“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Aberrations of Human Sexuality Cannot Be Justified

Plaque on the Pioneer space probe

On today’s broadcast of “Just Thinking” by Ravi Zacharias, one of my favorite Christian thinkers and apologists, the issue of homosexuality is discussed.

Homosexual activists and apologists frequently accuse those who disapprove of homosexual behavior of “hate” and “discrimination” because of their opposition.  We saw that last night in the discussion of changes to the Rapid City School District nondiscrimination policy.

Actually, our opposition has nothing at all to do with such things.  It has to do with what is both scientifically the proper use of our bodies, and the proper moral use of our bodies.  It is quite clear in both of these areas what is the correct use of our bodies, and homosexual behavior does not qualify.

In the broadcast today, Zacharias answered a question about Christian opposition to homosexuality by telling a story about a conversation he once had with a woman.  The woman told him she perceived a double standard among Christians concerning racism and homosexual behavior.

I’ll tell you what turns me away from Christianity.  You people will talk against racism an awful lot, and I respect that, but then when it comes to the homosexual you discriminate against homosexuals.  I see that double standard.”

Zacharias pointed out that the first part of her question dealt with an idea (racism), while the second part was personalized and made about a person (“the homosexual”).

The reason we are against racism is because a person’s race is sacred.  One’s ethnicity is sacred; you cannot violate it.  My race is sacred, your race is sacred, I dare not violate it.  The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do is because sexuality is sacred.  You cannot violate it.

My question to you is, ‘How do you treat sacred one and desacralize the other?’  If you can answer that, I will be glad to answer you, then.

She was silent and she said, ‘I’ve never thought of it in those terms.’

Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no more justify an aberration of it in somebody elses life than I can justify my proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries.  Every man here who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse?  Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight, entertained by the imagination, and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter.  They are not; they leave you emptier.

So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity, and that goes across the board for all sexuality.

When God created mankind and womankind, it was his plan, not our plan.

If you are one of the few people who believe human beings are only highly evolved animals that are the end-product of innumerable random biological events, then the question of morality is irrelevant to you (though biological function still points inescapably to heterosexual conduct).  Those who call themselves Christian, however, do not have the option of disregarding the moral question.

Besides the very clear language in the Bible in both Old and New Testaments which tells us God does not approve of homosexual behavior as a perversions of his design for human sexuality, people who call themselves Christian but who claim God approves of homosexual behavior miss this fundamental truth about human sexuality: God as our creator sets the standard, and we as his children are obligated to live by that standard.

When we fail to do so so, we not only put our spiritual destiny in jeopardy, we  invite the physical and emotional consequences of acting contrary to the way in which we were created to behave.  In addition to the teaching of the Bible, nature and science themselves testify to the fact that our bodies were created to function in a heterosexual manner; everything about our sexuality points to heterosexual function.

As Zacharias pointed out, our skin color is an innate physical characteristic.  It is a genetic trait and a part of who we are; there is nothing moral or immoral about our skin color.

Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, has never (despite decades of desperate research by pro-homosexual researchers) been found to have a genetic cause. Instead,  the most reliable evidence points toward relational problems and dysfunctions when a person is very young that distort their understanding of how same and opposite sexes are supposed to relate to one another.

One cannot change their skin color, but people can and do change their sexual behavior.  People have been leaving behind homosexual behavior for thousands of years,  and many continue to do so today.

Homosexual behavior cannot be equated to innate, morally-neutral physical characteristics, and we do people caught up in homosexual behavior a grave disservice when we tell them they cannot change, and when we whitewash the very real spiritual and physical dangers associated with this behavior.

Failing to warn another person of danger is not a loving act.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


27 Responses to “Aberrations of Human Sexuality Cannot Be Justified”

  1. It continues to amaze me that there can even be any debate about this issue. If nature itself doesn't tell you there's something wrong with homosexual behavior, you just ain't listening. Alas, even the most obvious truths will be denied by people if doing so serves some purpose for them.

    Thanks for an article that cuts through some of the nonsense and fallacious logic that's used to make homosexuality out as “normal.” I'd like to add something myself: You know the common argument that “infertile couples are allowed to marry and *they* can't have children, so why can't same-sex people marry”? Well, the former is merely an example of the potential natural purpose of sex not being completely fulfilled. That's not the same as *violating* the natural purpose, which is what homosexuality does.

  2. I am against gay marriage, but don't understand how people can claim to know homosexuality is always a choice or a decision. They say that God either makes us male or female and we should act sexually as such. Well, there are many instances where we are not born either male or female, but with characteristics of both. The recent Australian track star that had internal testes with female genitalia, but was genetically a male, is one. Intersexuality syndrome.In some the testes produce the male hormone, but the body rejects it.God then can create ambiguity sexually.

    How do we know that doesn't happen in a developing fetal brain as well that is exposed to too much or too little hormone or chemical that would in turn affect one mentally. Maybe those who come out of their homosexual behavior were affected by their poor upbringing, but maybe those who don't change can't because of some chemical influence in the fetal stage.

    We know these fetal exposures to chemicals can cause bodies to be transgendered( like the track runner). Why couldn't the brain be permantly affected and transgendered as well. In this imperfect world, we have terrible mental and physical birth defects. Couldn't a chemical or hormonal imbalnce not yet discovered affect the brain permantly as well ?

  3. When a person is discovered to have “internal testes” and is a female, that almost sounds like a weird birth defect involving twins, where one of them got assimilated into the other's body and only partly developed. You're right that in this sick and fallen world, birth defects occur.

    The Bible tells us that sins of our forefathers are passed on to later generations. Besides the curse of sins (for the unredeemed), that also includes tendencies toward certain sins. If you are born with a proclivity for homosexuality and are exposed to homosexual influences, especially when you're young, you might very well believe that homosexuality is inherant. Of all the various birth defects, I doubt an “embryonic homosexual hormone brain bath” will ever be discovered to be the cause of homosexuality.

    Just like other immoral tendencies, homosexual behavior is a choice. I used to struggle terribly with jealousy, something I never believed I would be free from. It gripped me, and I embraced it, from my teens until I was close to forty, and it really did seem almost an inherent quality in my mind and heart. But, the Lord had mercy on me and delivered me from that vicious monster of jealousy. It was a miraculous delivery for me. If God can free me from that extremely addictive and destructive mind-set, he can deliver a homosexual from the powerful and destructive addiction of homosexuality.

  4. Gina Truly very happy you have overcome the ' jealousy ' thing because it can indeed cause great harm. I used to have issues with it as well, but through different means than you, was able to cast it out. Life changing indeed.

    My point is if an embryonal hormone or chemical bath can cause drastic physical bodily changes, why cant it cause drastic brain physical changes as well that cause us to confuse our gender. We know for instance that schizophrenia is not a choice, but a chemical defect that affects our perception of the world and who we are. Christians once thought that schizophrenia was due to demon possession, but science disproved that. All I am saying is that maybe, or maybe not, that science will find a cause for transgendered behavior other than upbringing and environment. At least we should keep looking and not assume it is simply a choice like hallucinations were once thought to be the work of demons.

  5. Brian, I do understand what you're saying, and I know that sympathetic scientists are working around the clock to physically justify homosexuality and related behaviors.

    Has science REALLY disproved demon possession? I don't think so. Were Jesus (Who is God, and made us) and his apostles “misguided” when they were “casting out demons?” You see that everywhere Jesus and his apostles went, they healed the sick and cast out demons. Those two things are always together; they are related. Our modern world has all but buried the knowledge and awareness of demon possession, but it was evident and common in biblical times, and I do not believe it has gone away. In fact, where it is not acknowledged, it will flourish all the more.

    A demon is a spirit being, and at our cores, we are spirit beings. I do not understand what it truly means for a demon to inhabit or “possess” a person's spirit, but it's probably the terrible, dark and evil counterpart to the Holy Spirit inhabiting our spirits when we invite Him in, which is also more than my little mind can grasp. A demon is quite able to create physical manifestations in a person he occupies, thus the “chemical imbalance” and other physical aberrations. Remember in Mark, chapter 5, the demon-possessed man who lived among the tombs who had super-human strength? I'll bet the scientists would've found a heck of a “chemical imbalance” in his head if they had been able to study him before Jesus sent the demons out of him.

    I know you won't accept my ideas on this, and that's okay. It really is unconventional to think this way in our day, but I've never been a very “conventional” person, anyway. :-)

  6. Well you are right that science will never disprove that demon possession doesn't cause chemical imbalances that in turn could cause things like schizophrenia and things like seizures, which were also thought to be caused by demons.Your basic premise is inargueable and I loved the part about scientists would have probably found one heck of a chemical imbalance in a person with hallucinations or even seizures before Jesus cast them out.Wished we had had functional MRI scans back then to compare pre and post casting out.

    But to me the question is do you believe that things like seizures are caused by demons changing our brain chemicals or by an irritated electrical group of cells in the brain, like heart irregularities are caused by a irritated group of electrical cells. Or today, right now, do you feel that hallucinations and seizures are chemical defects that just happen in a body that doesn't always function correctly or due to demons ?

    It is my perception and I could be wrong that most Christians would believe seizures, hallucinations etc are not demon related

  7. You're probably quite right that most people who profess to be Christians do not believe in demon possession, much less demon possession that causes these inexplicable physical ailments. Many of those same people who profess to be Christians are also on Prozac or other psychotropic drugs to combat their perceived “chemical imbalances.” HA!

    Brian, you will certainly think me crazy, but I do firmly believe that demon possession is rampant in our world today, and I do mean RAMPANT. I believe it is so pervasive because almost no one “sees” it. If no one sees it, how can anyone combat it? In answer to your question, yes, I do believe many of the “mental” ailments are cases of spiritual possession by demons. To risk completely enraging the establishment, I would state that I believe children are HUGE targets of demons, with autism, epilepsy, and many other things, very likely inspired by demons. Not only that, but I would further state that there are demons of homosexuality. Look at homosexual men and women. They have a common look. The men have a certain look about their face that is unique to homosexual men (especially around their mouths), and likewise, the women have a unique look about them, as well. This is not something I've ever heard anyone say, but I've noticed it and believe it is due to a common set of demons that these people invite into themselves.

    Anyway, Brian, I will stop now, before I say any more “crazy” stuff. Have a nice night, and stay warm.

  8. Now, now. You should know as well as anyone that we don't establish rules based on the exception, and deformities of the sex organs is rare. And in those rare cases, there are usually factors that can help the person live a relatively normal life, not against the grain of their sexuality, but with it.

    There is no hard evidence whatsoever that homosexuality has a biological cause, and clinical evidence leans heavily toward environmental factors. People have been leaving homosexual behavior to live heterosexual lives for thousands of years, so obviously change can be chosen. I choose not to be a drunk anymore, and as Zacharias pointed out, he (and I) choose not to follow my proclivity to have sex with women who are not my wife.

    Living morally in a fallen world is not easy, but it is the best way to be healthy and fulfilled. We should encourage people caught up in homosexual behavior to that end, rather than encouraging them to remain in their sinful and unsafe lifestyle.

  9. ” Living morally in a fallen world is not easy ” I know what what you mean. Living morally in a naturalists world ain't always too easy either. Hope we both keep it up.

  10. “I don't understand how people can claim to know homosexuality is always a choice or a decision.” I absolutely do not believe it's a choice or a decision to have homosexual drives, and I think people need to stop treating that as if that's the only alternative to “inborn & unchangeable.” As Bob says, it seems to have a lot to do with environmental factors, although I also believe such factors only lead to gay identification in people with certain dispositions.

    Anyway, the point is that homosexual drive is not inborn and unchangeable, and anyone who thinks it is is denying an awful lot of real life.

    Also note that a recovered “gay” man (for example) is not going to be lusting after every babe that walks by. That's not normal either. And it's awesome when someone can go from homosexual activity to a normal, healthy marriage, but that's a long-term goal, if it should even be a goal for a given person at all.

  11. dcm You make many good points and to me it boils down to the age old question of nuture vs. nature. And agree that many homosexuals have known environmental factors that can lead to gay identification in certain people with certain dispositions. But these same studies show that many homosexuals don't have any recognizable environmental influences that would sway them to such behavior.

    To me, the truth is that in all human behavior, no one yet knows how much is nature and how much is nuture. We simply don't yet have a way of knowing and probably never will. For either side to say or claim to have this knowledge of how much we are influened by nature or nuture, can't be telling the truth when they claim 'to know' absolutely that they are right

  12. Gina

    The best nurse I ever had and who stayed with me for 18 years until her husband got transferred, believed in the devil and demons. Since either one of us brought our religion (or non-religion in my case) to work, we fit like a hand in a glove.We still stay in touch.

    I respect someone who believes as you do, but my concern is what effect it might have on scientific research and advancement. Would a young Pasteur or others like him still have searched their entire lives for biologic causes of disease if they had been heavily inculcated with the idea that disease was to due demons and that's it.

    It would seem to me that it would have a stymying effect on at least some of these pioneers and possibly many of them, not to ' look further' for biologic explanations.Yes there were probably some who held demonic beliefs and contributed to science, but how many did this type of belief impede scientifically ? Could it be impeding some brilliant child today who might be the next Pasteur or discover something that could improve all of humanity.Does it impede scientific curiosity ?.That is what concerns me

  13. Brian, I've heard those points made before by people who believe science and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I could not disagree more with that thinking. God made science possible. A true scientist should see God. God is evident in all of creation, and He can guide the hands and minds of scientists who seek Him. I firmly believe that the life-saving discoveries made in science and medicine were gifts from God. Many great thinkers, scientists and discoverers have been Christians who knew God and sought to learn as much as they could about the creation in whatever way God inspired them to excel.

    Our evil world has so perverted the truth, that people are unable to see that true science is the study of God's creation, with the knowledge that it is indeed God's creation. And, Who better to seek to know the creation than the One who made it? Talk about life-saving discoveries happening! The scientist who has the God-given wisdom to ask the right questions, with the right heart, now there's a scientist who will make some mind-blowing “discoveries.”

  14. Gina

    I believe everything you say is true and believe you me, am not one of those who says science and Christianity are incompatible. Thousands of Christians have and will continue to contribute to science in a major way. Isaac Newton is a hero of mine.A very religious man and brilliant scientist.

    My only concern , here and now in the real world, is could some religious beliefs lead some child, somewhere, to not develope the crtical thinking needed to break out of such boundaries like 'demons cause disease' or ' demons cause seizures'. We know about the Newtons, Gallileo's and Francis Collins', but we don't know of the brilliant child now or in the past that could have had their critical thinking abilities reduced or stymied by such fixed beliefs.Rigid indoctrination into any belief, whether it be religion or atheism, can affect how a child critically and objectively sees the world around them and thus hamper the brain from expanding scientifically.

    You could make the same argument against the atheist- Why worry about science since we are nothing anyway.

    It is a worry I have about both camps.

  15. Or people could spend years looking for a medical solution when the problem is a spiritual one. Then the vain search for a chemical or biological solution to a problem could impede much-needed spiritual healing.

    The answer, then would seem to be to look for physical solutions where possible, and spiritual solutions where possible, and to try and apply the discernment to know when one is more likely to work than the other.

    And in matters that are moral, the spiritual is far more likely to hold the cure.

  16. Well, the question about the child whose critical thinking abilities might be stymied, is a question with no answer. If something does not happen, say the kid does not grow up and develop the disease vaccine, then how can we know if it would've happened otherwise? It's a hypothetical premise, and thinking like I do, I would say the Christian would be more likely to have clear, correct, critical thinking abilities BECAUSE he is a Christian than would the non-Christian.

    So, if you and I start from different premises, then it's a more difficult discussion. I do understand what you're saying though, but I disagree with the premise – that a child raised as a Christian is somehow going to be less able to engage in critical thinking (but, I would think the atheist is screwed up no matter what). That's an idea the world has promoted about Christians, and it could not be further from the truth. To be aware of the existence and power of the Lord and the rest of the invisible, spiritual world around us, gives a person an advantage that nonbelievers do not have.

    To understand that demons exist does not mean to also disbelieve in the reality of sickness and disease; in fact, it would likely help elucidate cause and effect. Just because I know that demons have always been around to wreak havoc on mankind, does not mean that, were I a scientist, I would not seek the Lord for help and do my very best to find answers, if they are to be found in the physical world.

  17. Brian, I accidentally posted free-standing just now, but it was meant as a reply to you. :-)

  18. I'm testing now. I could've sworn I replied to you that last time, but it posted alone. Testing…

  19. This may be a problem with Disqus. I now know I did reply to Brian, but it's posting as a stand-alone comment. This may have to do with a pink/red error message that has been appearing for a couple of days above the comments section that claims my cookie settings are not right for signing in to Disqus, although I have not changed the cookie settings. I can't reply to Brian now, unless this one actually posts as a reply, which I am attempting to do. It's also acting weird when I post a comment – it acts like it “locks up,” but when I close the page or refresh it, the comment has posted. Here goes…

  20. Gina

    I too have had some recent problems signing on even as guest. No matter, your comment that ” I would think the atheist is screwed up no matter what” really hit my funny bone. Your bluntness has a refreshing quality to it that geezers like myself, Bob and dr.theo don't possess.Sorry about that Bob and dr. theo.

  21. Brian, I was hoping that would make you smile. :-D

  22. No offense taken, Dr. Rutledge. I have written to Gina in the past to thank her for her comments and to say as much. She brings a point of view and a bluntness that I appreciate and respect. She is a very welcome contributor to Dakota Voice, as are you.

  23. No offense taken, Dr. Rutledge. I have written to Gina in the past to say as much. She is a very welcome contributor to Dakota Voice.

  24. “…these same studies show that many homosexuals don't have any recognizable environmental influences that would sway them to such behavior.” I wonder if the people involved in said studies know what environmental influences they're supposed to be looking for. The lives of gay-identified people as a whole seem to have some very definite patterns (different ones for men vs. women) if you know what to look for, just like there's a set of environmental patterns commonly found in porn addicts.

    That said, it's reasonable to say you can't pin it all down to any one simple thing, which is one of the immediate problems with claiming “it's inborn” or “it's chosen.” There is probably a whole set of causes, and even the most common & simple pattern certainly would involve more than one factor.

  25. “…these same studies show that many homosexuals don't have any recognizable environmental influences that would sway them to such behavior.” I wonder if the people involved in said studies know what environmental influences they're supposed to be looking for. The lives of gay-identified people as a whole seem to have some very definite patterns (different ones for men vs. women) if you know what to look for, just like there's a set of environmental patterns commonly found in porn addicts.

    That said, it's reasonable to say you can't pin it all down to any one simple thing, which is one of the immediate problems with claiming “it's inborn” or “it's chosen.” There is probably a whole set of causes, and even the most common & simple pattern certainly would involve more than one factor.