‘But I Was Born That Way!’

How often do we hear people say, when discussing various behaviours, that they find their actions natural, or they just seem right, or they feel so normal? They want to argue that because it feels good, or seems natural, that it must be right to do it. I hear this all the time.

And nowhere does this crop up more often than in the area of human sexuality. Time and time again we hear these weak excuses and plaintiff rationalisations: ‘But it feels so good.’ ‘How can it be wrong if it seems so right?’ ‘I can’t help it, I was made that way.’ ‘This is just who I am.’

Thus every sexual sin in the book is justified. Adultery is justified. Fornication is justified. Easy divorce is justified. Porn addiction is justified. Homosexuality is justified. Incest is justified. On and on it goes. There is always a cheap excuse to be found for such behaviours.

We of course expect animals to simply follow their urges, but should humans? It is exactly because we are not animals that we really should be living and thinking differently here. Simply having a desire or an inclination to do something does not mean that we should give in to those urges.

Indeed, even if we are born with various biologically-based cravings and desires, this is no reason why we should just give in to them and allow them free rein and full expression. It is a mark of civilisation that various desires and wants are restrained or simply said no to.

Consider the issue of homosexuality. There of course is a huge debate here about how we understand the causes of homosexuality. Activists claim they are born that way; that it is genetically based; and that they can do nothing about it. Incredibly, one often hears these sorts of arguments coming from Christians as well nowadays.

OK, for the sake of argument, let’s just assume for a moment that there may be some biological basis for homosexuality. Even if that is the case, does that mean homosexual activity must be engaged in? After all, people may well be born with an orientation or predisposition to getting angry, to arson, or to over-eating. Should they simply indulge therefore in these various activities, or instead learn how to resist and modify such urges?

As Frank Turek says in his recent book, Correct, Not Politically Correct, “Let’s suppose that scientists someday discover a genetic contribution to homosexual desires. Would that give license to behavior? No, all of us have desires that we ought not to act on. In other words, we were all born with an ‘orientation’ to bad behavior, but desires don’t justify the behavior. For example, some may have a genetic predisposition to alcohol, but who would advocate alcoholism? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that justify pedophilia? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to violence justifies gay-bashing? (Born gay? What if the gay-basher was born mean?). Desires do not justify behaviors. In fact, there is a word we use to describe the disciplined restraint of destructive desires – it’s called ‘civilization’.”

Yet these folk will insist that they must be who they are. But this argument is spurious, as Dennis Hollinger argues in his important new book, The Meaning of Sex: “It assumes that what we are in our inner dispositions and drives is always good. But most ethical systems, whether philosophical or religious, have called humans to move beyond their inner propensities to higher forms of behaviour and commitment. Capitulating to our inner dispositions or even to our identities is not necessarily virtuous.”

Christians of all people should realise these truths, but sadly even many Christians have bought into moral relativism and the postmodern assault on truth. Thus even some believers have fallen for the “I was born that way” line, and have given into much of the sexual revolution, including the radical homosexual agenda.

Some believers therefore seek to justify and make excuses for homosexuality, instead of standing on the absolutes of Scripture. They want to argue that if it feels right, then by all means let’s do it. ‘Don’t panic, its organic’ seems to be their motto.

But as the late ethicist Stanley Grenz has argued, “Ethics is not merely a condoning of what comes naturally. On the contrary, Christian theology warns us that we dare not always entrust ourselves to what we sense to be ‘natural.’ Our natural inclinations are not a sure guide to proper human conduct, but share in our fallenness.”

Christians are called to something higher. Indeed, human beings are called to something higher than what we find in the world of animals. We have the ability to make moral choices, the ability to say no to unhealthy desires, and the ability to put a chain on potentially out of control desires.

Sure, all those abilities are greatly diminished because of the Fall, but we can still exercise our choice here. And that is in fact why Christ came: to set us free from the bondage to our fallen inclinations and desires. He came to set the captives free, and to free us from self. So those who claim to be Christians are really without excuse in this regard. They simply should know better.

But again, even if we were to concede that some people have a same-sex attraction that seems to be a major feature of who they are, does that mean it must then be acted upon? Are not believers told to crucify the flesh and deny self? Where would we end up as a society if we said that the best thing to do is simply always to give in to our desires and lusts?

As Turek rightly argues, “But let’s suppose that some homosexuals cannot change their orientation. Does that mean they cannot control their behavior? Why do we expect pedophiles to resist their desires but not homosexuals? Because we know pedophiles are human beings who can choose not to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else. We also demand them to resist their desires because our children will not be safe if they don’t….

“The truth is, sexual behaviour is not compulsory. It is always a choice. We all must resist our sexual urges at times. And while it’s not desirable, some do so for their entire lives and never have sex. That’s possible for people with any sexual desire. After all, if I honestly believe that I’ve been born with heterosexual desires, am I required to engage in heterosexual acts? Am I not capable of controlling my sexual desires and remaining celibate? If you claim that I am not, then you have also made the absurd contention that no one in the history of the world has ever been morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.”

The fact that so many so-called believers have fallen hook, line and sinker for the homosexual agenda shows how far down the tubes the church has moved recently. Biblical illiteracy is reaching epidemic proportions in many churches, as is common sense and basic logic.

It is time Christians reclaimed the mind, logic, Scripture and truth in these debates, instead of slavishly falling for every trendy new bit of social activism and political correctness. If we cannot take a stand here in such a vitally important area, then we might as well give all this religion stuff away, sell our churches, and let them be turned into gay discos. But with God’s grace, I will hope for something better.

[1268 words]

41 Replies to “‘But I Was Born That Way!’”

  1. Great logic there Bill! I was thinking not very long ago that I should write something similar refuting the small-mindedness of believing that

    A) Homosexuals are born that way.
    B) God made people.
    Therefore: God made people homosexual

    It goes a step further though and assumes that since

    C) God made people homosexual
    D) God could not make someone sin
    Therefore: Homosexuality can’t be sin, and I’m sure God understands.

    Slightly failed logic… anyway, thanks again for posting that. 🙂

    Felicity Rachael

  2. P.S. To clarify: I meant the logic I have come across (which I discribed) is slightly failed logic, not what you said. (Just in case that wasn’t clear enough.)
    Felicity Rachael

  3. Thanks Felicity

    Yes the theological revisionists have some faulty logic here. They assume the way we are now is how God intended us to be. They totally ignore the biblical doctrine of the Fall and its effects. The truth is, we – and the world around us – are not the way we are supposed to be. We are all under the curse, and all of us now have an orientation away from God and toward our fallen selves.

    Thus it is futile for homosexual apologists to say it is unfair that they might have been born with these tendencies. We are all born with unwelcome and harmful tendencies. That is why Christ had to come. We could not right this wrong ourselves. We are slaves to sin and self. It takes a supernatural intervention to break us out of our chains and deliver us into the freedom God intended for us.

    And even with this fallen and sinful orientation, we can still determine whether we act out those inclinations and desires. We are not so fallen that we have absolutely no say in the matter. We certainly do not excuse a child molester and say, “well, he was just acting out his natural orientation’.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  4. Years ago in Wellington, New Zealand, the heretical “Bishop” Spong gave a lecture defending homosexual “rights”. He trotted out that discredited Kinsey, and gave the “gays are born that way” spiel.

    Yet not all homosexuals are happy with such (pseudo-)scientific defence of their lifestyle. Judith Dale, a self-confessed lesbian, in moving a vote of thanks for Spong, stated that she felt uncomfortable about Spong’s “scientific” argument for homosexuality because it ‘implies a naturalness to heterosexuality and an aberrance to homosexuality.’ Dale said this was dangerous ‘… because the underlying assertion is that if we weren’t born that way, we wouldn’t want to be like this.’ She said that the scientific argument was a kind of oppression as it points to homosexuality as a mutation.

    Spong, in responding to the vote of thanks, apologised for any imagined offence, and said that he endorsed Dale’s comments, and claimed that he only used these arguments to win over heterosexuals to the gay rights cause. (Well, if the Bible can’t be trusted, why follow its commandment against bearing false witness).

    Another dilemma for Leftards who support both homosexual behaviour and abortion: what if a gay gene really were discovered and could be picked up by amniocentesis? Then would it be permissible to abort babies with these genes? The “my body, my choice” types have no logical reason to deny this, any more than the abortion-on-demand feminazis can logically object to aborting babies because they are girls.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  5. The key assumption – made by very many religious people – is that God made us (and the world too) the way we are now. The very opposite is true. Christian salvation is the promise that we will one day be restored to that which God first created, and still wishes for us (and I firmly believe that some of us will).
    John Thomas, UK

  6. A very well written article Bill. I think the points and arguments you have put foward are excellent. You have tried to look at as many angles as possible so you can hardly be accused by anyone of bias. Keep up the great work.
    Steve Davis

  7. Why do we expect pedophiles to resist their desires but not homosexuals?

    I often hear that the difference is between consenting adults and immature children.

    I don’t think it’s hard to show how homosexuality is a sin; but how should it be treat by civil government? Should we prohibit and punish that sin? Is it really possible to do so without merging Church and State and loosing freedom of conscience or falling into theonomism?

    I am not arguing for homosexuality at all. I am just uncertain of how public authority should treat it. I think that we should be civilly free of committing some sins, but I just don’t know what to do with this one and how to answer my libertarian friends that argue that consenting adult should be free to do whatever they want as long as their freedom doesn’t affect the freedom of others: your freedom ends where mine begins, they say.

    Any thought on that?

    Pascal Denault

  8. Thanks Pascal

    I recently answered another person with a similar query, so let me provide a similar answer here:

    The law does three things: it can prohibit, permit, or promote. The West has long ago moved away from any prohibitive laws on homosexuality, and is now in the permissive stage. The law in most Western countries now says homosexuals can do what they want in the privacy of their own home, and the state will not intervene. I can live with that.

    But governments have no business whatsoever in promoting a dangerous and high-risk lifestyle like homosexuality. It is when they move into promotion and endorsement that I begin to air my concerns. And in a democracy I have the right to do that.

    But I have to dash out for a bit, so I may give more of a response when I return.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  9. Nicely put Bill. The whole thing is a (probably) deliberate confusion in the English language on the part of activists.

    Unfortunately, like so many words in english, the word natural has two utterly incompatible meanings concealed in the one word. The whole argument exploits this confusion and switches definitions half way through.

    It would be better if we found some new words to make the argument but then the activists designs would be laid bare and the argument would collapse.

    After all, natural can mean two different things. One definition is “natural” meaning “what comes naturally, what I feel like doing”. This is the sense of “natural” in use when the activist says “But I naturally have these desires”. What they are saying is true enough. But then there is the sleight of hand.

    The word “natural” also has another definition that means something completely opposite to that. That definition of “natural” means what Aristotle and others meant by “proper end” or “proper use” of something. It is the sense of the word natural in use when someone might say that homosexual desire is “unnatural” because it is running counter to the purpose and design of the human body and the human reproductive powers.

    It is a neat trick to say “This thing that I feel like doing, even though it is clearly not a proper use or end of the thing in question, is its proper end because I feel like doing it”. Of course when you put it like that it is obviously absurd. Which I guess is why they need to cheat and engage in dishonest sleight of hand with the language instead.

    Jason Rennie

  10. Hi Pascal,

    I’ve encountered that idea before myself. There is an interesting counter example though that shows that “consent” is not all that it is cracked up to be.

    A number of years ago now, there was a guy in Germany (IIRC) that advertised that he was looking for someone to kill and eat. Oddly enough he got respondents to this request and they met up and he got a feed.

    The question was whether that was murder or not, as the person being killed clearly consented and gave permission to be killed and eaten. If consent it what it at issue, then they should be willing to say that this is ok. Most people try to cheat and say something like “but clearly the person giving consent was mentally ill” or something similar to invalidate the consent given.

    Which means that they don’t actually think consent is enough. At that point push them further to defend their position. It is easy to say “consenting adults” but that is usually just a smoke screen.

    And besides, why can’t children give consent? To say they are “immature” is just “discrimination” is it not? I’ve met plenty of smart kids. I’ve met plenty of stupid adults. Isn’t this just “ageism” on their part?

    The whole notion of “consent” is a smokescreen IMO.

    In terms of civil government, it might choose to tolerate homosexual practice because a greater evil would result from seeking to crack down on it, but that would just be my suggestion for how to handle it. Of course the activists would never settle for that. Which likely means, at some point, when the societal pendulum swings they will instead find themselves being cracked down on because of this over reaching behavior.

    Jason Rennie

  11. Dear Bill

    Your point about prohibit, permit or promote regarding laws is helpful. I guess the point of distinction in determiningg if a sexual act is permissible is that it must be between consenting adults not in the same family, thus sex with animals and sex with children are all to be prohibitied, but adultry, group sex and homosexual sex, defacto relationship sex, should all be in the permit category and only consentual Sex within marriage is to be promoted.

    Martin Turner

  12. Hi Pascal,

    You say “falling into theonomism” as though that’s a bad thing!

    It is worth remembering one of the reasons why God gave his laws to Israel:

    “See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?”
    Duet 4:5-8

    Now, the NT tells us plainly that some laws, particularly those concerning our way to approach God have been changed because of Christ’s incarnation.

    But the rest? Certainly the plainest reading seems to be that if they were good and righteous laws then, then that is what they are now. I therefore believe it is unloving for Christians to be negligent in seeking their restoration through political means.

    Mansel Rogerson

  13. The story of Jesus and the forgiving of the adultress would seem to indicate that sexual sins should not be punishable by law but remain as immorral and requiring repentance. This fits in well with the prohibit- permit- prohibit model. If the OT punishements for sexaul sin were still to be enforced Jesus would have grabbed a stone himself.
    Martin Turner

  14. What an insightful piece of writing!

    So perhaps we Christians have become lenient towards sins that we think aren’t hurting anyone. Have we put ourselves above God?

    Annette Nestor

  15. Hi Martin,

    I’m afraid you demonstrate that you don’t know the OT law very well.

    The Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s explanation of the passage should help you here:

    Now verse 7 has usually been misunderstood to mean that what Jesus is saying is; “Unless you are sinlessly perfect, you shouldn’t judge people.” So if you are sinlessly perfect, then you can go ahead and cast the first stone. If that’s what Jesus was saying here, he was violating the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law did not require sinless perfection for punishment to be carried out. If that was the basis under the Law then no-one under the Law could be executed by anybody, and the Mosaic Law clearly mandated execution for specific sins. So for him to say that only if you are sinlessly perfect can you cast the first stone, he would be violating what the Mosaic Law taught.

    But that’s not his point at all. His point is this in conjunction with the writing with the finger. Yes, the Mosaic Law did say; “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Yes, the Mosaic Law did say that if you violated the commandment you had to be stoned at the mouth of the two or three witnesses. You had to have those two or three witnesses, but this they have because they claimed she was caught in the very act.

    But that’s not all that the Mosaic Law demanded. The Mosaic Law also said, it is the witnesses at whose testimony someone is being executed, they must be the ones to cast the first stone. But that’s not all. In Exodus 4 and Exodus 17, it’s also pointed that the witnesses at whose word someone is being executed, they must not be guilty of that same sin. The point that Jesus is making is this. If you are a witness, and you are innocent of this same sin, then proceed to cast the first stone. And guess what happens. One by one, they squirrel away, implying that they were not innocent of this same sin. And perhaps standing among them is the one with whom she was caught in the very act. This was the one time effort they made to get Jesus to violate the Mosaic Law. It failed miserably. They don’t try this trick again. From here on in they go back to the old course where they accuse him of violating the Mishnaic law, but not the Mosaic Law.

    Mansel Rogerson

  16. Thanks guys

    Just a few quick comments here. Jason is quite right to bring up Aristotle and his concern that we live according to our design or purpose. His thoughts fit well into the whole argument from natural law. I may write more on this soon. And thanks too Jason for your helpful remarks about consent.

    One thing of note is how we have progressed (or regressed) over the centuries. For most of human history many of these sexual sins were both immoral and illegal. It has only been recently that much of the West has moved from prohibition to permission on all of this (and is often now moving to promotion as well). The sexual revolution has a lot to answer for here, among other things.

    But it is a complex issue. Not every sin is a crime, and not every crime is a sin. How do biblical principles of morality and sexual ethics get teased out in an increasingly secular, multicultural and pluralistic society? It is a huge topic in which a lot of ink has been spilt already.

    But it is important stuff and well worth thinking about, talking about and praying about.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  17. Thanks Annette

    Yes there is no question that Christians have become far too much like the surrounding culure, incorporating its values and beliefs instead of challenging them. Yes we have become far too lenient and lax in these areas. Much of this comes from biblical illiteracy, fear of being seen as intolerant or offensive, and a loss of the sense of the holiness and righteousness of God, to name but a few reasons.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. Thanks again guys

    As to the he story of the woman caught in adultery as narrated in John 7:53-8:11, I have discussed this elsewhere. For example, in an article on capital punishment I deal with it both in my article and in my comments: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2007/10/12/on-capital-punishment-part-2/

    Let me reproduce here a few words I said there:

    It is not altogether clear if this passage can be used to argue against the death penalty. Several considerations arise.

    First, (and this is not meant to be an evasion of the issue), as most Bibles will note somewhere, we simply do not have good manuscript evidence for this pericope. It seems to be a latter addition to the gospel. So whether it is in fact part of the inspired original text is a debatable point.

    Second, it is questionable whether this passage negates the Old Testament law. In fact, it seems to stringently fulfill it. Jesus seems to be affirming the strict requirements of Old Testament justice here (according to Deut. 22:22-24, the man involved was also to be included in the punishment). Jesus implies that the accusers were at fault, and were violating the Old Testament provisions for such a case

    If absolute sinlessness was being required here, we would have no judicial system at all. And as Jesus stated in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17), “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

    And elsewhere Jesus seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment. When Pilate tells Jesus that he has the power to either release him or crucify him, Jesus does not deny this, but simply tells him where this power has come from (John 19:10-11).

    But this too is another complex and difficult issue, and Christians have had different understandings of it. It is all part of a bigger, vital debate concerning a number of crucial issues, which cannot be adequately dealt with here in short comments. But the discussion is important nonetheless.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  19. Concerning how the state should treat homosexuality. My view is that in the case of homosexual behaviour there is no workable middle ground between prohibition and promotion (as with Bill’s mention of “prohibit, permit, or promote”). As soon as something is permitted by the state it effectively has the state’s approval and it then becomes almost impossible to stop the state moving towards promotion of that behaviour.

    Pascal is wrong in thinking that a state prohibition of homosexuality would demonstrate a “merging [of] Church and State”. Would we say of the period a few decades past when homosexuality was indeed criminalised that it was a time when there was no separation between church and state? Or would we say today that because murder and rape (both being sin according to the Bible) are criminalised then this must mean there is now no separation between church and state?

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  20. Hi all,

    In a delicious double irony (against myself), I’ve noticed that the references to Ex 4 and 17 in the quote I used in my previous post don’t, in fact, refer to the requirements on witnesses.

    Looks like I’m the one who doesn’t know my OT law, and therefore I’m guilty of the same “sin” I’m accusing Martin of!

    Apologies to you Martin, but I stand by the gist of my post. Perhaps a better treatment of the passage can be found here though:
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2324

    Mansel Rogerson

  21. I’m just hoping that all of you witnesses have made a similar slip sometime in the past, to disqualify you from casting the first stone!

    Mansel Rogerson

  22. Mansel, I think I could have stated my argument more clearly, in that rather than all sexual sins not being punishable by law, rather only those sexual sins that might be considered in the permit category (I.e Homosexuality, adultery, defacto sex – in other words sexual sins between consenting adults). As clearly sex with children should be punishable by law. You are right, I am not very knowledgable on OT Law, but debates like this are a starting point.

    Martin Turner

  23. Thanks Martin,

    You’re quite right that debates like this are a good way to think through the issues.

    But as Christians, we must use the Bible, not our own criteria such as whether adults are consenting or whether it affects others’ freedom, to decide whether sexual sins should be in the prohibit, permit, promote category with respect to the law.

    Every Biblically literate Christian would agree that the OT is very clear that homosexuality and adultery are in the prohibit category, and the appropriate penalty for transgression is death (Lev 20:10 & 13). There should be no doubt that these were wise laws for all OT governments to adopt, not just Israel (Deut 4:5-8).

    Where Christians differ is whether the NT somehow completely reverses this situation and makes what once was wise, now foolish. I hope I’ve shown that the woman caught in adultery does not constitute evidence for a change to this law. My point is that unless there is other compelling NT evidence for a change, then surely Christians should support these laws’ retention?

    Mansel Rogerson

  24. Thanks Mansel

    As I say, there are many very complex issues that need to be considered here to do justice to these particular matters. Questions include:
    -What is the relationship between the Old Testament and the New?
    -What is the relationship between law and gospel?
    -How does the NT view the nation of Israel?
    -Has the church replaced Israel?
    -Was Yahweh’s covenant with Israel unique?
    -Can OT law be divided into different types?
    -How much continuity is there between the testaments?
    -How much discontinuity is there between the testaments?
    -Are some OT laws no longer normative for believers today?
    -Are some OT penalties no longer normative for believers today?

    Many more vital questions can be raised here. It actually is a rather large and involved discussion, and again, hard to do justice to in what are supposed to be short comments. Even a thousand word article can barely scratch the surface on some of these contentious issues. But I may pen some more pieces on these topics in the days ahead.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  25. To expand on my previous comments, I would criminalise all extra-marital sexual activity (and ensure the definition of marriage remains the biblical one). I don’t believe the penalties in the Mosaic Law apply today (but the moral law certainly does) so the penalties may vary and need not even be custodial (e.g. a fine). I believe this would achieve the common good – i.e. the maximum liberty for the maximum number of people.

    It stands to reason that if God as our omniscient designer has revealed a moral code by which to govern men, then that code would provide for the most civil society possible. It also stands to reason that when godless men reject God’s morality and replace it with their own perverted version, then civil society will deteriorate, and of course that is exactly what we are witnessing all across the Western World at present. The result is a loss of liberty for the majority which is ironic given that decriminalising the various sexual perversions was ostensibly intended to liberate people.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  26. Ewan

    Not sure that I would agree with criminalising all extra-marital sexuality. This may grant the state too much power to interfere in the personal lives of people and create a net greater amount of evil than existed before.

    Far greater to strengthen the laws surrounding marriage to take the incentives away from divorce which would seem to me to have a greater impact on improving sexual morality and getting the state and courts out of our lives.

    Damien Spillane

  27. About two months ago I entered a police station and whilst talking to the pleasant, lady constable, across the counter, I noticed a sign, on the wall, that said HOMOPHOBIA REPORT IT! So before I left, I said “By the way, find that notice to be offensive; you see I am homophobic. I was born a homophobe; it is in the genes. I have no choice; I cannot help it.” The poor lady suddenly seemed to loose her orientation towards balance and reason, as all the dials and instruments in her brain started going haywire. Needless to say I did my best to bring her gently back to planet Earth.

    Bill you mention the two words, “drives” and “urges;” and that is precisely what we are being asked give way to. John White in his book, “Eros Defiled,” Chapter 3, entitled, “Your urges and how you experience them,” talks about how the pleasure principle operates separately from our biological functions. So for instance we need drink and food. But without the urge to drink or eat, through feeling thirsty or hungry, we would not bother eat. Indeed those who fast for long periods of time, I am told, loose the desire altogether and have to consciously eat and drink or they would die, like those who suffer from Anorexia. But unlike eating and drinking, when we block our sexual urges and drives we do not suffer adversely. Our head, arms and legs don’t suddenly fall off; neither do we become neurotic. Frustration for a time maybe, but that soon passes.

    The book of Solomon 1:7 says “Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires. In other words exercise some self control until the right time, ie, when your married. Or if we take the analogy of a driving car, wait until you get on the road system with its protocol of signals and junctions before you start up the engine and start driving, otherwise you are going crash the car and hurt yourself and others.”

    Bishop Gene Robinson let the cat out the bag recently when he was being questioned with Romans 1. He said that in Paul’s day people did not understand about the third sex, called homosexual; and that it is only with modern, superior and scientific development that we now understand that there does indeed exist this other human species, called the homosexual. He went on to say that Paul was rightly condemning the heterosexuals for practising homosexuality, simply because this was not natural to them. Each to their own. But how do we differentiate between who is gay and who is straight, if both homosexual and heterosexuals feel pleasure from shoving the penis up the waste passage? Indeed, David Mixner, the most powerful gay man in America, has urged heterosexuals to copy some of the wonderful, life enhancing and enriching practices, opened by the homosexual trail blazers, who are right at the cutting edge of promiscuity and risky behaviour.

    Delusional orientation: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=23382

    David Skinner, UK

  28. Picking up on what Jonathan Sarfati said, schools have a statutory obligation to identify children with special needs and organise programmes for them. There needs to be monitoring, and accountability on the part of the school. Surely, therefore, it is incumbent on the school to identify all the heterosexual kids and to give them a sex education programme that is natural to them and not to give them one that is inappropriate. Now then, hands up all those kids who are left: all homosexual; bisexual; polysexual; trannies; zoo sexual; objectumsexual and necrosexual etc. etc. Raise your hand high so that we can identify you.

    David Skinner, UK

  29. If I may comment on Pascal’s question about consent; but before I do that I want to thank you Bill for highlighting the threefold division of law making: prohibition, permission, or promotion. Believe it or not, in Britain we are in the last phase, where Christian values and morality are prohibited and Hegelian Marxism is aggressively promoted. We now run according to parallel universes where one is about to take over the other.

    But talking about bench marks for healthy sexual relationships. All politicians in Britain talk about the fact that marriage is not based on any religious or moral principles but simply on whether the sexual partners are committed to their relationship. There is no mention as to how long the commitment is supposed to last, with how many, who or what this commitment is toward. But Pascal is right, we have moved away from commitment to consent and consensuality.

    Peter Tatchell, the great high priest of private morality who respects only the rights of the autonomous individual, does not recognise society or the family. His world is populated by people like himself, for whom solitary masturbation is as sophisticated and economical as minimalist furniture; secondly he irrationally introduces a moral order when he has no legitimate basis for producing one.

    He says, “Acknowledging these social changes is, however, no reason to lapse into anarchic moral relativism. Instead, we need a new moral framework for teaching sex education that can encompass diversity while also giving young people guidance on how they are most likely to find erotic and emotional happiness. This new moral framework involves three very simple principles: mutual respect, consent and fulfilment. In others words, when it comes to lust and love, treat others the way you would like them to treat you. Don’t have an egotistical, selfish, me-first attitude. Be thoughtful and caring towards the other person. Never coerce or pressure a partner into doing something they don’t want to do. Make sure both of you get physical and psychological enjoyment. That’s it! Simple, inclusive and moral – without being moralistic.”

    But against what standard and whose morality do the participants decide what is egotistical, selfish and me-first sex, or what is coercive and abusive? All that matters is that the participants are consenting to what is taking place – even if that involves sadomasochism, near death or actual death sexual practices. The words respect and equality are measured precisely against moral relativity. They are defined simply by how the autonomous sexual participants wish to define terms.
    The National Aids Trust has more or less said that giving someone the GIFT should not result in prosecution: “NAT is still campaigning for an end to prosecutions for reckless transmission of HIV through consensual sex: http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=967

    Bug parties : http://gaylife.about.com/cs/gay101/a/bugparties.htm

    Gift givers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4895012.stm

    Fisting amongst teenagers: http://www.narth.com/docs/healthrisks.html

    David Skinner, UK

  30. Bill, your article is spot on. As a child and young teenager, I myself developed attractions to people within the same gender. I was lucky enough though to grow up within a christian household where it was drilled in to me that homosexuality was wrong and went against God’s nature. Whilst my parents knew little about what I went through, and despite some grave errors that I have made in my life, I am so thankful that it was etched in to my heart that no matter how ‘natural’ it felt, it went against what God had intended for me.

    Even today, I still have attractions to people of the same gender, but I have also come to understand them. This is why I will vehemently argue against the likelihood of a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. There are many factors throughout my childhood development, mainly due to parenting, that caused my view of myself and even my view of the world towards a certain pattern of thinking. Coming to this understanding has been immensely eye-opening. Firstly, that every single decision that you make as a parent can monumentally change the flow of a child’s development. Secondly, that I can make a decision in my life. I can choose to follow a pattern of thought developed throughout childhood, or I can choose to develop a new line of thought.

    As it stands now, I still struggle daily with what can only be thought of as addictive tendencies, and being constantly aware of what my thoughts are, but it is very clear that I am changing.

    My only other thoughts are that despite all of this, I understand how extremely hard it is for those who are practising homosexuals to even comprehend how any other way. It is so very easy to talk about how something is wrong and is as simple as a decision change, but extremely different in practise. To those who practise and those who struggle, how they feel, the way they think, is as inbuilt in to them as breathing is to everyone. To give it up would be like willingly slicing away at your own flesh. This is why I honestly believe there is little to no chance of ever ‘convincing’ a practising homosexual, that what they are doing is wrong. The ONLY way I can ever see is through Jesus. To lead them to Him, reveals that where they are now is not enough, they need to change.

    It can be very easy to condemn people for their decision to choose homosexuality but it is only because they don’t know any better. Just pray that whenever you do come across someone, that you have the opportunity to share with them the gospel. How every hole they try to fill with relationships and sexual stimulation will never be enough. Only God will. So pray for them and show compassion to those who are struggling to change.

    Cheers
    Anon

  31. Thanks Anon

    My rules do call for full names here, but in your case I will make an exception. Thanks for sharing your story. Yes there is no question that change can be quite difficult, as it can be for anyone caught in a sexual addiction, and it can take a long time indeed to see progress occur. But nonetheless change certainly is possible. Even secular clinics like Masters and Johnson report high success level of significant change for those who want to turn their lives around. And I know a number of people who have seen their lives transformed by allowing Christ to set them free.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  32. Anon, Who does not suffer from addictions? Who does not suffer from traits from which we would want to be free. (Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 10:13) But as for slicing away at our own flesh, this is exactly what Christ said we have to do – not literally, but are we not called to die to ourselves? (Colossians 3:5; Mark 9:47).

    John 8:32 “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    David Skinner, UK

  33. … Before I say anything, I’ll say this: I’m 19, male, and I never had sex. I live in Quebec. I don’t know why, but I just feel opposed to your way of thinking… your logic.

    Religion aside, if ‘God’ had never said homosexuality was bad, do you think you would condemn these actions anyway? What I always believed is that ‘God’ is the shield people use to give themselves right. Obviously I’m no believer in ‘God’.

    I believe in what people can do for their beliefs.

    I used internet as a tool to explore freely the sex subject, both in texts and pornography. My searches brought me to hentai, bestiality, incest and… well pretty much everything. What I take from it is this: so long as every person involved are fully willing and aware of what they are doing, then it should be allowed.

    I never dared to ask my sister to teach me about sex directly. Not out of shame of incest, but for fear of being rejected and what the revelation would imply to others. The idea did cross my mind. I’m not sick in the head. I have no excuses. I just plain don’t believe it is wrong, just as you believe it is.

    André Leblanc, Canada

  34. Thanks Andre

    I certainly think the case against homosexuality can be made on purely non-religious grounds. If you look at my other articles on this topic, you will see that on perhaps most occasions I have endeavoured to do just that.

    As to your system of ethics (‘as long as it is consensual, go for it’), sorry, but I am not buying into it. I couldn’t stand living in such a society – nor would most other people. Under your ethical rules, if two or more people agree to torture each other, it is just fine. If they agree to abuse one another, that too is great. If they agree to insult and humiliate each other, no probs.

    Or consider the infamous case of one German who murdered and ate another man, claiming it was entirely consensual! http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/german-cannibal-jailed-for-life/2006/05/10/1146940596076.html

    Morality is far more than simply agreeing to do things. Right and wrong is about much more than mere consent I am afraid.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  35. True enough, such a situation is bound to be thorny and would have to be handled in case-by-case every time. Heck, I’d chain up the guy for what he’d done too – unless he’s brought hard proof of that other man’s consent, such as a video. In that case, I’d just send him to hard therapy. They did agree to it, no matter how insane it seems. It’s a tough rule to respect for people directly around or involved in these affairs.

    Morality, as far as I’ve seen (not much, granted) is the blend of personal and public consent. Our morals obviously differ, and yet they ARE both accepted as valid.

    Another tough case: a 12 years old claims to be in love with his mother, and they have had relations already. Three possibilities: True love (unlikely as it seems), the child (or parent) has a mental problem or the child (or parent) was manipulated.

    Take my situation with my sister for instance. Had I asked her to have sex with me, and had she agreed, (which I very much doubt now) to us, it would have been accepted as a fact, and if our story continued, it would likely be seen as ‘O.K.’ between us.

    People can get used to anything. Cannibalism has been part of entire cultures. Savages? True but still people. Kings and queens have often been siblings, even under Christian rule. A half of ancient Greece was homosexual or bisexual. So what’s so wrong with all of it truly? Because we see it as wrong doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone, and thus we should accept a degree of difference, so long as they don’t make a fuss.

    P.S.: It’s been such a long time since I argued like this… I actually enjoy it very much, thank you.

    André Leblanc, Canada

  36. A slight correction, I did say willing but also aware. So if the person(s) is mentally troubled then it’s a completely different story. I am aware of the risks and problems of incest, and should I ever be tempted again, I’d make sure the other person is as well.

    In the cannibal’s case, the man was judged unstable… Come to think on it maybe I should pass that test before I make claims like this. My logic might be a little too different. Who knows?

    André Leblanc, Canada

  37. Thanks André

    To be honest, your “ethics” seem even more terrifying with your latest remarks. Now we have the possibility of consensual incest and consensual bestiality. I suppose one can argue for consensual necrophilia. On and on it goes.

    Morality which is only focused on individuals and their selfish desires is a dead-end morality. No society can last long in such an amoral climate. Concerns about the community and the greater good must always be considered.

    As to “half of ancient Greece was homosexual or bisexual” sorry, but throwing out baseless and inaccurate claims does not an argument make.

    And with all due respect, if you are enjoying the argument here, can I ask why? If it is merely to tickle your intellectual palette, I am not all that interested. Life is too short for mere word games, and given that ethics deals with real life and death issues, it is too important of a topic to simply be tossed back and forth for mere amusement. But you need to decide for yourself what your actual interest is here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: