Hi everyone,
Recently I was exposed to another example of what I call “Bumper Sticker Philosophy”, in the form of several old friends from high school who “liked” a facebook page called “Homosexuality isn’t a choice; homophobia is”. Sounds o.k. on the surface right? After all, if someone is born a particular way, that isn’t their fault, but the way I respond to them is – am I wrong?
Here’s the problem. Our culture is being conditioned to accept or reject truth on the basis of whether it sounds good as a slogan. Anyone remember “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”? We live in the era of the sound bite, where truth is now processed through the axiom of “Whoever can sound right the fastest wins”. But that hardly ever gets us to the truth. It simply justifies intellectual laziness.
Let’s take for a moment that first example. First of all, is there any definitive evidence that homosexual behavior is inborn? None that I’m aware of. Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but certainly not definitive. I can think of several examples right off the bat, of well known individuals who have chosen to change their sexual behaviors after many years of practicing a completely different one – Anne Heche, Meredith Baxter, and Jon Moss (of Culture Club) come to mind. Two of the three changed from homosexual to completely heterosexual behavior, without any religious influence whatsoever, affecting their decision. They simply decided they wanted to engage in different sexual behavior, and to do so exclusively. Yet I’ve never heard of someone deciding to change their race, or height, or blood type, and successfully doing so. If homosexuality had been proven to be genetically predetermined, it would have been the biggest story of the year. Unless I missed that major news event, it has simply been accepted as truth even in the absence of definitive proof. Why? Because we have settled for the gradual acceptance of the slogan, not the testing and proving of the theory. Secondly, when did the opposition to a sexual behavior become a phobia? I am personally against adultery – am I adultephobic? I’m against bestiality – am I bestiphobic? Beyond that, if it IS a phobia, then by definition one did not choose it. Who chooses to be afraid of heights, or flying, or enclosed spaces? I’ve never in my life met someone who chose a phobia, so if anything, should we not be showing sympathy for those who have them – in any form?
Finally, the question needs to be asked – “Even if someone is born a particular way, does that mean society must accept the behavior?” It would be a far easier argument to make that people are born pedophiles – after all, who would ever choose to be attracted to children? – and yet society does not condone that behavior. Yes, I’m aware of the difference between the two behaviors, and I understand that one involves consenting adults where the other does not. But that argument misses the point entirely. If we must bow at the altar of evolution, which determined that some have different sexual desires and practices, how can we then conclude that pedophilia is wrong? Is it not tyranny for the majority to prohibit a practice, simply because they do not desire to participate in it? If there is no God, and evolution programmed us as a species, then we must allow all sexual practices, and accept them as beneficial. If on the other hand the argument is religion-based (“If God made me this way, then it can’t be wrong”), then pedophilia must be embraced and celebrated as well, because again, since no one would choose the behavior, it must be innate, and God-intended, and if so cannot be prohibited. Anyone want to accept that “truth”? Didn’t think so.
Christianity on the other hand does not deny the reality that apart from Christ we are incapable of living up to God’s standards, yet still states clearly that the failure to do so will result in eternal punishment. Eph. 2:3 explicitly says that “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” The Bible does not teach that human beings, apart from Christ, can walk according to God’s standards. It teaches that apart from the born again experience, our nature dictates that we will engage in practices that are perverse according to the perfect standards of God. It declares that the imperfections we so clearly display (which includes our sexual sin), demonstrate that we are in need of redemption and transformation. It is therefore our acceptance or rejection of God’s providence, through the cross of Christ, which becomes the basis for where we spend eternity.
The reality is that the entire argument demonstrates two things: One, that we’re creatures who are capable of making moral judgments, and two, that the easiest way to win the argument is no longer to engage in superior logic and reasoning, but to demonize those who do not agree with you. Romans 12:2 says “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.” The pattern of this world is to take the path of least resistance; to accept bumper sticker philosophy and sound bite logic. The call to the Christian is to test and approve what is right.
You know what? It took 951 more words for me to make this point than it took to make that facebook title. Don’t settle for easy.
Munch much…
Dave
The Church I Pastor
About Me
- Dave Gregg
- I’m married to Ruth – the greatest wife ever (not open to debate!), have 5 awesome kids, and pastor the best church in the world. Born and raised in So. FL, I’m a die-hard Dolphins fan, and I think that anyone who hasn’t seen the movie “Enchanted” needs to repent of that grievous sin. I have two speeds - full and dead stop, and I sometimes wish I could slow down time, as I can’t believe how fast things go by. But I remind myself that there will come a day when time will not be my enemy (will it even exist?), and figure that while I’m here I might as well try and radically transform the world!
I love your post and agree whole heartedly. Can you imagine that there is going to come a day when we are no longer going to be able to post these things and say them from the pulpit if we are considered a church and are non-profit. It is going to be considered "hate talk" and such. The same as we are not supposed to endorse any kind of candidate or say negative things against them. Our times of real free speech is shortly going to be over or risk punishment. It is going to take real guts from pastors to continue to speak up. I love your post.
ReplyDeleteBasically, yes, you are wrong. For one, you state that there is no scientific evidence beyond anecdote that homosexuality is not a choice, then proceed to cite only three anecdotes that it is. For one, must scientists working within this field agree that most humans fall somewhere on a spectrum between homosexuality and heterosexuality, so this indicates that those individuals that switched sexuality could in reality be bisexual. Secondly, there is a good deal of scientific evidence pointing to genetics and environmental factors in the development of a child in the mother's womb (i.e., things the individual has no control over) impacting the sexuality of an individual. In fact, the scientific evidence points to the culmination of many factors that cause an individual to be homosexual. Thus, you won't see one major news story showing the single gene for homosexuality being isolated, because that's not, in all likelihood, how homosexuality arises in humans. However, the scientific evidence still indicates that it is not a choice.
ReplyDeleteNext: "I’ve never in my life met someone who chose a phobia, so if anything, should we not be showing sympathy for those who have them – in any form?" So, we should, say, accept racists because they are innately afraid of those different then them? That reasoning is absurd.
You compare homophobia to opposition to bestiality and adultery. This implies a comparison between homosexuality and those behaviors. However, I find it absurd that you would compare the relationship between two consenting, loving adults to someone who abuses love and trust in marriage to cheat or someone who has sex with an animal, which cannot provide consent. The argument that accepting homosexuality would also mean accepting pedophilia is also largely off-base. Even if someone is born a pedophile, their behavior hurts innocent individuals who cannot give consent. On the other hand, homosexual relationships between consenting adults affect no one but the individuals involved. On a side note: "If there is no God, and evolution programmed us as a species, then we must allow all sexual practices, and accept them as beneficial." That is incorrect for several reasons. For one, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, just because a human behaves in a certain way, that doesn't mean it is evolutionarily beneficial (there are harmful adaptations, which will be selected against). And whatever the case, there is no reason that evolution should be used as a direct tool to determine which behaviors should be accepted, and no reasonable scientist believes this.
Finally, you are left with the religious argument against homosexuality. It is certainly your right to make your personal decisions based on this. However, in this nation, one of our most valued founding principles is religious freedom. Thus, you do not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals because of these believes.
"that the easiest way to win the argument is no longer to engage in superior logic and reasoning, but to demonize those who do not agree with you."
I believe you are confusing your faith with a logical argument. In any case, I have laid out what is, in my opinion, a logical response to your position and not just a bit of "bumper sticker" philosophy. Furthermore, I have personally witnessed you respond to a teenage girl who, on Facebook, had come out as a homosexual. I believe that your response was not only rude, but unethical, given your position as an authority figure in some people's eyes.
You seem to be responding to what you presume I believe, rather than to what I actually wrote. You repeatedly addressed substantive points by distorting them, or by completely missing the crux of them. Let me cite a few examples:
ReplyDelete1. I never claimed homosexuality wasn’t affected by genetic or environmental factors; quite the opposite. In fact, I stated both that “apart from Christ we are incapable of living up to God’s standards”, and “apart from the born again experience, our nature DICTATES we will engage in practices that are perverse according to the perfect standards of God”. I did not argue that homosexuality is a choice, but rather an indicator of our separation from God. I did argue that the culture accepts what it wants, despite a lack of definitive evidence.
2. You repeatedly called my reasoning “absurd” without addressing why. If racism (your example) IS innate, why would it be wrong to accept it? That validates my case; racism (dislike of another race) is not a phobia; how then is the disapproval of homosexuality one? The use of the word homophobic is a pejorative term used to dismiss a reasoned position. I cited that I am also against adultery, but that does not make me “adultephobic”. I reject racism based on Jesus’ teachings, but today’s culture generally does as you did – label something as right or wrong without appealing to any ultimate standard.
3. My use of anecdotal evidence is certainly within the bounds of the discussion as framed – a response to the claims that homosexuality is not a choice, and that homophobia is. My citing the “opposition’s” lack of definitive supporting evidence does not prohibit me from using anecdotal.
4. Some of your argument was not logical. Of course there is a comparison between these sexual behaviors. No scientist who would say that homosexuality is either genetically or environmentally predisposed, would NOT say the same about pedophilia. I directly stated that they ARE different in effect, but asked a direct question that you avoided answering, namely “Even if someone is born a particular way, does that mean society must accept the behavior?”. My contention is that it does not, and I used a widely condemned sexual practice, to illustrate that. Prostitution also “affects no one but the individuals involved”, but is still illegal.
5. You stated “one of our most valued founding principles is religious freedom. Thus, you do not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals because of these believes.” This argument, on its face, is erroneous. The Constitution’s establishment clause does not state that individuals (or churches) have no right to discriminate, but that the state has no right to do so. Your argument also assumes the state as the ultimate authority, which I obviously reject.
6. Finally, you challenged the way I responded to a girl who had “come out” on Facebook. First, my response was to the way she did so – confrontationally, disrespectfully, and suggesting that if her friends did not modify their beliefs to accommodate her, they were intolerant. My response (which she later agreed with) was that adult choices result in adult consequences – that I lost friends by following Christ, and that she could not selfishly demand that others reject their deeply held convictions to oblige her choices. Second, I didn’t believe she WAS a homosexual. Her Facebook page currently contains numerous apologies, and statements that she was in fact, not really homosexual at all. She herself has stated that my response was completely appropriate. It seems presumptuous to deem yourself a better judge of the interaction between two people who know each other fairly well, than the two people involved. You also did not substantiate how my response to her was “unethical”.
You seem like an intelligent young person, but you rushed to debate before grasping my position. The hundreds of people that I lead on a weekly basis would not follow me if I used the approach you employed, nor would they tolerate my teaching if I so misrepresented the subject matter.