If you are going to win an argument, you must get down to the operating assumptions of what’s being argued. We first heard that homosexuals were born that way, just like heterosexuals are born with desires for those of the opposite sex. While numerous scientific studies have been done to find a genetic link, nothing is conclusive. And even if there were a genetic link, it would not mean that the behavior was either normal or moral.
There are males and females. People who engage in same-sex sexuality do not become a new sexual category. There is no third gender. The same is true of people who identify as transgender. It’s all made up. These new categories of gender and sexuality are social constructs.
How would genetics explain bisexuality? Where are the genetic markers for men who “identify” as women, and women who “identify” as men? Again, there are no genetic markers.
Trending: Art of the Meal
Facebook has 56 gender categories. Are we to believe that all of these are based on genetics? In reality, people choose to identify with one of the 56 categories. And I say, “So what?” People can self-identify as anything. It’s their right, irrational as it is, but it isn’t their right to use the law to force me to accept their fiction.
In the Broadway play and film Arsenic and Old Lace, “Teddy” believed he was Theodore Roosevelt. “Each time Teddy goes upstairs, he yells ‘Charge!’ and takes the stairs at a run, imitating Roosevelt’s famous charge up San Juan Hill.” He was humored and tolerated to a point, but no one was forced to accommodate his delusion.
In addition, just because there might be a genetic cause for certain behaviors does not mean that the behavior is normal or morally acceptable. For example, consider the possibility that aggression has a genetic origin:
“Some of us, it seems, were just born to be bad. Scientists say they are on the verge of pinning down genetic and biochemical abnormalities that predispose their bearers to violence. An article in the journal Science . . . carried the headline EVIDENCE FOUND FOR POSSIBLE ‘AGGRESSION’ GENE.”1
Two scientists have claimed that “rape is a ‘natural, biological’ phenomenon, springing from men’s evolutionary urge to reproduce.”2
Should people who exhibit aggressive behavior and rape be accommodated because their behaviors have a biological or evolutionary cause? Of course not. But why not? Because there are moral standards that people can’t shake even if they can’t account for them. What is the source of those moral standards? Why do they apply in some cases but not others?
Pedophiles argue that they were “born that way” or their brains are wired differently. How could anyone prove otherwise? Are we to accommodate people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children? While the desire to engage in sex with children cannot be criminalized, the behavior is. Why? Is it only because the sexual act is not consensual? Would it be morally acceptable if there was consent? Given the operating assumptions of materialists, there really aren’t any moral laws. If rape is part of the evolutionary process, and it was that evolutionary process that got us to this point in evolutionary time, why is rape considered to be criminal?
Even if a person says he or she can’t change their sexual desires, it does not mean those sexual desires are morally justifiable. This is the essence of the debate. We as a nation have lost the ability to think in terms of first principles.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield “was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, a skeptic of all things Christianity, and in a committed lesbian relationship. Her academic specialty was Queer Theory, a postmodern form of gay and lesbian studies. Today, Butterfield is a mother of four, a homemaker, and wife of a Presbyterian pastor named Kent. They live in Durham, North Carolina.”
What made the difference? It came by way of a letter in response to an article she had written in a local newspaper that was written by Ken Smith, then-pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church.
“It was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week, confronting me with the worldview divide that demanded a response. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview, but Christianity is a supernatural worldview. Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
When is the last time (or even the first time) you have heard anyone approach the subject of same-sex sexuality and transgenderism and the more than 50 other gender identifiers on the basis of the fundamental presuppositions that undergird the worldview of forced compliance of sexual abnormalities?
It’s time that we stop arguing in terms of rights, protecting children, freedom of association, and liberty and challenge the presuppositions that have given rise to the overthrow of a moral worldview grounded in the character and moral law of God. Man through the agency of the State has become the new god. There is no telling where such a topsy-turvy worldview will take us.
Dennis Overbye, “Born to Raise Hell?,” Time (February 21, 1994), 76. ↩
Dan Vergano, “‘Natural, biological’ theory of rape creates instant storm,” USA Today (January 28, 2000), 8D. ↩