Like Button

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Think It Through

The word, "queer," describes something that is strange or odd. Merriam-Webster lists as the first definition "differing in some way from what is usual or normal." It is, in fact, with that in mind that the homosexual community adopts "queer" as their moniker. There is "straight" and there is "queer" because "straight" is normal and "queer" ... is not. Once a pejorative, now it is recommended. So how do they get to the place of being "not normal" (and loving it)? Well, we all know, don't we? They're "born that way."

But there are some problems.

First, science hasn't actually demonstrated any such thing. They try, but they have "no irrefutable conclusions." Science says there is "scarce scientific evidence" to support the so-called "gay gene" idea.

Second, it doesn't matter. "What??!" Think about it. Those who identify as "homosexual" also identify as "queer." That is, "We're not the norm." Proudly. So let's just say that they are born "not the norm" in some sense. What do we do when a child is born "not the norm"? I once saw a documentary on a child born without arms and legs. The story was about how he learned to cope. He learned to put on prosthetic arms and legs and get around in his world. It was remarkable. Truly. "But," we should have heard, "he was born that way!" You see, we understand that there is "normal" and we understand that "gay" isn't normal. Lest you think I'm being harsh, remember, 1) they cling to "queer" ("not normal") as a good term and 2) "normal" is defined by averages and "2.5%" (the estimated percentage of people who identify as homosexual) is not "average." For some reason the LGBTQI (etc.) folk have decided that "born that way" is, by definition, virtuous simply by being born that way. But we don't see any other abnormal birth condition the same way. Why? So if it was to be true that they are "born that way," it still doesn't answer the question if whether or not it is morally good.

To illustrate and drive the point home more clearly, I am heterosexual. I am, if you will, born that way. I didn't choose it. Okay? We're all on the same page? Good. So, as a heterosexual, I am attracted to the opposite sex. That means that I might be attracted to my wife and I might be attracted to someone else's wife or sister or other females. I don't choose attraction, but I do choose what I do with it. If I choose to be faithful to my wife and choose not to lust after others, I choose good. If I choose the opposite, I choose bad. What I do, then, is my choice for which I am responsible. In the same way, if it was to be true that they are "born that way," it wouldn't really be part of the equation because we all have choices to make regardless of our "programming." I'm hungry, so I choose what I will eat and reap the reward if I choose wisely or bear the consequences if I choose poorly. It still comes down to choice.

You see, then, that "born that way" is not a means of making the abnormal moral. "Born that way" doesn't require that we should stay that way. If it did, that remarkable kid without arms and legs would have been doing wrong to seek to be more ... normal. And none of us think so. It is a smokescreen to dodge the question of morality. And answering that question with the currently popular "love is love" idea is just stinkin' thinkin'.1
1 In case you don't know what I mean, consider "love is love." Is love of pizza the same as love of country the same as love of a parent the same as love of a spouse? Why not, if "love is love"? If "love is love," on what basis do they deny polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, objectophilia, or pedophilia (to start a list of the bizarre)? "Come on," the objection will come, "we're talking about love between people." Does love require sexual relations? Because the objection from Scripture is solely in regards to sexual relations and not "love." If "love is love" is about sex, what kind of "love" are you talking about? I don't think many of us define "love" as sex with pizza, a parent, or the country. "Love is love" sounds nice, but let's do some careful analysis before blindly leaping into that cauldron.


Craig said...

A tour de force pointing out the logical flaws of the “love is love” folx. You did leave out the “but some animals do it” argument. Of course, that argument tries to equate what is essentially rape with “homosexual love.”

It does raise a good question. If love doesn’t equal sex, then isn’t it possible for two people of the same gender to have a healthy, loving, but non sexual relationship?

Craig said...

I wonder if this post is why I got comments that sounded like Margaret Sanger in my moderation inbox this morning.

Stan said...

Your question, Craig, points to my personal position. "Why are you opposed to love??!" I'm not. We are commanded to love. I love my dad, my brother, my wife, my mother. I love lots of people of the same gender and the opposite gender. These, I am certain, are healthy, loving, non-sexual relationships. I am in favor of them. I am not opposed to love.

On the second comment, it has been blessedly quiet for some time. I think he must have come back from vacation or something.

Craig said...

It’s interesting because if you have someone who believes that there is a “gay gene”, yet also argues for women’s bodily autonomy, they’re supporting a woman’s ability to choose to abort a gay baby.

I’ll try to rephrase my earlier question about non sexual loving relationships, that would be analogous to a marriage relationship.

Stan said...

Good point, Craig. As to the rephrase, no need. A healthy, loving, intentionally non-sexual relationship is not a basis for marriage. You'll need to redefine marriage first.

Craig said...

I’m probably not expressing myself well.

I understand what your saying and agree.

Marshal Art said...

The only way "normal" can include the abnormal in this context is to look to other behaviors. Since we are by nature sinful, it is "normal" for people to sin. With regards to sexuality, this would include every conceivable form of sexual self-gratification, many of which are, these days, being reconsidered as "orientations" so as to "normalize" them.

But other behaviors are normal as well. Laziness, greed, covetousness, pride and arrogance...pretty much anything that has had "thou shalt not" preceding it directly or implied. In this way, all behaviors are "normal" and in this sense we are all "born this way". And those of us who struggle with immoral behaviors or desires could also just as easily fall back on the "born that way" defense to lift from us the burden of coping with the desire in a way that is pleasing to God, and healthier and more beneficial to us.

Stan said...

True, Marshal, but at this point (at the end of this post) I have not introduced "moral" or "sin." Even without Scripture there is a logical problem with "born that way" as a qualified reason for declaring something "good." That position requires "It is, therefore, it should be," manifest foolishness.

But your comment was correct. Sin is "normal" as in universal, and taking the conversation to the next step -- "What does God think about it?" -- doesn't make it any better.