So I decided to redo the blog and move it to WordPress.
Edit: Actually, I also decided to change the name, and thus the address. It is now: http://crossdswords.wordpress.com/
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Friday, August 24, 2012
The Ridiculousness of Ridiculousness
One thing that I'd like to point out that has bothered me for a while, and has recently come to my attention again is the tendency for skeptics to present a parody of the Christian faith as reason not to believe in it. As one friend of mine, an atheist, has said, "I don't believe in a magic man in the sky."
Well, you know what? Neither do I. Such a simplified parody of who the Christian believes God is; is indeed ridiculous. Such statement are meaningless rhetoric meant to make the other person feel stupid for believing such rubbish.
What brought this back to the surface recently was a comic strip, The Oatmeal by Matthew Inman, placing two "Christians" talking to each other about the ridiculousness of Scientology. The first "Christian" reads off a litany of absurd sounding beliefs that Scientologists supposedly believe (I say supposedly since I don't really know if such beliefs are true or not). Both "Christians" have a good laugh and then the second one proceeds to state, "Everyone knows what REALLY happened is an omnipotent father figure BUILT outer space and then put a garden on earth where a naked couple ate some fruit which was bad and then he had magic no-touchy sex with a virgin who gave birth to this bearded hippy guy who got killed until he came back to life as a zombie where he floats around teaching us all not to masturbate too much or we'll be sent to the earth's core and barbequed for all eternity!" (the above link will take you to the comic proper)
Oh, yeah...that's really what we Christians believe. *facepalm*
Look, skeptics...I know you don't think that there's any evidence for the truth claims of Christianity. But let's at least be willing to discuss it without resorting to twisting things into a caricature of reality.
Ok?
Well, you know what? Neither do I. Such a simplified parody of who the Christian believes God is; is indeed ridiculous. Such statement are meaningless rhetoric meant to make the other person feel stupid for believing such rubbish.
What brought this back to the surface recently was a comic strip, The Oatmeal by Matthew Inman, placing two "Christians" talking to each other about the ridiculousness of Scientology. The first "Christian" reads off a litany of absurd sounding beliefs that Scientologists supposedly believe (I say supposedly since I don't really know if such beliefs are true or not). Both "Christians" have a good laugh and then the second one proceeds to state, "Everyone knows what REALLY happened is an omnipotent father figure BUILT outer space and then put a garden on earth where a naked couple ate some fruit which was bad and then he had magic no-touchy sex with a virgin who gave birth to this bearded hippy guy who got killed until he came back to life as a zombie where he floats around teaching us all not to masturbate too much or we'll be sent to the earth's core and barbequed for all eternity!" (the above link will take you to the comic proper)
Oh, yeah...that's really what we Christians believe. *facepalm*
Look, skeptics...I know you don't think that there's any evidence for the truth claims of Christianity. But let's at least be willing to discuss it without resorting to twisting things into a caricature of reality.
Ok?
The Evidence from Experience
I suppose it should be noted that the evidence that I am talking about here is not true evidence in the classical sense. A believer's personal experience with God, while very real, cannot be used as the sole grounds upon which to base a defense of one's faith. And yet, as I said, such experiences are very real, and thus cannot be ignored either. This is because, unlike what many may think, the Christian religion is not about believing in certain precepts and doctrines. It is instead a relationship with a person. While it is true that doctrine and proper theology are very much needed to frame that relationship, it is the relationship itself that forms the core of our beliefs. If one only has an intellectual accent of the ideals of Christianity, then their faith becomes nothing more than mental aerobics. We, as Christians, get our life and vitality from the person of Christ Himself.
But what place does such "evidence" have in the defense of our faith? Such arguments, when levied by themselves, can, and usually do, come across to the unbeliever as simply subjective. After all, anyone can claim to have some sort of religious "experience". And many do claim such experiences from many other worldviews that we Christians would claim as false. So then, can we not use the reality of God in our lives? Not at all. In fact, I think such arguments to be a vital part of the apologetic message.
The key is that our experience, or what I shall call "soft" evidence, cannot stand alone. Instead, it must rest atop what I shall call "hard" evidence. In other words, arguments that stem from objective moorings, such as the cosmological or teleological arguments. And this is the apologists primary task. This is where the hard thinking must take place, so that it can be shown that our beliefs are reasonable, logical, and coherent.
I have heard it said that to try to find a starting point for the reasonableness of the gospel apart from the gospel is to deny the gospel. I actually don't believe this. Instead I see the gospel of Christ as the goal, rather than the starting point. To use the illustration of the chasm between man and God, the gospel would be the bridge that spans that chasm, whereas apologetics is the foundation of that bridge. Without that foundation, many people will look at the bridge and come to the conclusion that only an idiot would walk across something that could fall out from underneath them. But notice that the bridge is necessary. Without it, all you have are the foundations and no way to cross that chasm. This is why I said that the soft evidence of our personal experiences rest atop the hard evidence. One cannot simply begin to use religious language when talking to a skeptic. They cannot understand it; it is a foreign language to them. But once you have done the hard work of building the foundations, then you apply the soft evidence of the reality of God as a personal being in your life. In essence, you place the bridge on the foundations, then walk across, all the while inviting them to follow you.
The evidence of our experiences are a vital part of our witness. Indeed, that is what it means to be a witness. But in this ever-increasingly skeptical world we live in, we must also do the work of providing that foundation which gives credibility to our very real, very personal, inner knowledge of our Lord.
But what place does such "evidence" have in the defense of our faith? Such arguments, when levied by themselves, can, and usually do, come across to the unbeliever as simply subjective. After all, anyone can claim to have some sort of religious "experience". And many do claim such experiences from many other worldviews that we Christians would claim as false. So then, can we not use the reality of God in our lives? Not at all. In fact, I think such arguments to be a vital part of the apologetic message.
The key is that our experience, or what I shall call "soft" evidence, cannot stand alone. Instead, it must rest atop what I shall call "hard" evidence. In other words, arguments that stem from objective moorings, such as the cosmological or teleological arguments. And this is the apologists primary task. This is where the hard thinking must take place, so that it can be shown that our beliefs are reasonable, logical, and coherent.
I have heard it said that to try to find a starting point for the reasonableness of the gospel apart from the gospel is to deny the gospel. I actually don't believe this. Instead I see the gospel of Christ as the goal, rather than the starting point. To use the illustration of the chasm between man and God, the gospel would be the bridge that spans that chasm, whereas apologetics is the foundation of that bridge. Without that foundation, many people will look at the bridge and come to the conclusion that only an idiot would walk across something that could fall out from underneath them. But notice that the bridge is necessary. Without it, all you have are the foundations and no way to cross that chasm. This is why I said that the soft evidence of our personal experiences rest atop the hard evidence. One cannot simply begin to use religious language when talking to a skeptic. They cannot understand it; it is a foreign language to them. But once you have done the hard work of building the foundations, then you apply the soft evidence of the reality of God as a personal being in your life. In essence, you place the bridge on the foundations, then walk across, all the while inviting them to follow you.
The evidence of our experiences are a vital part of our witness. Indeed, that is what it means to be a witness. But in this ever-increasingly skeptical world we live in, we must also do the work of providing that foundation which gives credibility to our very real, very personal, inner knowledge of our Lord.
Friday, August 10, 2012
What about homosexuality and same-sex marriage?
Note: Before I begin, I want to point out and thank Wintery Knight blog, as it was his work that helped solidify my thinking and gave me the references I use.
Homosexuality, and same-sex marriage (SSM) in particular, is a complex issue that is often dealt with only on a surface level. The argument usually goes something like this: "How can you condemn two people who love each other? They're not hurting anyone!" And on this surface level, such a statement sounds right, even to my own ears. After all, is not love the greatest of ethics? Aren't we supposed to encourage people to love each other. And since it isn't harming anyone, what right do we have to interfere? However, as I have stated, this is only a shallow, surface level statement. In this article, I shall first examine what I mean by this, and then after, we shall begin to dig a bit deeper to fully explore this topic.
Let us begin at the top and look at the issue from it's own starting point. Those who approve of the homosexual lifestyle always make the claim that it's a private behavior that does no harm to anyone else. Such blanket statements are easy to refute. No harm to anyone? Well, how about the mother who cries herself to sleep each night as her child has renounced all she and her family have held dear for generations. Or how about the man or woman whose spouse has just announced that they are leaving them because they have "discovered" that they are homosexual. Are these people not hurt? Now, this is not as much an argument as it is an illustration. After all, cannot these same scenarios (or something similar) happen within heterosexuality? Of course; my intent at this point is simply to show that a simple statement that no one is hurt is just that...simple, and far too general to be a true argument. However, let's take this one step further. What if we could show that the homosexual lifestyle, and more specifically, SSM, does indeed have a negative impact on others? That would make a difference, would it not? Well, when we take a look at the outcomes that SSM has, or will have, this is what we see.
First is the negative impact on children. Decades of research have shown that children flourish the best when raised by both of their biological parents within a stable, loving, and enduring marriage (go here for an example of an article, which has its' own references). Homosexual partners just simply cannot give a child the same level of healthy development. By definition, the child will be lacking at least one of their biological parents, and both parents, and thus sexes, are needed. Two men can both be great fathers, but it is impossible for either of them to be a mother. And the reverse is true for lesbian couples. Now, this is not to say that homosexual couples cannot raise a child well at all. But the analogy would be closer to a single parent raising a child. They may end up being able to raise healthy adults, but the process is harder, and problems are more likely. While developing, a child learns to relate to both sexes best, and learns what it mean to be a man or a woman, when both sexes are present. Fatherlessness in particular is a primary indicator for much of the crime we see today. Even those raised within a same-sex union can attest to the difficulties such an upbringing can mean, as stated by Robert Lopez.
Second is the negative impact on society. Now, what two people do with each other behind closed doors has very little impact on society at large. However, ideas, and the acceptance of ideas (in this case, the idea that homosexuality is normal and SSM should be legalized) does. I am convinced that the issue of SSM has very little to do with marriage itself. Most homosexual couples don't marry, even when it's legal (at least after the initial surge). Nor does it have to do with rights. I often hear that homosexuals should be able to name their partner as heirs, give them visitation rights at hospitals, or other such legal measures. And you know what, I completely agree. Two willing adults should be able to make legal contracts between each other, no matter who they are. Now, I was under the impression that such was already available, but even if it is not, that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. No, what is at the heart of the matter is acceptance and normalization. And the homosexual activists know that if they can get the state to recognize and legalize SSM, then the greatest part of the battle will have been won. Dr. Frank Turek once stated, "The law is a great teacher." If SSM is legalized, over time more and more people will accept it as normal. But is this what we really want? Is this truly in the best interests of our nation? Unfortunately, it is not. The reason we have marriage laws in the first place is that the most basic unit of society is the family unit. And the most stable form of family is that of the classic one man, one woman definition. The greatest factor of this is, of course, the healthy development of children, and thus future citizens (as shown above). But, in addition, homosexual unions are far less stable than heterosexual ones, being more likely to separate, and with greater levels of infidelity. The fact of the matter is, that should SSM be legalized, it will greatly further the erosion of marriage. Just look at what no-fault divorce laws have done. It is no coincidence that divorce rates have skyrocketed in the decades since such laws were implemented. And at the time, we heard the same arguments as we do now; of how such things wouldn't really affect us, that everything would be fine. Today the argument usually sounds something like, "How will SSM affect your marriage?" It will be affected by the continued meaninglessness of what marriage is becoming. No-fault divorce laws may have started us on this path, but legalizing SSM will begin the end, as more and more differing views on what marriage should or could be will step forward. In fact, it has already begun, as there are those now who are pushing for polyamorous unions!
In addition, were SSM legalized, and thus normalized, it will open the floodgates to silence any opposing view. Tell me, what would happen to ministers who would dare preach against homosexuality from their pulpits? Or anyone, for that matter, who would voice a different belief? We are already paying the price for our so-called "bigotry". People have been fired, not because of their work ethic, but simply because of their personal views. Catholic orphanages have been forced to close their doors because the state told them that they had to be willing to place children into homosexual homes. And these are things that are happening now. Imagine what it would be like should SSM be legalized. The freedoms of speech and religion will be denied those who would dare say that homosexuality is wrong. And it will all be blamed on hate, whether or not there truly is hate involved. (As a side note here: I agree with the other side that hate should not be tolerated. However, someone stating that they believe a certain behavior is morally wrong, or fighting to protect what one believes is right, is not hatred.)
(Two articles dealing with this are Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's testimony to the Rhode Island legislature with references, and Dr. Frank Turek's article, from which I got the quote above.)
Third is the negative impact on homosexuals themselves. Studies have shown that those who adopt a homosexual (or bisexual, for that matter) lifestyle are more likely to be affected by adverse things such as: tobacco, alcohol, or drug abuse, domestic violence, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, suicide attempts, and other psychological problems. This also gets translated to their children, since children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual or bisexual themselves. While I may not know the origins of AIDS, there is a reason that it first exploded within the male homosexual community; that being the type of sex that is common amongst them, namely anal sex. The walls of the large intestine were not designed to handle the thrusting of a penis. As such, the walls of the intestine tear during anal sex letting fecal matter and semen directly into the blood stream, thus greatly increasing the risk of disease. Homosexual behavior is simply not healthy.
(Consider this article by Dr. Trayce Hansen.)
So, as you can see, even on this surface level, the statement that no one is harmed is simply false. Human relationships and actions are not in a vacuum. And even if one could produce an example of SSM in which truly no one was harmed and all benefited, that does not excuse the practice as a whole.
Now let us begin to dig a bit deeper into what lies beneath the surface. What of the first part of the statement? What about love? How is it that we can condemn two people for loving each other? Personally, I never condemn love; or let me say, real love. And that begs the question, does it not? What is love? Our society has perverted our understanding of this great concept. For most of us today, love and sex are practically the same. Yet this assumption is false. While it is true that they are connected, they are in essence different things. It is perfectly possible to truly love someone and never have sex with them, just as it is possible to have sex with someone while never loving them. Yet, when we ask what is wrong with two people loving each other, what is implied is sex. Real love seeks what is objectively best for the other. And if we take into consideration what was discussed above, it logically flows that if there is true love involved, then one would not encourage homosexual behavior, no matter where one's attractions lie. "But you can't help who you fall in love with!", the objections might go. This also avoids the underlying issue. Even if it should one day be shown conclusively that same-sex attraction is caused purely by physical means outside our control (and it should be noted here that the debate is far from over on this), this does not automatically mean that such attractions must be acted on. While attraction and passion are indeed a part of marital love, the greater part, the foundation of it all, is what I have called real love; that love which is volitional in nature. We can, and should, choose right actions. This then leads us even deeper into the true heart of the issue: morality.
Let me begin this section with a question: "Why is anything wrong?" The reason I ask this is that many of us just assume our moral codes without ever examining the basis on which we make moral statements. In Christianity, of which I am a practitioner, our morals come from the nature of God, and thus the moral laws He gave us in accordance with that nature. We do not condemn homosexual behavior simply because God arbitrarily made a law that He came up with out of thin air. The law was made because homosexuality violates the natural order of the things that God created. Contrary to what many believe, God's laws are not designed to take the fun out of life. In essence, when God says "Don't", what He's really saying is, "Don't hurt yourselves." And we find this to be true when we look at all the negative impact that homosexual behavior can cause. Christianity has a basis for moral law because we have a transcendent God who is the moral lawgiver. Many, if not most, other worldviews do not have such a basis. They either operate off of the innate sense of right and wrong that we are all born with, or simply borrow their moral framework from some other worldview, neither of which have an inherent basis.
Now, it is my understanding that there are some worldviews that do give homosexuality a transcendent basis for being acceptable. In such cases, we would then have to look at those worldviews and find if the worldview as a whole is true or not. That is not the purpose of this article. However, for illustration purposes, I would like to look at one of homosexuality's more ardent supporters; that of atheism. We find a problem here. The arguments in support of homosexuality are not only emotive, but most often morally positioned. Supporters would have us think that it is wrong for same-sex couples to be denied what they see as a right, that of marriage. But on what grounds are such arguments founded (remember, I'm talking about atheism here)? Without a transcendent anchor to moor their morals to, they are left with just thin air. In atheism, there are no rights! There's no such thing as right or wrong! Atheism has no basis to condemn anything! I also find it highly ironic that the worldview that is the greatest supporter of homosexuality is a worldview where homosexuality does not fit! Think about it. Atheism claims that Darwinian evolution explains the existence of all life on the planet. The survival of the fittest! Yet, how can homosexuality be explained? If our behaviors are all genetically coded, then homosexuality is a genetic mutation, since heterosexuality is necessary for procreation. And that's just it...homosexuality inherently does not replicate itself as it cannot reproduce! Surely the mutation would have died out. And even if it did somehow manage to survive (by going against its own desires), homosexuality does absolutely zero for the strengthening or survival of the species! A true atheist should oppose that which weakens the human race, shouldn't they? But I digress. The point I am trying to make, is that without a transcendent moral lawgiver, no one has the authority to make moral pronouncements, including whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. The only argument they would have is based on practicality, and as we saw above, even that is false.
In closing, I would like to point out something else I find to be ironic. Often (and especially with the issue of homosexuality), those of us who adhere to the Christian worldview are accused of being closed-minded, hateful bigots. While it is certainly true that there are those who claim the name of Christ who truly do hate homosexuals, these people do not follow the teaching of Jesus. But, as I have tried to point out, there are good reasons (both religious and secular) to oppose the practice of homosexuality, particularly when concerned with the legalization of SSM. Those who support homosexuality hide their arguments in emotive language that makes them come across as open-minded, tolerant, wonderful people who would never condemn anyone for what they believe. And yet, as soon as they condemn us as being the opposite, they only show that they are the same as us, making absolute truth claims. Because truth is, by definition, exclusive. And no matter what the worldview, at some point it will exclude someone, as even the inclusivists exclude the exclusivists. To make my point, let me turn a common phrase back upon those who would claim to be so "open-minded": "How dare you try to shove your beliefs down my throat!" See now the contradiction? In our society, we are all (at least for the time being), free to express our beliefs. No, we don't have the right to hate one another. And hopefully I have shown in this article that instead of bigotry, we have compelling reasons not to condone homosexual behavior. I know that I, personally, would wish for everyone to be able to be happy, were that possible. But I don't think that accepting this lifestyle will truly accomplish that. There are greater things at work here. And there are greater purposes to life than simply being happy all the time. True fulfillment and human happiness can only come through knowing God, and Jesus Christ, whom he sent. For only God transcends this life, and thus only He has the power to grant eternal life. All other sources for happiness will eventually fail, including the union with another human being, be that hetero or homosexual.
(For further study, consider this paper by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson. This peer-reviewed paper goes into a lot of what I've said here.)
Homosexuality, and same-sex marriage (SSM) in particular, is a complex issue that is often dealt with only on a surface level. The argument usually goes something like this: "How can you condemn two people who love each other? They're not hurting anyone!" And on this surface level, such a statement sounds right, even to my own ears. After all, is not love the greatest of ethics? Aren't we supposed to encourage people to love each other. And since it isn't harming anyone, what right do we have to interfere? However, as I have stated, this is only a shallow, surface level statement. In this article, I shall first examine what I mean by this, and then after, we shall begin to dig a bit deeper to fully explore this topic.
Let us begin at the top and look at the issue from it's own starting point. Those who approve of the homosexual lifestyle always make the claim that it's a private behavior that does no harm to anyone else. Such blanket statements are easy to refute. No harm to anyone? Well, how about the mother who cries herself to sleep each night as her child has renounced all she and her family have held dear for generations. Or how about the man or woman whose spouse has just announced that they are leaving them because they have "discovered" that they are homosexual. Are these people not hurt? Now, this is not as much an argument as it is an illustration. After all, cannot these same scenarios (or something similar) happen within heterosexuality? Of course; my intent at this point is simply to show that a simple statement that no one is hurt is just that...simple, and far too general to be a true argument. However, let's take this one step further. What if we could show that the homosexual lifestyle, and more specifically, SSM, does indeed have a negative impact on others? That would make a difference, would it not? Well, when we take a look at the outcomes that SSM has, or will have, this is what we see.
First is the negative impact on children. Decades of research have shown that children flourish the best when raised by both of their biological parents within a stable, loving, and enduring marriage (go here for an example of an article, which has its' own references). Homosexual partners just simply cannot give a child the same level of healthy development. By definition, the child will be lacking at least one of their biological parents, and both parents, and thus sexes, are needed. Two men can both be great fathers, but it is impossible for either of them to be a mother. And the reverse is true for lesbian couples. Now, this is not to say that homosexual couples cannot raise a child well at all. But the analogy would be closer to a single parent raising a child. They may end up being able to raise healthy adults, but the process is harder, and problems are more likely. While developing, a child learns to relate to both sexes best, and learns what it mean to be a man or a woman, when both sexes are present. Fatherlessness in particular is a primary indicator for much of the crime we see today. Even those raised within a same-sex union can attest to the difficulties such an upbringing can mean, as stated by Robert Lopez.
Second is the negative impact on society. Now, what two people do with each other behind closed doors has very little impact on society at large. However, ideas, and the acceptance of ideas (in this case, the idea that homosexuality is normal and SSM should be legalized) does. I am convinced that the issue of SSM has very little to do with marriage itself. Most homosexual couples don't marry, even when it's legal (at least after the initial surge). Nor does it have to do with rights. I often hear that homosexuals should be able to name their partner as heirs, give them visitation rights at hospitals, or other such legal measures. And you know what, I completely agree. Two willing adults should be able to make legal contracts between each other, no matter who they are. Now, I was under the impression that such was already available, but even if it is not, that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. No, what is at the heart of the matter is acceptance and normalization. And the homosexual activists know that if they can get the state to recognize and legalize SSM, then the greatest part of the battle will have been won. Dr. Frank Turek once stated, "The law is a great teacher." If SSM is legalized, over time more and more people will accept it as normal. But is this what we really want? Is this truly in the best interests of our nation? Unfortunately, it is not. The reason we have marriage laws in the first place is that the most basic unit of society is the family unit. And the most stable form of family is that of the classic one man, one woman definition. The greatest factor of this is, of course, the healthy development of children, and thus future citizens (as shown above). But, in addition, homosexual unions are far less stable than heterosexual ones, being more likely to separate, and with greater levels of infidelity. The fact of the matter is, that should SSM be legalized, it will greatly further the erosion of marriage. Just look at what no-fault divorce laws have done. It is no coincidence that divorce rates have skyrocketed in the decades since such laws were implemented. And at the time, we heard the same arguments as we do now; of how such things wouldn't really affect us, that everything would be fine. Today the argument usually sounds something like, "How will SSM affect your marriage?" It will be affected by the continued meaninglessness of what marriage is becoming. No-fault divorce laws may have started us on this path, but legalizing SSM will begin the end, as more and more differing views on what marriage should or could be will step forward. In fact, it has already begun, as there are those now who are pushing for polyamorous unions!
In addition, were SSM legalized, and thus normalized, it will open the floodgates to silence any opposing view. Tell me, what would happen to ministers who would dare preach against homosexuality from their pulpits? Or anyone, for that matter, who would voice a different belief? We are already paying the price for our so-called "bigotry". People have been fired, not because of their work ethic, but simply because of their personal views. Catholic orphanages have been forced to close their doors because the state told them that they had to be willing to place children into homosexual homes. And these are things that are happening now. Imagine what it would be like should SSM be legalized. The freedoms of speech and religion will be denied those who would dare say that homosexuality is wrong. And it will all be blamed on hate, whether or not there truly is hate involved. (As a side note here: I agree with the other side that hate should not be tolerated. However, someone stating that they believe a certain behavior is morally wrong, or fighting to protect what one believes is right, is not hatred.)
(Two articles dealing with this are Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's testimony to the Rhode Island legislature with references, and Dr. Frank Turek's article, from which I got the quote above.)
Third is the negative impact on homosexuals themselves. Studies have shown that those who adopt a homosexual (or bisexual, for that matter) lifestyle are more likely to be affected by adverse things such as: tobacco, alcohol, or drug abuse, domestic violence, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, suicide attempts, and other psychological problems. This also gets translated to their children, since children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual or bisexual themselves. While I may not know the origins of AIDS, there is a reason that it first exploded within the male homosexual community; that being the type of sex that is common amongst them, namely anal sex. The walls of the large intestine were not designed to handle the thrusting of a penis. As such, the walls of the intestine tear during anal sex letting fecal matter and semen directly into the blood stream, thus greatly increasing the risk of disease. Homosexual behavior is simply not healthy.
(Consider this article by Dr. Trayce Hansen.)
So, as you can see, even on this surface level, the statement that no one is harmed is simply false. Human relationships and actions are not in a vacuum. And even if one could produce an example of SSM in which truly no one was harmed and all benefited, that does not excuse the practice as a whole.
Now let us begin to dig a bit deeper into what lies beneath the surface. What of the first part of the statement? What about love? How is it that we can condemn two people for loving each other? Personally, I never condemn love; or let me say, real love. And that begs the question, does it not? What is love? Our society has perverted our understanding of this great concept. For most of us today, love and sex are practically the same. Yet this assumption is false. While it is true that they are connected, they are in essence different things. It is perfectly possible to truly love someone and never have sex with them, just as it is possible to have sex with someone while never loving them. Yet, when we ask what is wrong with two people loving each other, what is implied is sex. Real love seeks what is objectively best for the other. And if we take into consideration what was discussed above, it logically flows that if there is true love involved, then one would not encourage homosexual behavior, no matter where one's attractions lie. "But you can't help who you fall in love with!", the objections might go. This also avoids the underlying issue. Even if it should one day be shown conclusively that same-sex attraction is caused purely by physical means outside our control (and it should be noted here that the debate is far from over on this), this does not automatically mean that such attractions must be acted on. While attraction and passion are indeed a part of marital love, the greater part, the foundation of it all, is what I have called real love; that love which is volitional in nature. We can, and should, choose right actions. This then leads us even deeper into the true heart of the issue: morality.
Let me begin this section with a question: "Why is anything wrong?" The reason I ask this is that many of us just assume our moral codes without ever examining the basis on which we make moral statements. In Christianity, of which I am a practitioner, our morals come from the nature of God, and thus the moral laws He gave us in accordance with that nature. We do not condemn homosexual behavior simply because God arbitrarily made a law that He came up with out of thin air. The law was made because homosexuality violates the natural order of the things that God created. Contrary to what many believe, God's laws are not designed to take the fun out of life. In essence, when God says "Don't", what He's really saying is, "Don't hurt yourselves." And we find this to be true when we look at all the negative impact that homosexual behavior can cause. Christianity has a basis for moral law because we have a transcendent God who is the moral lawgiver. Many, if not most, other worldviews do not have such a basis. They either operate off of the innate sense of right and wrong that we are all born with, or simply borrow their moral framework from some other worldview, neither of which have an inherent basis.
Now, it is my understanding that there are some worldviews that do give homosexuality a transcendent basis for being acceptable. In such cases, we would then have to look at those worldviews and find if the worldview as a whole is true or not. That is not the purpose of this article. However, for illustration purposes, I would like to look at one of homosexuality's more ardent supporters; that of atheism. We find a problem here. The arguments in support of homosexuality are not only emotive, but most often morally positioned. Supporters would have us think that it is wrong for same-sex couples to be denied what they see as a right, that of marriage. But on what grounds are such arguments founded (remember, I'm talking about atheism here)? Without a transcendent anchor to moor their morals to, they are left with just thin air. In atheism, there are no rights! There's no such thing as right or wrong! Atheism has no basis to condemn anything! I also find it highly ironic that the worldview that is the greatest supporter of homosexuality is a worldview where homosexuality does not fit! Think about it. Atheism claims that Darwinian evolution explains the existence of all life on the planet. The survival of the fittest! Yet, how can homosexuality be explained? If our behaviors are all genetically coded, then homosexuality is a genetic mutation, since heterosexuality is necessary for procreation. And that's just it...homosexuality inherently does not replicate itself as it cannot reproduce! Surely the mutation would have died out. And even if it did somehow manage to survive (by going against its own desires), homosexuality does absolutely zero for the strengthening or survival of the species! A true atheist should oppose that which weakens the human race, shouldn't they? But I digress. The point I am trying to make, is that without a transcendent moral lawgiver, no one has the authority to make moral pronouncements, including whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. The only argument they would have is based on practicality, and as we saw above, even that is false.
In closing, I would like to point out something else I find to be ironic. Often (and especially with the issue of homosexuality), those of us who adhere to the Christian worldview are accused of being closed-minded, hateful bigots. While it is certainly true that there are those who claim the name of Christ who truly do hate homosexuals, these people do not follow the teaching of Jesus. But, as I have tried to point out, there are good reasons (both religious and secular) to oppose the practice of homosexuality, particularly when concerned with the legalization of SSM. Those who support homosexuality hide their arguments in emotive language that makes them come across as open-minded, tolerant, wonderful people who would never condemn anyone for what they believe. And yet, as soon as they condemn us as being the opposite, they only show that they are the same as us, making absolute truth claims. Because truth is, by definition, exclusive. And no matter what the worldview, at some point it will exclude someone, as even the inclusivists exclude the exclusivists. To make my point, let me turn a common phrase back upon those who would claim to be so "open-minded": "How dare you try to shove your beliefs down my throat!" See now the contradiction? In our society, we are all (at least for the time being), free to express our beliefs. No, we don't have the right to hate one another. And hopefully I have shown in this article that instead of bigotry, we have compelling reasons not to condone homosexual behavior. I know that I, personally, would wish for everyone to be able to be happy, were that possible. But I don't think that accepting this lifestyle will truly accomplish that. There are greater things at work here. And there are greater purposes to life than simply being happy all the time. True fulfillment and human happiness can only come through knowing God, and Jesus Christ, whom he sent. For only God transcends this life, and thus only He has the power to grant eternal life. All other sources for happiness will eventually fail, including the union with another human being, be that hetero or homosexual.
(For further study, consider this paper by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson. This peer-reviewed paper goes into a lot of what I've said here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)