There is an ongoing argument between those who have differing view on why it is that some people have sexual desires for people of the same gender. Now, statistically, this is a small number of people. Estimates put it at something under 10%. Of course, the "standard" position is "they're born that way", even though there hasn't yet been found a shred of scientific evidence to support the position. Science be hanged, we all know that the only reason that anyone would do that is because God made them that way. That is, they must be "born that way" and "born that way" is the equivalent of "okay". So, if you try to throw in the phrase, "It's a choice", you will immediately be shouted down as a dirty rotten homophobic liar.
The problem of choice, I think, is a problem of talking past each other. The side that argues that they're born that way (any proof aside) says, "They don't choose to be born that way." The side that argues that it's a choice says, "You choose with whom you have sex." What I can't even begin to fathom is how anyone could possibly deny the latter.
Let's imagine, just for a moment, that it is true that it is not a choice in the latter sense. They don't choose to have sex with the same gender; it just ... happens. This would truly be a horrifying thing if you think about it. Rape is essentially when someone forces sex on another. If a person's body forced sex on them apart from choice, you could classify it as self-rape. "I didn't choose it; it just happened!" Oh, how sad! "Over and over, for years!" Oh, how miserable! But ... surely the most surface level of thought would see that as ... well ... stupid.
Look, you may argue that homosexuals are born that way. I don't frankly care. We are not judged on how we're born. Neither is how we're born a justification for what we do. And life does not consist of doing whatever we feel like. We are judged for our choices. A heterosexual who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage is sinning, although he or she is "born that way". They don't choose the condition in which they come into the world. They don't choose where their attraction lies. But everyone chooses what do to with it. Are you inclined to addiction? You choose whether or not to succumb to it. Are you inclined to sexual relations outside of marriage? You decide what you do with it. In fact, all humans are born with the inclination to sin. That doesn't make it acceptable. You choose whether or not you will sin.
So don't give me this "It's not a choice" stuff. It's a lie. You may not choose to whom you are attracted. You always choose what you do about it. The question is are you going to choose to go with your inclinations and shake your fist in the face of God, or are you going to choose to repent and avoid God's just condemnation? It's always a choice. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Buying that silly argument just makes you look foolish.
14 comments:
Excellent points. It is amazing how much mileage the pro-gay activists get out of the "born that way" canard and the lack of critical thinking applied to it.
Christians are a bit disturbed by the whole "born that way" argument ... like it matters. First, logic doesn't work if you argue "born that way" makes it "good". We are born in sin. Second, "born that way" is everyone's condition. We all are born in sin, tempted, and have to choose not to surrender.
Some well-meaning Christians try to take up the fight on the "born that way" line. In fact, there is no scientific proof. (Canada's doctors, in fact, said as much.) So it might be a reasonable place to stand. Still, in my estimation it's irrelevant. Regardless of your propensities, you choose to sin or not.
Same-sex attraction is something no one should want. I taught my daughter early on the "take every thought captive" principle. If you ever have a crush on another girl, block it, boot it out of your mind. It appears to have worked, although now she's boy-crazy. Sexuality of any kind has always led people into sin. Why do people glorify it?
This is something I wrote a while back.
Homosexuality would have to be proven scientifically to be a natural state. Yet all science will show is that all humans are born heterosexual, either male or female. There is no such thing as a newborn that is homosexual.Indeed, we are all born heterosexual; either we are born male or female.
The problems with your reasoning (it seems to me) are...
1. When gay/lesbian folk and supporters talk about choice, we're talking about orientation. One's orientation is not generally a choice.
2. You make the presumption that one's orientation is only "correct" if it is towards the opposite gender.
3. Many of us would disagree. We believe that sexual orientation is a God-given blessing. To try to suppress that, as Jim suggests, is an invitation to psychological and, I'd say, spiritual damage. If one is oriented towards the same sex, STUFFING that desire and trying to re-channel it into an UN-natural direction is simply not healthy.
4. For those of us who are Christian supporters of our gay and lesbian siblings' orientation, we tend to think that this is what Paul was talking about in Romans 1, where he talked about abandoning natural desires. (Not so much that Paul was talking about that specifically, since most of us would think that Paul would not know about a natural homosexual orientation, but that would be the larger point, we believe, of God.)
5. So, in order to be faithful to God and to live a wholesome life, many of us would support gay marriage as the appropriate outlet for sexuality for those so oriented. It is because of a desire for good and a belief in the sanctity of marriage that we would support this.
So count me and my church (and larger faith community) amongst those well-meaning Christians who argue in favor of wholesome support of natural orientation.
There is no such thing as a newborn that is heterosexual, either, so far as that goes, Jim. There is no desire for sexuality in newborns, surely we could agree upon that?
Allow me to address your points, if I may.
Dan Trabue: "One's orientation is not generally a choice."
I addressed that. "The problem of choice, I think, is a problem of talking past each other. The side that argues that they're born that way (any proof aside) says, 'They don't choose to be born that way.'"
Dan Trabue: "You make the presumption that one's orientation is only 'correct' if it is towards the opposite gender."
If "presumption" is as it is written in the Bible, then you are correct. I presume to agree with the Bible. Paul wrote, "Women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men" (Rom 1:26-27). This he terms "dishonorable passions". It would seem to me to be presumptuous to say, "No, no, Paul, when God breathed that passage, He was wrong." To argue "He meant 'natural' as in 'whatever is in your nature'" is seriously problematic ... unless you deny the sin nature. (Since you address this passage later, so will I.)
Dan Trabue: "Many of us would disagree. We believe that sexual orientation is a God-given blessing."
I understand that many people disagree. The starting place for that disagreement must be "The Bible isn't a reliable source document for matters of faith and practice", though, because unless you decide to use the Ronco Eraseable Bible (where you can erase the parts you don't like and write in what you do like) (I'm trying to be humorous here), it's unavoidable. It requires a rewrite that just isn't there. God just failed to explain what He meant.
And to argue that "born that way" equates to "God-given blessing" makes zero sense. David argued "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). Do we say, "Oh, my, what a God-given blessing"? Crack-babies are born all the time, addicted at birth to drugs. Do we argue, "Well, they're born that way; it must be a wonderful blessing from God!"? In fact, if "born that way" is equal to "God-given blessing", then why is it a good thing to abort a Downs Syndrome baby? (I, of course, would argue that it is never right to kill a child in the womb, but most people who argue for "born that way" = "good" also argue "Women should be free to kill their children in the womb if they so choose.") We are all born with propensities, some of which are evil. Shall we then decide, "Hey, if I'm born with that propensity, it's a good thing! I should indulge it!"? (Tell that to an alcoholic.)
Dan Trabue: "If one is oriented towards the same sex, STUFFING that desire and trying to re-channel it into an UN-natural direction is simply not healthy."
Well, first, I don't think you'll find anything that I wrote that said, "Make all who have desires for the same gender feel desires for the opposite gender." I'm looking ... nope ... not in there. But your suggestion is fascinating. You seem to be saying, "It is bad for people to stuff their desires." It is potentially psychologically and spiritually damaging to stuff one's desires. On what basis, then, would you tell someone who has this overwhelming desire to shoot their neighbor not to do that? On what basis would you tell someone, "You need to be faithful to your wife and stuff your desire for other women"? It seems like "born that way" -- whatever "that way" is -- would be license to do whatever I desire or risk damage. "No, no," you would argue (I'm sure), "I'm just talking about homosexual desires." Why are sexual desires (of any sort) exempt?
Dan Trabue: "We tend to think that this is what Paul was talking about in Romans 1, where he talked about abandoning natural desires."
What in the passage would suggest that Paul is talking about people who go against their own nature, their own desires? It seems, instead, that he is talking about a moral decay, the headlong pursuit of their own desires. You're suggesting that these would be people who are ... what ... engaging in passions ... they don't have? That makes more sense to you? And -- I'm just curious here -- what is it that makes this passage different now than it has ever been before? In the history of the Church no one has ever read this to mean "abandoning my natural desires ... whatever they might be". No one in any century of Christianity has ever argued "It's okay to indulge your sexual desires ... even if they're toward the same gender." What is it that we have discovered here in the 21st century that God failed to foresee when He inspired these writings? And why did it take Him so long to clear it up?
Dan Trabue: "Many of us would support gay marriage ..."
Yes, I know you're out there. I am stunned by the audacity, myself. No society in the entire history of Man has ever defined marriage as "between whomever wants to be united". No religion has ever argued "It's perfectly okay to change the definition of marriage to something else entirely." All societies and all religions for all time have defined marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" as the starting point of the "family", the fundamental building block of all societies. Practices have varied, to be sure, but the definition hasn't changed. Now, here in the 21st century, some have decided that everyone was wrong all this time. All societies and all religions have all been wrong for all time. Fortunately we've arrived to clean up this mess. Whew!
I don't know. It all seems a bit much for me. When all of history disagrees, when modern gay writers admit that the Bible is fundamentally opposed to homosexual activities, when logic doesn't seem to line up with it, it seems presumptuous to me to argue to the contrary. It seems, to me, as if your reasoning is problematic.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses Stan. A few remarks...
Where you said:
I presume to agree with the Bible.I would suggest that you not make the mistake of presuming that we DON'T agree with the Bible. The Bible, is for me and my church, God's Word to us. We love it and take it seriously.
We just don't agree with your interpretation of a handful of verses that I will admit SEEM to suggest a negative view of homosexuality. The problem with going with a few verses that SEEM to say something is that (as I'm sure we can all agree), we don't want to go after superficial apparent meanings in the Bible, but rather, we want to dig deep and strive to discern God's Will for our lives.
Now, having said that, there are almost certainly differences in how your camp and my camp study the Bible. And that's okay. Just know that we deeply love the Bible and simply have come to a different conclusion than you have on this particular action.
I can't remember if we've had this discussion or not, but if you're interested how a people who strive to live by the teachings of Jesus and the Bible can possibly come to a different conclusion than you (and admittedly, the majority of Bible believers), I could point you to a friend's blog where he goes into great detail. Let me know if you're interested (I won't presume that you are).
The short response, though, is that we simply don't believe the handful of verses that seems to be talking about homosexuality ARE talking about homosexuality in general. We believe, rather, that the "men laying with men" quotes (from two places in the whole of the OT) and the Romans 1 passage are speaking about specific behaviors that we can agree are not good, healthy behaviors (specifically, worshiping other gods and engaging in ritualistic sex orgies related to these other gods).
To the degree that THAT specific homosexual behavior is talked about in the Bible (and we mostly think it is), we gladly agree that THAT specific behavior is sinful. However, that does not suggest to us that ALL homosexual behavior is negative. Indeed, because we believe in marriage so strongly, we believe that it is also the proper way to joyfully celebrate sexuality, whether that is a committed loving relationship between folk of opposite or the same gender.
I've actually read (multiple times ... at length) the arguments that say, "The Bible isn't talking about homosexuals; it's talking about a particular kind of idol worship." I'm still baffled by what I can only consider to be a colossal failure on the part of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told us that He (the Spirit) would lead us into all truth. Apparently it just took Him some 2000 years to do it.
Since I don't like to think of the Holy Spirit as a colossal failure, I tend to think that the passages in question have been "rightly divided" all along, and, instead, are being twisted in today's world to justify sin. But, hey, that's just me (and, I guess according to you,"the majority of Bible believers"). ;)
Re: taking some time for human's to understand God's will...
We ARE fallible humans, I'm sure you can agree with me on this? We ARE always capable of being wrong, of not getting it right, yes? I mean, if you'd asked most church folk 300 years ago if slavery was okay, you'd likely get a positive response. In fact, you may even have been rebuked for suggesting something is wrong that is clearly okay in the Bible.
Humanity used to regularly engage in polygamy, it is clearly there in the Bible. The Bible even has God saying that he "gave" King David his many wives, so clearly, according to the Bible, polygamy was okay. What changed? The times? People's understanding of what is God's Will? God?
What of eating shrimp and other "unclean" foods? What used to be an ABOMINATION changed within the pages of the Bible. Why? What changed? God? The people's understanding of God's Will? Circumstances?
No, I don't think the Holy Spirit is a failure. However, I DO think humans are capable of failure and misunderstandings. I further think circumstances evolve, times change (not God, but the circumstances).
You are free to think that we have historically "got right" those 3-5 passages that seem to address homosexuality. I and my church would like to disagree with you on that point. Is that okay?
As far as "the majority of Bible believers," yes, the majority most likely has a different opinion than our group of Bible believers. But that does not make us wrong. I'm sure you agree with me that morality is not found in the majority, but within God's Will?
Stan said:
I tend to think that the passages in question have been "rightly divided" all along, and, instead, are being twisted in today's world to justify sin.
You are, of course, free to think that we are mistaken in our sincere belief. We certainly think that you are mistaken in your sincere belief. But I would ask you respectfully as a brother in Christ not to make the false leap to assume that we are "twisting" passages to "justify sin."
We have read these passages (and, at least at my church, most of us come from your position - we used to believe the Bible condemned all homosexuality) and prayerfully and deliberately studied the Bible and sought God's will and ultimately, we have come to a different conclusion. But we have done so NOT to "justify sin," but rather because that is where our careful studies have led us.
Disagree with us if you must (again, I disagree with you so I don't have a problem with disagreeing - it happens), but please don't make false presumptions about our motives.
Thanks.
Yes, all of us are prone to errors. It's the bulk of historic biblical interpretation that I'm looking at, not individual error. No one before now came to that conclusion. It's not a matter of "majority". If your interpretation is correct, every single Christian before this was wrong. That I find baffling.
Well, since the nature of homosexuality has often been misunderstood and even demonized, I don't find it baffling that most of Christian history (I don't have the studies to back up a claim that NO Christians have ever come to this conclusion, do you?) has been opposed to homosexuality, I don't find that baffling at all.
Still, you are free to cast your opinion with the majority about this behavior. Is it all right with you if our church disagrees with your opinion on this particular action?
Post a Comment