleive that Christian hotpoints are better left out of regulation altogether, such as abortion and homosexuality. Fifth, I believe that all people should look into their pocket books and give money to the poor around the world. Sixth, I believe that prisoners in Guantanimo Bay should face charges or be released.
One would think that the liberals would have the upper hand on all of these, but they are wrong. The liberals, in my opinion, take the response too far. On the war in Iraq, they refuse to see the positive results. They refuse to answer for the legitimate arguments for going to war, such as the 14 resolutions for regime change at the UN. They refuse to acknowledge the schools, roads, and other infrastructure successes. They refuse to acknowledge the Iraqi people's own opposition to the "insurgency." On the issue of immigration, they flip and flop. On homeland security, they believe that prominent conservative leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes. On Christian hotpoints, they beleive that the governtment should fund the abortions and endorse homosexuality. On poverty, the liberals try to solve it by taxing and promoting class envy. On Guantanimo Bay, the liberals try to shut the whole prison down and prosecute the Secretary of Defense.
On all of these issues, it seems that I can agree with neither left nor right. I have concluded that the solution lies in my mindset. I do not believe that government is the answer in any of these solutions. We cannot change the moral compass of a man by changing a law. Both the conservatives and the liberals are looking to Washington, DC to solve problems that are more easily solved in the back yard. It is for this reason that I often sound liberal on conservative issues. The liberals do not atttract my attention or gain my support because they generally endorse an anti Christian and socialist agenda that makes me even more troubled. I am stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.
