"Born That Way": Jesus' Take on Eunuchs

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.  (Matthew 19:12).

I just read a heart-breaking story on The Huffington Post about a mom and dad and their homosexual son.  He'd had struggles with his Christian faith and homosexual desires since the age of twelve, and the parents truly loved their son in both word and deed, and after over a year of abandoning both God and family, he had come back, breaking free from the addiction to some of the strongest entanglements out there: crack and heroin.

He still had strong homosexual desires, and mostly, wanted his parents to love him no matter what.  They affirmed to him that yes--even if he practiced the homosexual way of life, they would love him, as they always have.  Just come home!  One night, out with the wrong friends though, has left this family with indelible loss due to drug overdose.

Now, Jesus says there are eunuchs, and they come to be in three different ways, only one of which involved actual surgery (though I'd say it is more like violence done to a man, than surgery).  First, they are either born that way in a sense of likeness within their inner constitution regarding desire, or they are born without genitals or they are born with both (hermaphrodites).  Second, they are made that way by other men through an act of violence, and third, they choose a life of being like a eunuch in order to be missionaries. 

On Meeting Zach Wahls Discussing His Two Moms and Homosexual Marriage

Zach’s argument for homosexuality (in this case, lesbianism) is more than a mere huff and puff position from a typical activist.  Zach has two moms, and he loves his mothers with a genuine depth as seen in his passionate plea before an Iowa court begging for the legalization of same-sex marriage.  I had the privilege of hearing Zach Wahls speak at Lenoir-Rhyne University in September of 2012.  Wahls brings it all to his audience: wit and humor, candor and rhetorical style replete with an impassioned plea to treat homosexuals with charity.  Not only charity will do, according to Wahls.   Rather, he desires, like many Americans and others around the world, to promote homosexual marriage.  But the rhetorical style, with its jokes and passion for his views, contained some serious argumentative flaws.  And before I go into what was flawed in Zach’s argument, I want to say that having met with him after his speech; I am impressed with his character: Zach is a fine, young man who is interested in listening to other people and tackling hard questions.


Without recourse of delving into all of Mr. Wahl’s arguments for homosexual marriage from the evening, I’d like to retell part of a conversation I had with him during the Q&A and follow-up afterward.  Wahls says during his speech that he believes homosexual behavior is “natural,” and then compares that which is “natural” to a plastic microphone.  He advises the audience at Lenior-Rhyne that man-made materials are unnatural, but that human sexual choices and behavior are natural.  Confusing is his use of a triple negative, admitting that he does not think it [homosexual behavior] is not unnatural; he then says his plastic microphone is unnatural.   Do I ask for clarification and play the pesky journalist?    

Waiting…waiting…waiting…for questions from the audience.  Rather, Wahls is faced with softballs such as “Is there a mom whom you love best?” and similar inquiries.   Do I ask him about his self-confessed Universal Unitarianism, and how one derives an objective ethic in this worldview, or do I ask about his triple negative, with subsequent follow-ups, or about his quips and ad hominem (personal) attacks against two hypocritical signers of the Defense of Marriage Act (Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich)?  Do I point out that such attacks do not actually prove anything concerning the marriage debate?  What about his statement that he not only doesn’t care to know who his father his but that he refers to him as “donor 113”?  (I was troubled, but not surprised, at laughs and snickers from the audience concerning this anti-father quip).

So, I clear my throat and with shaky tenor, summarize his argument about “natural” sexual behavior and proceed to ask questions from the back of the audience without the help of a microphone; the audible tones emanating from my diaphragm betray the nervous electricity.  Dry, cracked and therefore too deep, my voice has an unnatural boom to it.  

And this is just what I want to know: his definition of what is natural and what is unnatural.  I am genuinely confused because of his use of the triple negative regarding “natural”: I’m not saying some people say it isn’t unnatural—or something.  Come again?  The audience begins to stir.  During the course of our interchange, murmurs emanate like a wisp of cloud.   Zach clarifies, affirming that homosexuality is natural.  This I not only suspect, but know beforehand.  However, my notes deny such clarity.  From the stage under the bright, hot lights, Zach answers my nervous resonance: “You compared homosexuality as natural with a microphone, which is unnatural.  May I ask you a question?”

“Sure.” 

“What is your definition of what is natural?” 

Folks start to turn their heads and look at me. 

His riposte is that if a person trains another person how to drive a car, then that is unnatural.  Another example is his plastic water bottle: this is also unnatural.  But it’s natural, he upholds, to be a homosexual. 

My follow-up question:

“Ok.  I’m not saying homosexuality is wrong—““I’m not saying you are.”

“Ok great.  But, I’m a bit confused.  Can you help me?  So…are you saying that that which is organic is natural, and that which is inorganic is unnatural?”

Groans from the audience.  “Of course it’s natural!” I hear someone whisper in groaning frustration. 

At this point, the professor in charge of the evening’s address interrupts our conversation, and ends the entire dialogue on the spot.  He tells the audience that students have places to go and things to do, and that if I want, I can speak with Mr. Wahls afterward privately. 

A former student of mine tells me immediately: “I think it’s really awful that you were cut off.  It’s not fair.  You were asking good questions!” 

Now, on Zach’s viewpoint, if that which is unnatural is that which is inorganic i.e. a plastic bottle, and that which is natural is that which is organic, then some terrible man steps through a darkened door: taking the “Argument from organics,” then any action or thing which is organic is “natural” or “good.”  For, Wahls is using “natural” and “unnatural” in ethical terms.  Therefore the logical outworking of such a viewpoint is that any sexual act is “natural.”  Recall that Wahls’ use of “natural” is an ethical term, meaning “good.”  By logical extension then, this viewpoint must include bestiality, pederasty, sodomy, or what-have-you.  Further, even cannibalism is “natural” because it is organic.  Now, I believe with my whole heart that Wahls would never support pedophilia, nor would he support cannibalism or bestiality.  Nevertheless, there are no grounds, on this view of ethics, to decry certain behaviors as immoral.  That is because if something is natural it is good.  And if something is organic it is natural.  I hope you can see that without a transcendent, moral law from a personal, Creator-God, there is no justification or grounding for ethics of any kind that does not resort to some kind of relativism.    

But there is a second problem with Mr. Wahls’ “natural/unnatural” argument, and that is a category mistake.  Wahls compares learning how to drive, plastic microphones and his own, plastic water bottle with sexual behavior, using the “natural/unnatural” divide.  The category mistake is that he moves from physical objects (microphones and bottles) to ethical norms (homosexual behavior, or rather, the moral judgment concerning homosexual behavior).   But how can we take a thing like a plastic bottle and compare it to sexual activity and the morality?  And how can we take a category such as natural/unnatural and apply it in different ways to different things in the same argument?  

Consider the argument broken down in logic-book style:
1) Natural is good.
2) Unnatural is manmade stuff.
3) Homosexuality is natural.   
4)  Therefore homosexuality is good.
5) Therefore homosexuality is not unnatural.

You can see that premise number one is inconsistent with premise number two.  In order for 2) to be consistent with 1), 2) would have to change “manmade stuff” to “bad” or “evil.”  Then 2) would contain the opposites necessary in order to make a complete argument.  The opposite of “natural” is “unnatural,” (think: non-natural) but is the opposite of “good” “manmade stuff”?  And of course, presupposed in 1) is the idea that “natural” is “organic.”  And 2) is a tautology.  That is, is “says the same thing” about itself.  Given 1), of course the opposite of natural/organic will be unnatural/inorganic.  The problem is comparing “good” with “that which is manmade.”  And because 2) contains a tautology, it is guilty of equivocation, where a term is used with ambiguity. 

Of course, if we want to use natural/unnatural to describe moral categories, then we should stick with comparing behavior with behavior.  For example, we might say that bestiality is unnatural and that heterosexual unions are natural.  When we do this, we are doing two things.  One, we are saying that categories of the created order apply in terms of sexual activity.  Two, we are saying that “natural” applies to that which is a categorical “fit” and that “unnatural” is a non-categorical “fit.”  Humans are not designed to copulate with animals, and taking that one step further, we may also add that “sameness” in sexuality forgets (or ignores) the necessity for the right kind of differences within the same category: humans who are different in gender are made for each other, whereas humans of the same gender are not. 

So, while Mr. Wahls affirms the “natural/unnatural” argument, he really digs himself into an egregious illogical hole: if that which is natural is that which is “not manmade” i.e. organic, and if that which is unnatural is that which is “manmade” e.g. plastic bottles, then anything on the organic plane is up for grabs in terms of that which is “natural.”  But that is not what Wahls is doing in the argument: he’s trying to argue that “natural” and “unnatural” are moral terms, carrying moral weight.  But why use a moral term in speaking about a plastic bottle because of its origins (man’s use of the material world to make things that are inorganic)? 

Mustering up the courage at the behest of several Ratio Christi students, I saunter up on stage and speak with Zach some more, after waiting for the crowd to dwindle, because I want an in-depth dialogue.  I tell Zach how much I value his courage for speaking about his persecution and the bullying he endured as a junior high and high school student.  I share with him some of the more tragic moments of my own life during that age.  We connect, and he allows me to ask him some fundamental, philosophical questions about human nature: desire and choice and how these things interact with one another.  This is a fascinating discussion.  He tells me that people should behave according to their desires.  So, I ask:

“Are you saying that if I have a desire, I should always act on that desire?” 

Reply: since I am married, I should only act upon my sexual desires with my wife. 

Nevertheless, he sustains his view that people need to follow their desires.  So, I ask him if he thinks that desire and choice are one and the same.  He says yes.  For clarification, I ask him if he believes desire and choice share the same ontology (that is, having one and the same essence, being melded together into a ‘oneness.’).  He affirms this also. 

But if that is true, then how can Zach instruct me to keep my obligations to my wife?  After all, if desire and choice are one and the same, and if humans should act according to their desires and inner affections, how does one argue against adultery, jealousy, theft, slander, hatred, laziness, foul language,  female circumcision, and the like?  We cannot, at this point, resort to the validity of a social contract (in this case, marriage), for the innate essence of desire/choice within humans must and should be satisfied.  Neither can we resort to “personal private rights” or “the right to happiness” because one person’s happiness is another’s loss. Or worse, it’s another’s torture and death.  Wahls’ ethic is arbitrary: on the one hand, I should “do according to my feelings,” and on the other hand, I shouldn’t.  Is a marriage vow a “higher law” than that which would normally dictate my behavior i.e. my desires (remembering that desire and choice have the same ontology)? 

“So, you’re saying that choice and desire are one and the same in essence?” my hands are held together out from my eyes forming a spidery, cradled globe, and he ponders the material arrangement of boney appendages. 

“Yes.  I think so.”

Immediately, our peaceful dialogue is excised by the professor, who pleads with me with a smile and perhaps a notable frustration.  “Please, sir!  Sir!”  Coming around the circle of the stage, “There are other students waiting for questions.  You’ve taken up enough time.  This is not the time or place for such questions.  You should better meet another time and in another place for this discussion…. Please.” 
Turning with a smile and seeing a puzzled Zach, I offer a “Thank you,” to the professor.  For I know that I must treat this man—both men—with the utmost of respect.  This is the command of Christ, and it also builds capital with others for future conversations. 

Zach was kind enough to give me his email.  I sensed that he too, wished we could have spoken longer.

Note:

1) If you want to leave a comment, please do so on the blog, as I will not be responding to facebook comments. 
2) "Anonymous" comments will be deleted.

3) Please use courtesy.  We cannot move forward without it.

Is/Ought Fallacy of Human Sexual Identity

We remember the humorous story when George Costanza got his massage from a handsome, blond male, and how something happened that disturbed George.  The close contact of the masseur's hands near the divergence of George's body caused a modest, yet significant enough sensual reaction in him, with the result of George's questioning his sexuality.  Jerry confirmed with George that no, only a response to direct convergence affirms that one is a homosexual.  George, you're off the hook! Just because something "is" (an experience), doesn't mean it "ought" (a practice) to be that way. 

It is an understatement to say that human sexuality is complex.  Humans are complex beings with a mind, under which operate the will, emotions and conscience.  Sometimes, our emotions dictate to us what we do, and sometimes, we "will" ourselves to do certain things.  Even when our bodies are tired, we don't "feel" like doing something that we "know" would be good.  For example, a person might not "feel" like getting flowers for his wife, but he does it anyway by a sheer act of the will, because he knows (mind), that such a thing is good, and will have positive results in terms of relationship.  Moreover, the emotions that were not present in obtaining the flowers may come along for the ride, after the will has done its work.  The conscience is also renewed by adding to it the experience of the wife's joyful response at the reception of such a gift.  In short, there is a moral development that occurs in such an act, encompassing the whole being.  Since humans are so complex therefore, we should be careful to define sexual identity based upon neither desire nor reaction to certain experiences.  Why? 

First, we need to be careful at labeling ourselves as having a "sexual identity,"  noting that such labels are not helpful.  Why identify yourself this way?  Are people only sexual beings?  Are they not so much more than that?  Alas, here we are with such labels, and labels do help us communicate our ideas.  So, I may say I'm a heterosexual, but that doesn't define who I am, and I certainly don't introduce myself to people as a heterosexual.  Neither does this label exhaust my sexual behavior, as it has perimeters.  I'm a person, first and foremost, who is in a committed, monogamous relationship with a female of the same description (a wonderful woman, in fact).  As Christians, we call it a covenant of marriage.  Now, I find in myself desires that, as a person who is attracted to females, I must use my conscience, will, emotions, and body and bind them in a fixed point of contact and commitment to my wife.  I am not permitted, just because I have attraction to women in general, to have relations with other women, for I have made a covenant with her.  Desires of mine do not dictate to me how I should act.  What is (desire) does not of necessity declare what ought (action) to be.   There are times when we feel angry, silly, or aloof, but that does not mean we should act on those emotions or desires.  We shouldn't throw things or hurt people when we are angry.  We shouldn't act like a goofball at a funeral just because we're hit with a sudden wave of silliness based upon a memory that flitted into our minds from a movie we recently saw.  We need moral development as human creatures, and we therefore are to discipline ourselves as adults and not act as children. 

Secondly, we shouldn't base our sexual identity on experiences and punt to "nature" because of the fact that we are sexual beings.  Unfortunately, some people think that is all that we are.  Nevertheless, just because a boy or a young man in his teens has a homosexual experience that produces physical reactions of arousal or pleasure, that does not mean he is to practice homosexuality.  It doesn't even make him a homosexual.  One's desires do not dictate who they are as persons.

Popular today is the idea that people are "born" homosexual.  Having no recourse to scientific data or proof of this, as no "gay gene" has been found, advocates of homosexuality resort to their innermost feelings or desires.  A good question is asked on the part of the one with homosexual desires: how can I deny my feelings and desires, and this attraction to members of the same gender?  Wouldn't that be denying who I am?  No, because you are not what you desire.  But, if you do have these desires, you can get some help in counseling, and you can control your desires by putting perimeters on them, just as millions of other people do.  But why should you do that?  Why put these desires to death?

Well, I'd say that biology and nature give us a good clue that our bodies have sexual organs designed for a purpose: they fit very well with members of the opposite gender, and in general, they produce life.  History would not happen if humans did not act according to their biological design.  Now of course, many of us are taught that our biology isn't designed at all, that we are a mere accident, popping into existence for no purpose.  This is the Darwinian view of evolutionary biology.  But even on the Darwinian paradigm, homosexuality does not make any sense at all, for biological, macro-evolution bespeaks of the survival of the fittest, and the desire of all animals to propagate themselves and further the species.  This cannot be done, granted a homosexual lifestyle.

Ok, so biology says one story, but my intrinsic desires tell another.  What should I do? Which should have more power: the biology or the innermost desire?  In fact, I feel like my biology is my desire.  How do I handle these emotions, and the conflicting information of the biological data?

Two things.  First I would commend you to consider that if the grand story of biological reproduction is without exception male-female interaction, then this is a fixed point.  You may feel like a ship in a storm, but the fixed point is the design and purpose of your body.  Our emotions and desires are another thing, however.  They are like the waves on the sea: sometimes they rage and swell, and sometimes they lie flat and calm.  The emotions and desires are subject to change, but the ship of biology holds fast to its course, with its sails in the westerly winds.  It shall reach its destination.  Your desires therefore, are the ones that are unfixed, and therefore skewed.  You may know that up until 1973, the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality as a mental disorder (a neurosis), but homosexual lobbyists pressured the APA to change it.  It is common knowledge now from numerous studies, that homosexual behavior is linked with high levels of depression, suicide, and behavior that risks death by disease (HIV/AIDS) in order to obtain sexual pleasure.  Lesson: don't let your desires dictate your behavior.  Perhaps, after all, your desires are in need of repair.  And this may be a life-long management, just as people have to live with anxiety, OCD, bipolar disorder, ADD and so on.  It's part of being a flawed human.  It stinks, I know.  Trust me, because I struggle with some of the things (and more) in the 3rd sentence before this one.

Secondly, I would commend to you that human sexuality is sacred.  If someone rapes another person, that rape victim feels violated.  That is because our bodies are sacred, and created by God to be treated as sacred.  God created us for his own glory and his pleasure with us is to dwell with us and befriend us, serving us in love and instructing us in the way of the good, the true and the beautiful.  When a man and a woman are together in a healthy marriage where the two serve each other in mutual respect and love and produce children after themselves, that is a beautiful thing.  How could we deny that it is so beautiful, good, and true?  Of course, if you do not believe in God, then please consider the previous paragraph, for even on an atheistic, evolutionary account of human origins, homosexuality does not comport with natural selection.

A clear example of the is/ought fallacy is found in the assertion that those who are most opposed to homosexuality are really homosexual, and are simply repressing the natural (as it were) desires deep inside the human heart.  It is saying that because someone has an inclination toward homosexual action, that they must obey this inclination, because it is "only natural" to do so.  But we have seen that just because someone has desires for something, that does not mean they should act on them.  The power of sex often overrides this, however, as we are not merely cognitive creatures who deliberate based upon the light of nature and reason (knowing that nature tells us something about the created order, created by God), but we tend to act in ways of which we are later ashamed.  Christian teaching is that humans are noble creatures, made in God's image, but that we are also deeply flawed and marred, like a warped mirror.  We reflect the glory of God only barely, because of our flawed nature.  We tend to act in ways that are inconsistent with our convictions, our desires, and what nature and reason tell us.

In addition to the "repressed homophobe" argument is the argument from the animal kingdom.  We are told how thousands upon thousands (or maybe hundreds) of animal species practice homosexual sex.  Male sea horses give birth, and certain kinds of primates practice homosexual intercourse.  Well, again, it may be the case that some species in the animal kingdom do this.  The sea horse example however, is a non sequitur, because odd behavioral change here is for the purpose of reproduction, something homosexual sex cannot accomplish.  Now what about the fact that some animals practice homosexual sex?  Didn't I say in the paragraph above that nature should instruct us in terms of our sexual behavior?  If the animals do it for pleasure, why shouldn't humans?

This is a good and a fair question.  After all, perhaps homosexual humans are content to not mate and pass along their genes.  But is this what we see in the animal kingdom?  Do we see animals that are exclusively homosexual?  No.  We don't, do we?  In fact, that's impossible, because animals have an instinct to reproduce.  So, what can we learn from nature?  More specifically, the proper question is, what can we learn from biology?  Biology tells us that certain body parts perform certain functions, and that they are designed that way for a purpose.  It's too bad that Darwinism has told us the lie that their is no purpose or design to our biological systems, because it is evident that they are.  Another thing to consider in the "nature observation" argument is that animals also kill their young when they are gimps, destroy the weak (euthanasia), eat each other, abuse one another in order to gain a mate, and fight to the death.  Should we do the same?

It's funny, odd, and damnable that we do: we abort Down Syndrome babies, as well as healthy ones.  We abuse our children.  We make them sexual slaves and murder them.  We euthanize the elderly and "unproductive," we oppress and murder.  We lie, cheat and steal.  What a terrible lot mankind is!  We're fallen creatures in need of redemption.  

In my short life of 40 years, I've seen a lot of brokenness in terms of sexual sin.  I've seen marriages end because of adultery and/or abuse.  I've heard of cold wives due to the abuse they received as little girls, and I've heard of resultant sex-starved husbands who are leaders in their churches but see prostitutes on the side.  I've seen marriages break up because a man leaves his wife for another man.  I've seen my own life troubled by guilt and shame from my past exploits in sexual sin and pornography as a young, foolish hedonist who's now trying his best to be faithful in heart, soul, mind and body because of my love for Jesus Christ, my love for my wife, my love for the Church.

Were you born this way?  Maybe.  We all have our propensities; we all have desires that are not necessarily healthy; we all have longings for things we can't and shouldn't get.  Just because we have desires for something, or just because we "feel" it in our "genes," that doesn't mean we should act on them.  I may have a propensity for polygamy or polyamorous relationships, but that doesn't mean I should act on them.  My body is sacred, and so is yours.  My sexuality is sacred and so is yours.  What is, is not necessarily what ought to be.  In fact, often what we find is, is what ought not to be.  Hence, the cross of Christ to redeem us from the miserable state in which we find ourselves. 

God bless you,
Chris Van Allsburg


Downloadable free book by Dr. Niel Whitehead, of New Zealand,  "My Genes Made Me Do It: Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence."
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

Gay Marriage

As a latecomer to the blogosphere on this issue, I'm tempted to think that "it's no use" in offering my convictions in the matter; nevertheless, I've come to understand that in order to hold a view, it's a good idea to write it down, and offer my thoughts to the public, though such puts me at risk of being ostracized and labeled with insults.  It's a brave thing these days to offer a dissenting view, and may even cost a job, or physical well-being.  In the least, it may cost--and does cost--the willingness to be abused on a verbal level.  But rather than heaping up abuse against those who differ, we should rather use our reason, avoiding emotional rule, and yet speak with care for others in a logical form of argumentation.  Such discourse is rare these days, sadly, and I've been guilty myself of lofting sardonic aphorisms, which help very little, if at all.  

On with the skinny.  The axiom of our day is twofold, and we exist under the umbrella of two cardinal rules in our society: tolerance and love.  These two concepts are conjoined twins that exist like Hermes' caduceus.  Under the canopy of these two, is written, "You can do anything you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone."  This is the supreme ethic of our day and the zeitgeist of  the 21st century.

It is upon this ethical spirit that the gay marriage proponent rests: tolerance, love, and the injunction of "do whatever you please, but please, don't hurt anyone in the process."  It is therefore intolerable to dissent from the gay marriage proposal, as doing so reeks like the underside of Shelob's belly (what a miserable creature She was.  Way to go Samwise Gamgee!).  Nevertheless, dissent is integral to human society and flourishing; without it, we are nothing more than lemmings rooting for the underdog, just because the Yankees can afford all the good players.  On with the dissent then.  But my dissent from gay marriage is going to come in the form of a few questions (with comments, too).

Let's consider these aforementioned qualifications (the tolerance/love ethic) and our current, unwritten laws that people hold in their minds when thinking of gay marriage, and let's ask some hard questions.  But first let's accept the fact that such consideration in asking hard questions is most certainly not a slippery slope argument.  A slippery slope argument is predictive of future states of affairs.  These questions are not assuming a realm of being that is inevitable in the future, but rather they are aimed at why we justify some laws but not others, when such justification is built upon the tolerance/love ethic.  

1) If it is true that we must tolerate other people out of love, then why cannot people who believe in holding to a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman be treated with admiration and respect?  The answer is because such a view is intolerant of homosexuals who would want to get married.   But the question still stands: given the tolerance ethic, all views should be tolerated and respected, and therefore, one who stands firm in the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman should be tolerated and respected--because that is what tolerance is.  The reason why this is difficult to do is because tolerance as an abstract concept is meaningless unless it is grounded in the concrete absolute of a moral law.  Tolerance, all by itself, is built upon itself, and argues in a vicious cycle of circular reasoning: Tolerate all views, but tolerance is the supreme law.  It's built upon a wheel of relativism, and cannot accomplish the goal it sets out to achieve apart from a transcendent moral law.  Moral laws such as this only make sense in a theistic framework, and theism in the forms we know of (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) exclude homosexual acts from the realm of acceptable behavior.  So, back to square one: if tolerance be the rule we all must follow, how can people hold dissenting views from the populace (or minority) and themselves be tolerated?  I argue that it is not possible on an epistemological plane (leads to moral relativism), and while it's tough politically, it is possible.  But the existential plane is the toughest: how to live with fellow citizens who disagree with me, and even vote against my desires?  In a democracy, tolerance needs to work, and it needs to work both ways.  We tolerate each other for each others' views, while accepting that we hold to different values concerning ethics.  Vote, and accept the vote without recourse to slander and revenge tactics (in the case of the former link, there are numerous stories of homosexuals taking revenge on heterosexuals.  Note: heterosexuals should NEVER harass or harm homosexual people.  They are made in God's image and deserve to be treated with dignity). 

2) Love:  "If two people love each other they should be able to marry." This sounds simple enough and true, for love is the other supreme ethic of our day, as it should be.  But, let us ask and think for a moment: what is love?  Is it an emotion?  Is it a decision of commitment?  Is it a contract or covenant?  Is it self-sacrifice?  If someone loves someone else, does that mean they should be married?  Is that the only rule required to be met in order to marry?  Nicht so schnell.  When people utter this normative ethic, they have a number of things in mind:

a) A couple, comprising of two, and only two people. This leaves polygamy out (but is that fair?). 
b) Adults, and not minors, may marry (with exceptions from state to state: pregnancy, parental consent or court approval).    
c) Not related.  This leaves out siblings, cousins (in about half of the United States, and includes exceptions and conditions, such as non-procreative laws, genetic counseling, and prohibition of double first cousins only).  And of course, people are not allowed to marry their nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles, or parents.
d) Human.  Obvious, but still....When people say, "Two people who love each other should be allowed to marry," they presuppose the moral law that humans should only marry humans.  But what if--what if--someone wanted to marry her horse? 

But how is it that love is the only requirement necessary for two people to marry?  And if homosexuals marry, who are we as a society to prohibit polygamous marriage?  And who are we to deny someone the right to marry his sister, mother, or aunt?  There is indeed, something inside us that says, "No, that wouldn't be right."  True--it wouldn't (although, whether on an evolutionary account, or the Genesis account--our origins are dependent upon inter-sibling unions).  And why should we not allow grown men to marry boys?  That's ridiculous, I know--though some men would want to do it.  We call them pedophiles.  They call it "intergenerational love," and NAMBLA.  Nevertheless, I'm asking you: how would you formulate a cogent argument against such a thing? Who are you to say a man shouldn't marry a boy, after all?  On what grounds do you do so?  What if the boy says he wants to consent?  And on and on.  Sexual ethics matter, don't they?

My conviction is that gay marriage is not good for society.  This is because it redefines marriage and flattens it into something amorphous, which is defined by the relative terms "tolerance" and "love," with no epistemological referent to what tolerance and love actually are.  Now, we live in a post-Christian United States, but it's important for my readers to understand that I hold to the Christian view of God, man and the world.  So then, the Christian concept of love is that love is rooted in God's character, which is goodness, holiness, justice, righteousness and love.  These attributes work in conjunction with each other, and are reflected in the created order (male and female) and in his holy law given at Mt. Sinai to Israel though Moses.  This is the Christian view of love and marriage, and to ask me to keep my views out of the public square is really to ask me to not be a Christian, because being a Christian means allowing the word of God to speak to every area of my life, including education, economics, law, and so forth.  (I don't advocate a theocracy, so chill).  

The second reason for my dissent from the popular view is that homosexual sex between men is highly dangerous in terms of disease, depression, and physical harm.  The Center for Disease Control's Fact Sheet shows the dangers of this activity.  The second line reads, "MSM (men who have sex with men) account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections)."  A moral society should not promote sexual patterns which result in such perils of disease and depression--depression which often leads to suicide.

Finally, gay marriage does indeed open the door wider in a society of an already crumbling, family ethos.  Society no longer deems it normal for a family to exist in the form of a husband and wife with their children (even having more than two is out of the norm).  Gay marriage then, produces a mindset in culture that not only eschews the traditional family as the ideal, but also encourages that ambivalence towards it.  And it's a strange thing, because studies are on the increase that children do best when nurtured by a mother and father, and that in a situation where there is a single income (something very difficult to do today).  See economist Richard Wolff on this. 
 
Alternate scenario.  Let's say god doesn't exist.  If there is no god, or if god exists, but has not revealed his will and character to us, then of course, there is no moral law, and there is no reason to prohibit marriage to anyone.  On such a scenario, perhaps humans would still flourish, but more than likely, in a society, as studies show, humans flourish where monogamous marriage is the way of life.  For a study on this go here.  

Homosexual Sex

Introduction

Two boys and their dog were walking along the shore of Lake Michigan in the Spring.  The clear waters, crisp and calm lap with a kind hand, grasping the singing sands under the bare feet.  (The sands along this shore really do sing--it's one of seven areas of the world where this is so).  The dog, a golden retriever, dances on the bank to discover a rotten carp.  The fish's large scales give way to decaying flesh underneath.  The dog sniffs it, takes a bite, and begins to feast upon the carcass.  "Don't do that!" says the younger boy, his nose crinkled and mouth furled at the smell.  "Why not? says the older.  "He can eat what he wants.  Besides, it's part of the natural process of the dog to get rid of nature's trash."  "No," says the younger boy.  "Dogs like ours shouldn't eat this garbage.  This is fit only for racoons, and foul birds."  "Foul," says the other boy and laughs.  "Did you mean that as a pun?"  "What?" says the other, not understanding.  "Never mind," replies the older.  "Why not include the dog as part of nature to clean up nature?  Why only racoons and nasty birds for this rotten fish?"  He too, held his nose over the stench.  By this time, the dog had had enough, and left the fish to rot on the shore.  "Because, you see?  The dog doesn't want it.  And besides, he's a better animal than racoons and gross birds.  He knows better than to eat this...stuff."  "Well, he didn't seem to know that much," laughs the older.  "He's eaten some of it, all right."  "Yeah, well--now he's learned: he needs fresh fish.  Rotten fish is nasty and good for only nasty animals whose job it is to clean up.  Then the flies, and then nothing."  The younger boy calls the dog, and the three keep traipsing through the singing sand, picking up pieces of driftwood, and leaving the dead fish and its odor behind them. 

Is there a purpose to sex, beyond one's personal taste and pleasure?  Should humans consume whatever they see along the shore of life and partake of what is has to offer?  Are their guidelines for us to follow?  Must we resort to sacred writings to build an edifice of sexual ethics and norms, or can we walk along the shore of the natural world and learn how things should be?

 

Purpose

Not wanting to be hoisted upon my own petard, venturing into the waters of sexual ethics and offering any  kind of advice or imprimatur whatever is risky business these days: "let me have my sex the way I want it, and don't you dare tell me what to do with my body."  This is the quintessential axiom and sentiment in Western culture, if not worldwide (think: the sex slave trade and other forms of prostitution).  Nevertheless, reason demands that we charter out and cast our nets for a catch. Will there be a message in a bottle along these shores, giving us in our feeble, depraved, and yet noble condition something in which to imbibe, to live by?  Can we do so and still be fulfilled as humans, eking out a meager existence, obtaining pleasure before life is over?  In short: are there laws regarding sex, and do these laws preclude happiness and joy?  

In this post, the discussion will center upon one particular sexual act, and that is homosexual sex.  A better term for homosexual sex is rather "bi-andro-sex," because homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender.  (Homosexual should probably be called homogender sex as well, as gender denotes maleness or femaleness and sex denotes the act of intercourse).  So, biandrosex.  Most people reading this will know that the author is a Christian, but no recourse to holy writ will be presented, as such a source is dismissed out of hand by its own nature.  Rather, an appeal to the natural world will be made.  It is the contention here that a study of the natural world excludes biandrosex from an activity that should be deemed natural or normative.  On the contrary, the attempt is made here to show that such activity is out of accord with nature, purely from a natural perspective. 

Evolution and Naturalism

A Darwinian perspective on biological evolution teaches us that natural selection acts upon random mutations producing genetic sequencing for the survival of the fittest among a species.  Homo sapiens must reproduce or die out as a species, and therefore must produce.  But if biandrosex is genetically predetermined in the human genome, then the homo sapien animal engaging in this behavior will not pass along his genes, and will die out.  A biandrosexual gene would be a "non-mating" gene, and would predetermine that animal from reproducing. Heterosexual sex would not even enter into the natural instinct (or mind, if you will) of the animal, and hence his "species within the species" would die out, leaving only the heterosexually active animals available in the gene pool.  Now, one might argue that the biandrosexual gene is a recessive gene, and exists en masse in the heterosexually active animals.  But where is such a gene?  This argument is ad hoc, and serves only as a weak recourse to justify biandrosex.  If Darwinism is true, biandrosex is counter to the selective process.  Even if a biandrosexual gene were recessive, it would only be active in the animal when dominant.  And if it becomes dominant, then the animal will die off, not passing along his biandrosexual gene--whether recessive or otherwise.  And over millions and millions of years of biological evolution, surely such a gene would be cast out of the pool.  Therefore, those who espouse biandrosex as viable for human activity must either deny the Darwinist concept of biological evolution, or they must come to terms that they are living in direct contradiction to it. 

Nature 

A second argument consists in a close look at the human body.  This section may sound a bit crude to some with sensitive eyes, yet it is necessary to discuss parts of the body in their nomenclature in order to think about the issue at hand.  Anal tissue is specifically designed for eliminating waste.  This waste is primarily made of bacteria.  Feces, as the waste product of the body, is carried along the colon and rectum and issued out via the anus as part of nature's perfect design for getting rid of this riddance, riddled with microbes harmful to the human body if ingested though the mouth or the blood stream or though the opening of the penis.  

We also note that the anus is simply not designed for sexual intercourse, as the vagina is.  The penis and the vagina compliment each other perfectly and the production is typically life: a human being.  There is no life in biandrosex.  There is disease, however.  From Wiki:

"Unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission. Other infections that can be transmitted by unprotected anal sex are human papilloma virus (HPV) (which can increase risk for anal cancer and typhoid fever), amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8); lymphogranuloma venereum; Mycoplasma hominis; Mycoplasma genitalium; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis; and Ureaplasma urealyticum."

That is a lot of different diseases.  Any wonder, as feces is 80% bacteria.  

Now, one might argue that vaginal sex and oral sex may also offer disease.  This is true, but according to the Center for Disease Control, unprotected receptive anal sex is 50 times more probable in the acquisition of HIV than among those who engage in oral sex, or vaginal sex (receptive).  The science does not lie.  Anal sex is just not the design of nature, and medicine shows it.  

It is abundantly clear, then that the way the body is made, as anal tissue is subject to tearing, and designed for eliminating waste, and also from the science of medicine, that anal sex is not nature's way.  

Lastly, let us take an elementary look at the other animals in the world around us.  We see natural course of things in male/female reproduction.  That's the way it works.  Are there asexual animals that reproduce?  Yes.  But that is asexuallity.  Not biandrosexuality.  

Conclusion: Will This Argument be Believed?  

Perhaps.  But people are not mere animals.  People have emotional ties.  And homosexual couples who love each other are not going to be deterred by a short blog post about biological evolution, disease and an appeal to the simple observation of nature.  Why?  Is it because good arguments do not work?  No.  It is because humans have passions, desires, relationships, hopes, longings, and a whole host of other mental and emotional states tied into their wills, consciences, belief systems, and worldviews.  If anything, this post might nudge someone in a direction they are already in: that biandrosex is contrary to the natural order, and that if Darwinism is true, then biandrosex should not exist, and only as an aberration if it does.  Biandrosexual proponents will no doubt try to make an appeal to a theistic framework that the Creator has made them as such.   Or, they might hold fast to the "recessive gene" argument.  Or, they may bypass the facts of medicine and biology and make an emotional appeal to carrying out their desires of biandrosex based solely upon personal passion.  The attempt here has been to approach the subject at hand with as much objectivity as possible, and I hope that has been done.  The only way forward in this discussion is to be ready and available to accept one's views and respect them, something missing on both sides of the controversy.  One final remark should be noted: biandrosexual proponents often chide those who relegate said sexual activity to the shoreline of a rotting fish, decrying such demarcation as judgmental and out of line.  However, we do well to remember John Lennox's question to Richard Dawkins in reply to Dawkins' injunction to Lennox that people stay out of the others' business when it comes to sex.  Lennox: "Tell that, Richard, to all the children who've been abused."  We do well to construct a sexual ethic.  The protection of the human race depends upon it. 

 

 

On the Two Lesbians Who Raised an Incredible Young Man

The video shared on the net and primarily through facebook about the fine, young man raised by two lesbians is being used to show that it is indeed possible for a person to be raised as a responsible, educated, and industrious citizen without the aid of a male/female parentage, the latter vision of which so often appears in the minds of people when the term "traditional marriage" is invoked as a cultural norm. After all, we must ask ourselves, is it not better, indeed--far better--for such a situation to occur than for one to be raised in an abusive, albeit "traditional home"? We should not dispute that it is not better. Of course it is better to be raised in an atmosphere of love, compassion, encouragement, et. al, as opposed to one of ridicule, neglect and abuse. What would the world be like if all children had such a life? The world would instantly change into a paradise full of grown-ups fulfilled in every sense with the self-esteem required in order to apply personal ambition and dreams, as well as the selflessness required in order to perpetuate this kind new world rolling with fields of love and compassion. Ah, blessed hope! To this end we are striving.
The young man appeals to the courts and to his fellow citizens to please vote in favor of gay marriage. "After all," we are told, "look at me: I'm a fine citizen and proof of what is necessary in order to make the world a better place. Imagine if I had been raised in a home where there was no love, or an abusive home. I could be a common criminal, but instead I am a fine, upstanding young man." We applaud this young man!
But wait. Let's put our emotions aside and think for a moment. Is something good because it produces a desired result? Let's think of a different scenario. Think of a parent who *does* abuse his child. The child is beaten upon the first instance of disobedience. The child is chided when mistakes are made in school. The child is given a stern look when "tomfoolery" is detected. The child then grows up to be a hard-working, industrious, educated, producer--a CEO of a big business. He provides jobs for 1000's of people. He gives to charity. Maybe his marriage suffers (or even fails) because he is unable to enjoy life because of his upbringing and his work ethic and his askance toward "tomfoolery" aka, "having a laugh." But all the same--he's a good guy. Now, would we argue that his abusive parents (or dad) was right in doing so? After all, look at what has been produced? That's ridiculous, you say. You are right--it is ridiculous to say his stern, mean father was good and right for doing what he did and *being* who he was.
"But wait," you say. You're are using a bad example, for our example is one of two, loving lesbians who raised an upstanding young man, whereas your example is one of a harsh, stern parentage (or, just the dad) which produced something similar." Correct again. But perhaps you will see my point in this: the outcome of something does not validate its origins, and this we call pragmatism. Pragmatism says, "If it works, it's good." In our case of the lesbian couple, we are told to vote "yes" for gay marriage because of a particular outcome, in this case, the outcome of a fine, upstanding young man. (Of course, we know nothing of this man's personal life, other than a 3-minute video, so we really know him not at all, but let us take it for granted that these 3 minutes are sufficient to the task at hand). Pragmatic theories of ethics are not desirable tests for social structures, however. For pragmatism proves nothing except that some things work. Many cultures have resorted to pragmatism in order to produce desired results: Stalinist Russia, the Nazis, pagans who sacrifice to idols, Southerners who owned slaves. So, just because something produces a desired result, does not mean it is, in and of itself, good and right. And, we should note that while we can be thankful that such a fine, young man has had his genesis and nurture from this lesbian couple, it does nothing to say for others who may have been raised in similar households who have not enjoyed such success. Does one, good example nullify any (possible) negative ones?
Please note: I am not comparing those who support gay marriage to the aforementioned groups who have committed atrocious crimes against humanity. These are only glaring examples of pragmatism.
If gay marriage is going to be argued as something that our society should affirm, proponents of it need to argue on better grounds than those of pragmatism, for as we have seen, pragmatic arguments are weak, and should not be accepted as solid criterion upon which to build a societal ethic.
Now, we may also note that the argument is
*two people who love each other should not be told they cannot marry.
But we need to ask ourselves why we should limit ourselves to *two* people in a marriage? And what rules should there be concerning age, or relation? The argument proposed by the proponents of gay marriage rests on "two people in love with each other." But surely this is insufficient. There is an intuitive, unmentioned assumption that the following rules apply:
1) no close relatives
2) no minors married to adults
3) no human/nonhuman unions
4) no minors married to minors
5) no more than *two* people per marriage.
But why, and on what grounds? If we must throw away the traditions that bind and oppress us and keep us from loving each other, then why must we obey rules 1-5? (Rules 1-5, by the way were codified millennia ago by Moses to his fellow Hebrew freedmen). What of the old woman who loves her faithful pet? What of the uncle who loves his niece? What of the cousins who love each other? We'll not go further and insult ourselves with gross illustrations. Ah, I've insulted you now. I should stop. But, please allow me to ask: why must we obey any rules at all? Why must rules 1-5 apply? After all, who is to say that it is wrong? And how would you respond to someone who says, "But we love each other?"
By now perhaps you are angry with me, for I have dared to make such statements and ask such questions. But I am only asking questions, and I am asking what I do trust is done so in humility and love. For now, however, the burden of proof is not upon the "traditionalist" but on those who would change the tradition of one man/one woman for marriage (with additional rules about age and relation). Yes, the burden of proof is on the proponents of gay marriage to provide grounds for their position, based not upon pragmatism, and also to answer questions 1-5, and especially number 5.