As many are aware, the top General at the Pentagon, Peter Pace, last week stated his personal view that homosexuality is immoral. Of course, that raised a raucous amongst those who are not only demanding that we recognize their right to be homosexual but that we must also affirm the rightness of their right. However, The Top General Won’t Apologize for Gay Remark . Of course there are the demands for his immediate resignation by Gay activists who cannot tolerate having anyone speaking publicly who does not support their view. As a side note, homosexual activism in Britain has been so effective that new laws are being considered this week which would make it:
“a civil offence for a Muslim printer who is asked to print a promotion for homosexual sex to refuse, or for Christian conference centre to turn down bookings from a Lesbian society, or for a Jewish website designer to object, on moral grounds, to creating a website facilitating homosexual dating services”
It seems to be developing in to what Robin Phillips calls “Britain’s Emerging Homo-fascism” .
Meanwhile, back in the USA, freshmen high school students are being pressured into signing a confidentiality agreement to not divulge to anyone, including their parents, what they are taught in homosexual sensitivity training according to Concerned Women for America Of course, this story received virtually no coverage. Why? Homosexual activists have proven themselves to be very adept at P.R. and information control. Creating a “public outcry” against anyone with a contrary view proves to be effective. It affords them the opportunity to appear to be the victim. The average person does not want to be labeled a “homophobe” and so remains silent or perhaps even defends their behavior. At the same time, by using the institution of public education, homosexual activists continue the tradition of John Dewey. Dewey was less concerned about “reading, writing and ‘rithmatic” and viewed public education as the vehicle to change culture. Homosexual activists really do not want parents to impede this effort by actually knowing what their children are being taught. Add into this mix the March 2 blog by Dr. Al Mohler, “Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?” and you have the makings of a real cultural controversy.
A delayed reaction over Mohler’s excellent piece came out in David Crary’s article on AP “Furor Over Baptist’s ‘Gay Baby’ Article” . In it Mohler managed to offend both liberals and conservatives at the same time. Their reactions probably best demonstrate the emotional ties of both sides on the debate. This may possibly have resulted in a lack of reading or thinking about what Mohler has written for public consideration. Some conservatives are less than happy that Mohler acknowledges that a genetic link to homosexuality may be discovered. What they don’t realize is that he is simply using homosexual activists arguments against them. He also suggested that if such a link is discovered that there may also be, based on claims of researchers, medication which could be delivered through a patch the expecting mother would wear during pregnancy in order to prevent the gay gene. Liberal media, such as CNN has subsequently trotted out scientists to say that so far there is no scientifically provable genetic link. They have also had gay activists on who are changing their position and saying that it isn’t biological but rather is “God’s gift.”
Add to this that much of the culture, liberal and conservative, have muddy thinking and the decibel level of the argument increases as though shouting qualifies as a powerful demonstration of the validity of one’s argument. It seems to me that all three of these stories point to some very important issues. If Evangelicals are going to impact the culture of today in a similar way that believers in the early church did, we need to start on a local church level in teaching, training and equipping believers to be able to think clearly and articulate the issues in a sound way. For example, Dr. Mohler didn’t agree that science has demonstrated a prenatal biological link to homosexuality but rather pointed out that some scientists believe that science is leading in that direction. That may be true but that wouldn’t make the behavior any less immoral. There are category differences between what we do (behavior) and whether it is right or wrong (the morality of the behavior). On that issue his point nine is correct:
We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.
This confusion of categories had been the fodder of talk radio, at least in Chicago, all week on this topic. Secular radio hosts on perhaps the biggest Chicago radio station have repeatedly stated that if this behavior originates biologically, in other words a natural born homosexual, that would mean homosexual behavior is not immoral. But one doesn’t necessarily follow the other. All of us sin (are immoral) in different ways. If we allow their argument to stand then it just as logically follows that adult-child sex (commonly known today as child molestation) is biological and that someday science may prove its biological origins. According to their argument, if it is biological then it is natural. If it is natural then it is not immoral. But, like homosexuality, adultery, or any other sexual sin, a natural or perhaps biological bent in a particular direction does not mean it is not immoral.
What About Darwin?
Although homosexual activists are winning this debate largely through emotional argumentation and publicly brow beating the opposition. When we step back and look at the issue in a more in-depth way we see they must resort to personal attacks. For example, they are angered by Mohler’s suggestion that if homosexuality is genetic than possibly medical science will develop a medicine that can prevent it. His reasoning is sound and is based on preliminary suggestions of scientists. If it is possible to eliminate or diminish temptation to a particular sin, wouldn’t that be better? To that homosexual activists respond that God made them that way, therefore it isn’t a sin. The problem is that God has spoken on the subject of sexual sin, which includes homosexual behavior, and would not contradict His Word in this area. Rather, homosexual sin like all other sin (immoral behavior) is a result of the fall.
But what of those who hold to Darwinian Evolution and attempt to make biblical teaching irrelevant? They really do not fair any better. Why? Well, the only things that matter in the Darwinian view are survival and reproduction. The strong survive, the weak don’t. Those that reproduce, reproduce. There are no moral questions involved for there is no basis for morality. Homosexuals could now find themselves the potential targets of an institution and thinking advocated by Social Darwinism called Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger founded this group to weed out and breed out what she called the inferior “weed” in the garden of evolution. At the time of its founding blacks were the primary targets. However, homosexuals are by definition same sex relationships. They do not reproduce. Therefore, if homosexuality is genetic and if it can be treated prenatally and if Darwinian Evolution is true it would be beneficial to the advancement of evolution to do so. There is nothing in what I have just said that advocates violence toward homosexuals. There is nothing in what I have said that advocates mothers aborting them prior to birth. Although if homosexuals are “pro-choice” I am not sure on what basis they could be opposed to aborting a baby that is potentially homosexual. That would, after all, be the mother’s choice. But then consistent coherent thinking is not a hall mark feature of homosexual activism. It is primarily about socially legitimizing sin.