Archive for the ‘Homosexuality’ Category

The question of what the Bible teaches regarding homosexuality is one of tremendous importance and heated dispute in the current era. An increasing number of professing Christians are questioning traditional teaching on this topic, and the culture at large has strongly rejected traditional Christian teaching on it. Nonetheless, it is my contention that this questioning is not based on the biblical text, but is based on cultural predispositions to reject any form of sexual constraint. Among professing Christians the key question must always be “What does the Bible teach?” We are not permitted to disregard Scripture on a cultural whim.

Continue reading here.

Human rights are foundational to a free society.  In America our government derives authority from the consent of the governed.  Such consent presupposes that the governed themselves have rights upon which they can act as autonomous people.

The way this plays out in many modern day political issues is really interesting.  To say humans have “rights” is to affirm we are a certain type of thing.  As a theist, this is not problematic at all.  I believe all people are God’s image bearers, and that as a consequence they have certain inherent worth.  But for a secularist, who tries to live without reference to God, humans are not any type of person in particular.  That is, we’re just physical beings.  The conjunction of random mutation and natural selection is not a good foundation for “rights.”

But the “rights” many people talk about today are not “rights” at all, but preferences and wants.  Some women WANT to be able to get abortion on demand.  But the abortion debate gets framed as a women’s “right” to choose.  Of course, this want comes from the sexual revolution and the view that we should be able to have as much sex as we want without any consequence.  Unfortunately the sexual revolution is a war against biology, and one we can’t win.

In any case, it should be clear this isn’t about “rights.”  In a secular society, there are no rights.  Just wants and desires.  Women WANT to have unfettered sex, and that requires a biological war to deal with the consequences of sex.  Personal whim is the only basis for “rights” in a secular world, so what can our society do other than capitulate?

What we can, and must, do is start addressing the demonstrably false presuppositions in play.  Regardless of personal whim, there are moral duties we have to follow.  And quite frankly, those moral duties don’t change when you throw off personal responsibility for your sexual decisions.  The neglect of moral duty does not a right create.

As we said before, to have a right is to affirm humans are a certain type of thing.  But when we obfuscate rights with personal whims, we say the type of things humans are is exactly the type of thing that does NOT have rights.  We’re affirming contradictory positions and conflicting premises.

Of course, this doesn’t merely apply to abortion, we could talk about “gay rights” as well.  This is a whole new class of personal whims now being labeled as “rights.”  A person chooses to enter a relationship that can’t possibly produce children naturally (again, we’re quite fond of our war with biology), but demands to have the “right” to raise a child.

Actually, homosexuals do have the right to raise children.  But they have to enter a heterosexual relationship to do so, just like everybody else (even with artificial insemination the sperm has to come from SOMEWHERE, or with adoption the child did not come from a same-sex union).  What is going on is a demand for society to accommodate what biology has flatly refused to accommodate, and these insane demands are labeled as “rights.”

But we’re here calling the secularist’s bluff.  And they don’t like it (see the Doug Wilson video below).  So we end up with temper-tantrums, emotionally-driven appeals, and an idiotic cultural conversation that can’t move past sound bites and talking points from our ridiculous media.

And that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

Joey

Dr. Frank Turek recently visited Ohio University to present one of his popular “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” seminars.  Turek, who is opposed to gay marriage, incited opposition.

The problem stems from the fact that OU offers funding to recognized student organizations (such as Ratio Christi) to hold events.  These funds, which come from general tuition dollars, were used for this event.  Gay rights activists on the campus were furious.

As a side note, I want to point out that there are no “gay rights.”  There are human rights, that apply to gay people just as they apply to all other people.  But a “right” that applies only to a specific group of people is no “right” at all, it may at best be a privilege.  We should do away with the term “gay rights.”  There are human rights, and gays who demand certain privileges in light of their gayness.  But we shouldn’t confuse these with rights.

That stated, the Turek event at OU is interesting.  Turek was not speaking on gay marriage, yet gay students at OU felt the need to protest his visit and the funding Ratio Christi received for the event.  And this is all being done in the name of “diversity.”

That’s right, OU has stated they want to promote diversity and this might cause them to DENY funds to Ratio Christi events in the future.  This is beyond ironic.  Diversity requires allowing multiple legitimately different viewpoints.  For true diversity, OU’s gay activists must allow opposing viewpoints to be expressed.

But this shows this is not really about diversity.  This is an Orwellian situation in which “diversity” has come to mean “unanimity.”  The gay community at OU only wants diversity when the diverse viewpoints all express the same pro-gay privileges agenda.  To support diversity is no longer to permit the expression of multiple opposing viewpoints, but to permit the expression only of those views that support a certain minority position.

The only “diversity” allowed must be approved by the gay community.  Of course, observant people will notice this is not diversity at all.  This is actually the opposite of diversity.  On a diverse campus, all positions would be allowed to express themselves in accordance with their constitutional rights.  But here the opposing view must be silenced.  This is a demand for uniformity, not diversity.

Gay activists who cry out for diversity, but simultaneously seek to silence those who disagree with them, are in conflict with themselves.  They tolerance they demand be expressed toward them is denied to other groups.  The “diversity” they are clamoring for is unworthy of the name.  In a diverse society multiple opposing views are encouraged, not censored.

Ultimate Fighter contestant Dakota Cochrane represents a good case study in the major point of contention between Evangelical Christians and gay rights activists.  This is so primarily because of his past in gay porn.  Cochrane has said he is not gay, he just did it for the money.  He now regrets this decision, he says.

This is odd, to say the least.  It shows the misunderstandings about sexuality in our society.  People want to define their sexuality by orientation or predisposition, not by actions.

It is this type of thinking that we Evangelicals reject.  Sexuality is defined primarily in terms of actions and behaviors.  What we view as homosexual sin is the act of having sex with a member of the same biological gender.  Someone with a predisposition to act homosexually, or someone attracted to members of the same sex, is not gay in virtue of that predisposition or attraction.  Homosexual sin is a matter of acting homosexually, whether a predisposition or attraction is there or not.

This is not how modern gay activists view the matter.  They define homosexuality in virtue of the predisposition or attraction.  The actions, in their view, are simply the necessary consequent.  They are the out-working of the predisposition that is already present.  What makes someone gay is not acting homosexually, but having a homosexual desire.

Enter Dakota Cochrane.  Here is a man who has acted homosexually, but did so only with the intention of earning money.  He says he did not enjoy acting in gay porn, and that he is not “gay.”  A man that has sex with men is, well, straight?  That’s what Cochrane argues.  And to do so he must assume that heterosexuality and homosexuality are a matter of predisposition and attraction.  Cochrane says he has no attraction to men, I believe him.  But he still acted homosexually, and those acts constitute one as homosexual.

Biblically, homosexuality is “coitus with a man.”  By this standard, Cochrane committed homosexual sin.

People will of course see this view as bigoted and intolerant.  But it’s completely rational to say that predispositions are not determinative.  What is truly immoral is telling people that they must be defined by and act according to predispositions about which they have very little, if any, control.  To tell someone they must act according to a predisposition, even if they don’t want to be predisposed to same-sex attraction, is to ignore a human’s right to make a choice.

As Evangelicals, we don’t claim gays can choose their predisposition to be attracted to certain people.  We claim they can choose to act on or resist those predispositions.  And that choice is one that all people make in relation to all sorts of other types of predispositions every day.  I’m predisposed to tell lies, but I love my Savior and by His grace I choose not to lie.

There is not a single sincere Christian who would deny their own predisposition to act in certain ways that are not morally beneficial.  Alcoholics have one type of predisposition that must be overcome, liars another.  Those prone to anger have a certain predisposition that, as Christians, must be resisted.  This is true of all sinful behavior, including homosexual behavior.

We Evangelicals don’t hate homosexuals.  We hate the deterministic lie they are being fed.  We mourn the fact that broken and hurting people are being told to freely follow certain predispositions when doing so will only lead to further pain for them.  We offer hope not by appeal to deterministic falsehoods, but by offering people a true choice through a Savior who was tempted in every way that we are but did not sin.