The crease the number of visible gay and trans people is sometim treated as a cursy or a e for ncern by crics, but ’s not a surprise. It’s normal.
Contents:
- THE 'GAY GENE' IS A MYTH BUT BEG GAY IS 'NATURAL,' SAY SCIENTISTS
- WHO ARE YOU LLG UNNATURAL? EVEN IF FLORIDA TEACHERS DON'T SAY GAY, SCIENCE SURE DO
- ABANDONG NATURE: SOME REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALY IS WRONG MARCH 19, 2014BY STEVEN COWANCULTURE ABANDONG NATURE: SOME REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALY IS WRONGSTEVEN COWAN2020-03-22T04:08:31+00:00WARNING: THIS ARTICLE NTAS SEXUALLY EXPLIC LANGUAGE THAT MAY NOT BE SUABLE FOR YOUNGER REARS.—EDORAUTHOR: STEVE COWAN –TODAY HOMOSEXUALY IS NSIRED BY MANY PEOPLE TO BE A NORMAL AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE. IT IS, THEY SAY, A LEGIMATE “ALTERNATIVE LIFTYLE.” THE BIBLE, OF URSE, SAYS OTHERWISE (SEE THE ARTICLE THIS VOLUME BY TERRY WILR EXPLAG THE BIBLIL VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALY). ACRDG TO THE APOSTLE PL, HOMOSEXUALY IS THE BEHAVR OF THOSE WHO HAVE “ABANDONED NATURAL RELATNS”; WHO HAVE “EXCHANGED NATURAL RELATNS FOR UNNATURAL ON” (ROM 1:26, 27).THAT SCRIPTURE SPEAKS TO THIS MATTER OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH, PECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE THORY OF THE BIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY, NOT EVERYONE BOWS TO BIBLIL THORY. DO THIS MEAN, THEN, THAT WE MT REMA AT A PERPETUAL IMPASSE WH THOSE WHO DISAGREE ON THE MORALY OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR? I DON’T THK SO. I WILL ARGUE THIS ARTICLE THAT WE N TABLISH THE IMMORALY OF HOMOSEXUALY OM A PURELY PHILOSOPHIL PERSPECTIVE. I WILL OFFER, THAT IS, AN ARGUMENT OM NATURAL LAW WHICH ECHO PL’S LANGUAGE ROMANS 1 TO THE EFFECT THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE NATURAL, CREATED ORR, AND FOR THAT REASON IS IMMORAL. BUT FIRST, I WILL BRIEFLY EXAME THE EVINCE THAT HOMOSEXUALY ADVOT HAVE ADVANCED THEIR ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS NOT NTRARY TO NATURE, BUT IS FACT NATURAL.THE ALLEGED CASE FOR THE NATURALNS OF HOMOSEXUALYTHE BASIC CLAIM MA BY THOSE WHO FEND THE MORALY OF HOMOSEXUALY IS THAT HOMOSEXUALS “ARE BORN THAT WAY.” HOMOSEXUALY IS ALLEGED TO HAVE SOME GEIC BASIS, AND SOME SCIENTIFIC REARCH HAS BEEN NDUCTED TO TRY TO TABLISH THE GEIC LK.^[1]^ TH MICHAEL BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD ASSERT, “OUR OWN REARCH HAS SHOWN THAT MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATN IS SUBSTANTIALLY GEIC.”^[2]^SPACE DO NOT PERM A TAILED RPONSE TO THE STUDI. SUFFICE TO SAY FOR NOW THAT THE REARCH ALLEGG TO SHOW A GEIC BASIS FOR HOMOSEXUALY IS FAR OM NCLIVE.^[3]^ THE NCLNS AND EVEN METHODS OF THE STUDI HAVE BEEN HOTLY NTTED, LEADG COLUMBIA UNIVERSY PSYCHIATRISTS BYNE AND PARSONS TO NCLU:THERE IS NO EVINCE AT PRENT TO SUBSTANTIATE A BLOGIL THEORY, JT AS THERE IS NO PELLG EVINCE TO SUPPORT ANY SGULAR PSYCHOSOCIAL EXPLANATN. . . .[T]HE APPEAL OF CURRENT BLOGIL EXPLANATNS MAY RIVE MORE OM DISSATISFACTN WH THE PRENT STAT OF PSYCHOSOCIAL EXPLANATNS THAN OM A SUBSTANTIATG BODY OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA. CRIL REVIEW SHOWS THE EVINCE FAVORG A BLOGIL THEORY TO BE LACKG.^[4]^SO WE HAVE NO GOOD REASON, AT LEAST FOR NOW, TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY GEIC OR BLOGIL LK TO HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR. YET MT BE ADD THAT EVEN IF SUCH A LK WERE TABLISHED, WOULD NOT MORALLY JTIFY HOMOSEXUALY FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, PPOTG A RRELATN BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALY AND SOME BLOGIL FACTOR DO NOT BY SELF TELL WHICH WAY THE AL RELATNSHIP NS. IS THE BLOGIL NDN RRELATED WH HOMOSEXUALY THE E OF THE HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN, OR IS THE BLOGIL NDN ED BY THE HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN?SEND, EVEN IF ONE’S GEIC MAKP DO E OR PREDISPOSE ONE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALY, THIS AGA DO NOT MAKE SUCH BEHAVR GOOD OR MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. SOME PEOPLE REASON LIKE THIS:>(1) HOMOSEXUALS’ GEIC MAKP PREDISPOS (OR ) THEM TO ENGAGE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR. > >(2) THEREFORE, HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE.HOWEVER, WE DO NOT MAKE THIS GEIC-SO--MT-BE-OKAY LEAP OTHER AREAS OF LIFE. FOR EXAMPLE, REARCHERS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A FE GEIC BASIS FOR ALHOLISM. YET, WE DO NOT THK THAT ALHOLISM IS GOOD, OR THAT IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR ALHOLICS TO PERSIST DNKENNS. WE BELIEVE THAT ALHOLISM IS BAD AND THAT ALHOLICS SHOULD BE “CURED.” SO, SUPPOSG FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS GEILLY BASED, WHY SHOULDN’T WE SEEK TO “CURE” HOMOSEXUALS RATHER THAN ENDORSE THEIR BEHAVR? WHY SHOULDN’T WE LOOK FOR WAYS TO ERADITE THE HARMFUL HOMOSEXUAL GENE? GAY ACTIVISTS BEG THE QUTN NCERNG THE MORALY OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR WHEN THEY ASSUME THAT A GEIC BASIS FOR THE BEHAVR TOMATILLY TABLISH S MORAL PERMISSIBILY.IT IS TERTG TO NOTE, THIS NNECTN, THAT RECENT REARCH HAS FACT SHOWN THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS CURABLE. DR. ROBERT L. SPZER, PSYCHIATRY PROFSOR AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSY, HAS NCLUD REARCH WHICH SHOWS THAT “A PERCENTAGE OF HIGHLY MOTIVATED GAY PEOPLE N CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATN.”^[5]^ THE STUDY FOLLOWED THE LIV OF 200 GAY PERSONS WHO UNRWENT THERAPY TO CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATN. SPZER’S STUDY FOUND THAT 66 PERCENT OF MEN AND 44 PERCENT OF WOMEN WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE “GOOD HETEROSEXUAL FUNCTNG” AS A RULT OF THE THERAPY. AND IS HELPFUL TO NOTE THAT DR. SPZER DO NOT HAVE AN ANTI-GAY AX TO GRD. HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN AND HAS NO SYMPATHY FOR THE EFFORTS OF CHRISTIANS TO FEND THE BIBLIL VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALY. IN FACT, HE WAS THE LEAR OF THE 1973 MPAIGN TO REMOVE HOMOSEXUALY OM THE AMERIN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATN’S LIST OF MENTAL DISORRS. THIS STUDY PROVIS POWERFUL EVINCE FOR THE BIBLIL VIEW THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS A LEARNED BEHAVR.^[6]^I NCLU, THEREFORE, THAT THERE IS NO GOOD EVINCE THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS BLOGILLY BASED. THAT IS, THERE IS NO GOOD EVINCE THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS “NATURAL” THE SENSE THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE THIS BEHAVR ARE GEILLY PREDISPOSED TO .BUT MIGHT HOMOSEXUALY BE NATURAL SOME OTHER SENSE? AFTER ALL, WE N OBSERVE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OTHER ANIMALS. FOR EXAMPLE, CHIMPANZE AND OTHER AP ARE KNOWN TO ENGAGE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR. SO, MIGHT BE SAID, HOMOSEXUALY OCCURS NATURE. IT IS NATURAL THE SENSE THAT WE FD EXAMPL OF THE NATURAL WORLD. SO, SHOULDN’T WE EXPECT AND PERM SUCH BEHAVR AMONG HUMANS? THE ARGUMENT GO SOMETHG LIKE THIS:HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OCCURS NATURALLY AMONG SOME NON-HUMAN ANIMALS.WHATEVER BEHAVR OCCURS NATURALLY AMONG SOME NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMAN BEGS.THEREFORE, HOMOSEXUALY IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMAN BEGS.THE PROBLEM WH THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT PREMISE (2) IS SO OBVLY FALSE. THERE ARE LOTS OF BEHAVRS THAT ANIMALS ENGAGE THAT WE DO NOT THK ARE PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMAN BEGS. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY ANIMALS EAT THEIR YOUNG AS SOON AS THEY ARE BORN. THOUGH THIS MAY BE “NATURAL” FOR THE CREATUR QUTN, IS CLEARLY NOT MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMANS TO EAT THEIR YOUNG. AGA, BLACK WIDOW SPIRS KILL AND VOUR THEIR MAT AFTER MATG, BUT I SERLY DOUBT THAT ANY FEMALE HUMAN ULD E THE “IT’S NATURAL” FENSE URT WERE SHE TO KILL AND EAT HER HBAND.PREMISE (2), IF WERE TE, WOULD IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO MORAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEGS. NOW SOME MTED ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTNISTS MIGHT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SO, BUT MOST OF WOULD NOT BE WILLG TO FOLLOW THEIR LEAD. WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR ANIMALS IS NOT ALWAYS PERMISSIBLE FOR PEOPLE. SO, JT BEE SOME ANIMALS ENGAGE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR, THIS LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE THIS THAT HUMAN HOMOSEXUALY IS EHER NATURAL ( ANY RELEVANT SENSE) OR MORALLY GOOD.WE MT ALSO QUALIFY PREMISE (1) OF THIS ARGUMENT. IT IS TE THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OCCURS NATURE—AMONG AP, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT, EVEN THE ANIMAL KGDOM THERE IS A CLEAR ABNORMALY WH REGARD TO HOMOSEXUALY. THOMAS SCHMIDT EXPLAS THATANIMALS DO NOT ENGAGE LONG-TERM HOMOSEXUAL BONDG AS HUMANS DO. SOME MONKEYS AND AP MOUNT OR FONDLE EACH OTHER TO THE POT OF SEXUAL AROAL, BUT EVEN THIS BEHAVR VOLV NUMERO QUALIFITNS: MOST IMPORTANT, THE BEHAVR DO NOT NTUE WHEN THE DIVIDUAL MATUR AND HAS A HETEROSEXUAL OPTN.^[7]^SO JT BEE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OCCURS NATURE, THIS DO NOT MEAN THAT THIS IS THE NORM NATURE. NOR DO MEAN THAT THE OCSNAL OCCURRENC OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR AMONG ANIMALS MAKE NATURAL FOR HUMANS THE SENSE OF MORALLY PERMISSIBLE OR MORALLY NORMATIVE.THE CASE AGAST HOMOSEXUALYI TURN NOW TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS IMMORAL. THE REASON IS IMMORAL IS THAT IS CLEARLY UNNATURAL. HERE I AM G THE TERMS “NATURAL” AND “UNNATURAL” A SPECIFIC WAY. BY SAYG THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS UNNATURAL, I MEAN THAT IS NTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND SIGN OF GOD, OUR CREATOR. AND I MEAN TO ARGUE THAT WE N KNOW THIS EVEN APART OM WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT .^[8]^ MY ARGUMENT N BE STATED AS FOLLOWS:WHATEVER BEHAVR IS NTRARY TO GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS IS MORALLY WRONG.HOMOSEXUALY IS NTRARY TO GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS.THEREFORE, HOMOSEXUALY IS WRONG.NOW WHAT N BE SAID FENSE OF THE PREMIS OF THIS ARGUMENT? LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT PREMISE (1) FIRST. THIS PREMISE, OF URSE, ASSUM THAT GOD EXISTS. SOME PEOPLE ON THE PRO-HOMOSEXUAL SI OF THIS BATE WILL CRY, “FOUL!—YOU N’T BRG RELIGN TO THIS BATE! YOU N’T BRG YOUR BIBLE VERS TO THE PUBLIC ARENA TO CI THIS ISSUE!” FIRST OF ALL, TAKE REFUL NOTE THAT MY ARGUMENT DO NOT QUOTE ANY BIBLE VERS, NOR WILL I DO SO FENSE OF PREMISE (1).AND IS NOT MY TENT TO BRG RELIGN PER SE TO THE BATE AT THIS POT. I AM MERELY APPEALG TO THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE OUR SOCIETY BELIEVE, OR AT LEAST SAY THEY BELIEVE, THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. TO BE SURE, THERE ARE THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE GOD. I THK THEY ARE PROFOUNDLY MISTAKEN. I THK THE EVINCE FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE IS OVERWHELMG AND THAT THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO DISMISS HIS EXISTENCE ARE “WHOUT EXCE” AS ROMANS 1:20 STAT.^[9]^ BUT WE N SAVE THAT BATE FOR ANOTHER TIME. MOST OF —EVEN THOSE WHO ARE NOT PARTICULARLY CHRISTIAN, EVEN THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THE DIVE THORY OF THE BIBLE—NEVERTHELS BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A PERSONAL, ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWG, AND SUPREMELY GOOD GOD. MORE SPECIFILLY, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WERE CREATED BY GOD. AND WE BELIEVE THAT GOD GAVE ALL OF OUR FACULTI AND ABILI, PHYSIL AND MENTAL, FOR A BENEVOLENT PURPOSE.IT FOLLOWS OM THIS THAT IF I E THE ABILI AND FACULTI THAT GOD GAVE ME A WAY THAT IS NTRARY TO HIS GOOD TENTNS, THEN I HAVE DONE SOMETHG WRONG. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I E THE HANDS THAT GOD GAVE ME FOR SERVG HIM AND OTHER PEOPLE TO STRANGLE AND KILL MY BROTHER STEAD, THEN I HAVE DONE WRONG. SO PREMISE (1) OF MY ARGUMENT IS TE: ANY BEHAVR THAT IS NTRARY TO GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS IS MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE.NOW WE E TO THE CCIAL QUTN. IS HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR NSISTENT WH GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS? OR DO N NTRARY TO HIS SIGN? IN PREMISE (2) I HAVE STATED WHAT I TAKE TO BE THE RIGHT ANSWER TO THIS QUTN. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS CLEARLY NTRARY TO GOD’S SIGN.WE BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE. WE BELIEVE, THAT IS, THAT HETERO-SEXUALY IS GOD’S TENT. OTHERWISE, HE WOULDN’T HAVE CREATED TWO SEX! AND LET SIMPLY EXAME THE BLOGY OF ALL. WHO N REASONABLY NY THAT PENIS ARE SIGNED TO F TO VAGAS? AND WHO N NY THAT VAGAS ARE MEANT TO RECEIVE PENIS? AND I AM NOT G THE BLOGIL STATEMENTS TO REFER TO REPRODUCTN. HOMOSEXUALY ADVOT OFTEN REMD THAT SEXUAL ACTIVY IS NOT ONLY MEANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTN. IT IS ALSO TEND FOR PLEASURE AND FOR EMOTNAL BONDG. I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY! BUT THIS DO NOT JTIFY HOMOSEXUALY.IF YOU GRANT THAT THERE IS A NATURAL “F” BETWEEN PENIS AND VAGAS THAT IS CREATED BY GOD (AND THIS NNOT BE NIED), THEN IS EASY TO SEE THAT GOD TENDS FOR SEXUAL ACTIVY TO BRG MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTN TO BE SURE, BUT ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATG A SPECIAL UNN THROUGH THE PLEASURE AND EMOTNAL BONDG THAT TAK PLACE SEXUAL TERURSE.AND THERE ARE OTHER THGS ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN THAT TELL THAT THIS IS GOD’S SIGN. IT MAY NOT BE POLILLY RRECT TO SAY THIS NOWADAYS, BUT MEN AND WOMEN NEED EACH OTHER. BEE THEY BEAR AND NURSE CHILDREN, AND BEE THEY ARE THE “WEAKER VSEL,” WOMEN NEED THE STRENGTH AND BREAD-WNG ABILI THAT MEN ARE NATURALLY DISPOSED TO PROVI. AND MEN NEED THE NURTURG AND RE THAT WOMEN ARE NATURALLY DISPOSED TO PROVI.^[10]^ BUT, HOMOSEXUALY UNRM THE GOD-SIGNED TERPENNCE OF MEN AND WOMEN.IMAGE, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ALL HUMAN BEGS OPTED FOR HOMOSEXUALY. IF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE, THEN WOULD BE MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. BUT, THEN, GOD’S CLEAR TENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN TO ENTER TO TIMATE UNNS THROUGH SEXUAL TERURSE WOULD BE THWARTED. GOD’S TENT THAT MEN AND WOMEN CLEAVE TOGETHER MUTUALLY PENNT RELATNSHIPS WOULD BE THWARTED AS WELL. AND, BY THE WAY, SO WOULD GOD’S TENT THAT HUMANS REPRODUCE.SO, I NCLU THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS CLEARLY NSISTENT WH GOD’S CREATED PURPOSE FOR HUMAN BEGS. THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS WRONG.STEVEN B. COWAN IS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE APOLOGETICS ROURCE CENTER.THIS ARTICLE IS THE AREOPAG JOURNAL CALLG EVIL GOOD VOLUME 1 NUMBER 4NOTES1 THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT STUDI SO FAR WERE PUBLISHED SIMON LEVAY, “A DIFFERENCE HYPOTHALMIC STCTURE BETWEEN HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN,” SCIENCE 258 (AUG. 30, 1991): 1034-37; AND J.M. BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “A GEIC STUDY OF MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATN,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 48 (1991): 1089-96.2 MICHAEL BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “ARE SOME PEOPLE BORN GAY?” NEW YORK TIM (DEC. 17, 1991, P. A21).3 SEE THOMAS E. SCHMIDT’S HELPFUL DISCSN AND CRIQUE OF THE STUDI HIS STRAIGHT AND NARROW: COMPASSN AND CLARY THE HOMOSEXUALY DEBATEHOMOSEXUALY DEBATE 142. ALSO SEE JOHN AND PL FEBERG, ETHICS FOR A BRAVE NEW WORLD (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1993), 185-205.4 W. BYNE AND B. PARSONS, “HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATN: THE BLOGIC THEORI REAPPRAISED,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 50 (MARCH 1993): 228. INED, WE SHOULD ALSO POT OUT THAT OM THE STANCE OF EVOLUTNARY NATURALISM (A VIEW WHICH MANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS HOLD) THE ARGUMENT FOR A GEIC E FOR HOMOSEXUALY BREAKS DOWN. FOR, IF HOMOSEXUALY WERE GEILLY BASED, “HOMOSEXUALY WOULD HAVE BEE EXTCT LONG AGO BEE OF RCED REPRODUCTN” (EDORIAL, BRISH MEDIL JOURNAL (AUGT 7, 1993), P. 1.5 ROBERT L. SPZER, OM AN UNPUBLISHED REARCH PAPER LIVERED AT AN AMERIN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATN MEETG NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, MAY 9, 2001.6 OF URSE, THE GAY MUNY IS ALREADY CHALLENGG THE RULTS OF THIS STUDY. BELIEVG THAT REAL CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATN IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEY ATTACK THE STUDY BY CLAIMG THAT THE SAMPLE OF PERSONS SELECTED FOR THE STUDY WAS SKEWED BY THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM HAD BEEN REMEND BY CHRISTIAN GROUPS DITED TO “CURG” HOMOSEXUALS. BUT, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? REGARDLS OF WHERE THE PEOPLE ME OM, THEY WERE SELF-PROFSED HOMOSEXUALS, AND MANY OF THEM ARE NOT NOW LIVG THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFTYLE. HOW DO THE CRICS EXPLA THE CHANG THE GAY PEOPLE? I SUPPOSE THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE CHANG ARE ONLY TEMPORARY, BUT THAT WOULD BE PURE SPECULATN. OR THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE PEOPLE WERE NOT REALLY GAY TO START WH, BUT ONLY THOUGHT THEY WERE. BUT, THEN, HOW DO WE EVER INTIFY A “REAL” GAY PERSON?—APPARENTLY ONLY BEE REAL GAY PEOPLE PERSEVERE A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN. SUCH AN ANSWER, OF URSE, WOULD PLETELY BEG THE QUTN OF WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALY IS GEIC.7 THOMAS E. SCHMIDT, STRAIGHT AND NARROW, 134.8 OF URSE, I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALY IS UNIMPORTANT. IN FACT, IS ALL-IMPORTANT. I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE’S NMNATN OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS ALL THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS GOD’S WORD NEED ORR TO KNOW THAT SUCH BEHAVR IS WRONG. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SI OF THIS BATE DO NOT ADHERE TO THE THORY OF SCRIPTURE. MY ARGUMENT HERE AIMS TO SHOW THAT GOD’S WILL ON THIS MATTER MAY BE KNOWN TO THEM EVEN SO, BEE GOD’S LAW “IS WRTEN ON THEIR HEARTS” (ROM. 2:15; CF. 1:32).9 IN ADDN, I THK THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE WHICH N PUT TO RT ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THIS MATTER. SEE, E.G., WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, REASONABLE FAH (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1994), 77-125; AND J.P. MORELAND, SLG THE SECULAR CY (GRAND RAPIDS: BAKER, 1987), 15-75.10 FOR A MORE TAILED DISCSN OF THE TERPENNCE OF MEN AND WOMEN, SEE GREGG JOHNSON, “THE BLOGIL BASIS FOR GENR-SPECIFIC BEHAVR”; AND GEE ALAN REKERS, “PSYCHOLOGIL FOUNDATNS FOR REARG MASCULE BOYS AND FEME GIRLS,” BOTH REVERG BIBLIL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD, EDS. JOHN PIPER AND WAYNE GM (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1991).[1] THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT STUDI SO FAR WERE PUBLISHED SIMON LEVAY, “A DIFFERENCE HYPOTHALMIC STCTURE BETWEEN HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN,” SCIENCE 258 (AUG. 30, 1991): 1034-37; AND J.M. BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “A GEIC STUDY OF MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATN,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 48 (1991): 1089-96.[2] MICHAEL BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “ARE SOME PEOPLE BORN GAY?” NEW YORK TIM (DEC. 17, 1991, P. A21).[3] SEE THOMAS E. SCHMIDT’S HELPFUL DISCSN AND CRIQUE OF THE STUDI HIS STRAIGHT AND NARROW: COMPASSN AND CLARY THE HOMOSEXUALY DEBATE (DOWNERS GROVE, ILL.: INTERVARSY, 1995), 137-142. ALSO SEE JOHN AND PL FEBERG, ETHICS FOR A BRAVE NEW WORLD (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1993), 185-205.[4] W. BYNE AND B. PARSONS, “HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATN: THE BLOGIC THEORI REAPPRAISED,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 50 (MARCH 1993): 228. INED, WE SHOULD ALSO POT OUT THAT OM THE STANCE OF EVOLUTNARY NATURALISM (A VIEW WHICH MANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS HOLD) THE ARGUMENT FOR A GEIC E FOR HOMOSEXUALY BREAKS DOWN. FOR, IF HOMOSEXUALY WERE GEILLY BASED, “HOMOSEXUALY WOULD HAVE BEE EXTCT LONG AGO BEE OF RCED REPRODUCTN” (EDORIAL, BRISH MEDIL JOURNAL (AUGT 7, 1993), P. 1.[5] ROBERT L. SPZER, OM AN UNPUBLISHED REARCH PAPER LIVERED AT AN AMERIN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATN MEETG NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, MAY 9, 2001.[6] OF URSE, THE GAY MUNY IS ALREADY CHALLENGG THE RULTS OF THIS STUDY. BELIEVG THAT REAL CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATN IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEY ATTACK THE STUDY BY CLAIMG THAT THE SAMPLE OF PERSONS SELECTED FOR THE STUDY WAS SKEWED BY THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM HAD BEEN REMEND BY CHRISTIAN GROUPS DITED TO “CURG” HOMOSEXUALS. BUT, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? REGARDLS OF WHERE THE PEOPLE ME OM, THEY WERE SELF-PROFSED HOMOSEXUALS, AND MANY OF THEM ARE NOT NOW LIVG THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFTYLE. HOW DO THE CRICS EXPLA THE CHANG THE GAY PEOPLE? I SUPPOSE THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE CHANG ARE ONLY TEMPORARY, BUT THAT WOULD BE PURE SPECULATN. OR THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE PEOPLE WERE NOT REALLY GAY TO START WH, BUT ONLY THOUGHT THEY WERE. BUT, THEN, HOW DO WE EVER INTIFY A “REAL” GAY PERSON?—APPARENTLY ONLY BEE REAL GAY PEOPLE PERSEVERE A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN. SUCH AN ANSWER, OF URSE, WOULD PLETELY BEG THE QUTN OF WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALY IS GEIC.[7] THOMAS E. SCHMIDT, STRAIGHT AND NARROW, 134.[8] OF URSE, I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALY IS UNIMPORTANT. IN FACT, IS ALL-IMPORTANT. I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE’S NMNATN OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS ALL THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS GOD’S WORD NEED ORR TO KNOW THAT SUCH BEHAVR IS WRONG. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SI OF THIS BATE DO NOT ADHERE TO THE THORY OF SCRIPTURE. MY ARGUMENT HERE AIMS TO SHOW THAT GOD’S WILL ON THIS MATTER MAY BE KNOWN TO THEM EVEN SO, BEE GOD’S LAW “IS WRTEN ON THEIR HEARTS” (ROM. 2:15; CF. 1:32).[9] IN ADDN, I THK THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE WHICH N PUT TO RT ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THIS MATTER. SEE, E.G., WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, REASONABLE FAH (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1994), 77-125; AND J.P. MORELAND, SLG THE SECULAR CY (GRAND RAPIDS: BAKER, 1987), 15-75.[10] FOR A MORE TAILED DISCSN OF THE TERPENNCE OF MEN AND WOMEN, SEE GREGG JOHNSON, “THE BLOGIL BASIS FOR GENR-SPECIFIC BEHAVR”; AND GEE ALAN REKERS, “PSYCHOLOGIL FOUNDATNS FOR REARG MASCULE BOYS AND FEME GIRLS,” BOTH REVERG BIBLIL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD, EDS. JOHN PIPER AND WAYNE GM (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1991). IMAGE URTY OF SERGE BERTASI PHOTOGRAPHY AT POST NAVIGATN
- IS BEG GAY REALLY SO UNNATURAL?
THE 'GAY GENE' IS A MYTH BUT BEG GAY IS 'NATURAL,' SAY SCIENTISTS
Likewise, while a gay male may not reproduce, ’s been noted that his female relativ are often more reproductively succsful, so ’s theorized that one gene that may ntribute to homosexualy when rried by a man also ntribut to reproductive succs when rried by a woman.
WHO ARE YOU LLG UNNATURAL? EVEN IF FLORIDA TEACHERS DON'T SAY GAY, SCIENCE SURE DO
Incintally, llg the belief that homosexuals are human creatur different om mal and femal “recent” is a cricism, but won’t be seen as such by progrsiv who value ias much more for their novelty than for their tthfulns.
ABANDONG NATURE: SOME REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALY IS WRONG MARCH 19, 2014BY STEVEN COWANCULTURE ABANDONG NATURE: SOME REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUALY IS WRONGSTEVEN COWAN2020-03-22T04:08:31+00:00WARNING: THIS ARTICLE NTAS SEXUALLY EXPLIC LANGUAGE THAT MAY NOT BE SUABLE FOR YOUNGER REARS.—EDORAUTHOR: STEVE COWAN –TODAY HOMOSEXUALY IS NSIRED BY MANY PEOPLE TO BE A NORMAL AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE. IT IS, THEY SAY, A LEGIMATE “ALTERNATIVE LIFTYLE.” THE BIBLE, OF URSE, SAYS OTHERWISE (SEE THE ARTICLE THIS VOLUME BY TERRY WILR EXPLAG THE BIBLIL VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALY). ACRDG TO THE APOSTLE PL, HOMOSEXUALY IS THE BEHAVR OF THOSE WHO HAVE “ABANDONED NATURAL RELATNS”; WHO HAVE “EXCHANGED NATURAL RELATNS FOR UNNATURAL ON” (ROM 1:26, 27).THAT SCRIPTURE SPEAKS TO THIS MATTER OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH, PECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE THORY OF THE BIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY, NOT EVERYONE BOWS TO BIBLIL THORY. DO THIS MEAN, THEN, THAT WE MT REMA AT A PERPETUAL IMPASSE WH THOSE WHO DISAGREE ON THE MORALY OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR? I DON’T THK SO. I WILL ARGUE THIS ARTICLE THAT WE N TABLISH THE IMMORALY OF HOMOSEXUALY OM A PURELY PHILOSOPHIL PERSPECTIVE. I WILL OFFER, THAT IS, AN ARGUMENT OM NATURAL LAW WHICH ECHO PL’S LANGUAGE ROMANS 1 TO THE EFFECT THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE NATURAL, CREATED ORR, AND FOR THAT REASON IS IMMORAL. BUT FIRST, I WILL BRIEFLY EXAME THE EVINCE THAT HOMOSEXUALY ADVOT HAVE ADVANCED THEIR ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS NOT NTRARY TO NATURE, BUT IS FACT NATURAL.THE ALLEGED CASE FOR THE NATURALNS OF HOMOSEXUALYTHE BASIC CLAIM MA BY THOSE WHO FEND THE MORALY OF HOMOSEXUALY IS THAT HOMOSEXUALS “ARE BORN THAT WAY.” HOMOSEXUALY IS ALLEGED TO HAVE SOME GEIC BASIS, AND SOME SCIENTIFIC REARCH HAS BEEN NDUCTED TO TRY TO TABLISH THE GEIC LK.^[1]^ TH MICHAEL BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD ASSERT, “OUR OWN REARCH HAS SHOWN THAT MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATN IS SUBSTANTIALLY GEIC.”^[2]^SPACE DO NOT PERM A TAILED RPONSE TO THE STUDI. SUFFICE TO SAY FOR NOW THAT THE REARCH ALLEGG TO SHOW A GEIC BASIS FOR HOMOSEXUALY IS FAR OM NCLIVE.^[3]^ THE NCLNS AND EVEN METHODS OF THE STUDI HAVE BEEN HOTLY NTTED, LEADG COLUMBIA UNIVERSY PSYCHIATRISTS BYNE AND PARSONS TO NCLU:THERE IS NO EVINCE AT PRENT TO SUBSTANTIATE A BLOGIL THEORY, JT AS THERE IS NO PELLG EVINCE TO SUPPORT ANY SGULAR PSYCHOSOCIAL EXPLANATN. . . .[T]HE APPEAL OF CURRENT BLOGIL EXPLANATNS MAY RIVE MORE OM DISSATISFACTN WH THE PRENT STAT OF PSYCHOSOCIAL EXPLANATNS THAN OM A SUBSTANTIATG BODY OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA. CRIL REVIEW SHOWS THE EVINCE FAVORG A BLOGIL THEORY TO BE LACKG.^[4]^SO WE HAVE NO GOOD REASON, AT LEAST FOR NOW, TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY GEIC OR BLOGIL LK TO HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR. YET MT BE ADD THAT EVEN IF SUCH A LK WERE TABLISHED, WOULD NOT MORALLY JTIFY HOMOSEXUALY FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, PPOTG A RRELATN BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALY AND SOME BLOGIL FACTOR DO NOT BY SELF TELL WHICH WAY THE AL RELATNSHIP NS. IS THE BLOGIL NDN RRELATED WH HOMOSEXUALY THE E OF THE HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN, OR IS THE BLOGIL NDN ED BY THE HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN?SEND, EVEN IF ONE’S GEIC MAKP DO E OR PREDISPOSE ONE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALY, THIS AGA DO NOT MAKE SUCH BEHAVR GOOD OR MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. SOME PEOPLE REASON LIKE THIS:>(1) HOMOSEXUALS’ GEIC MAKP PREDISPOS (OR ) THEM TO ENGAGE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR. > >(2) THEREFORE, HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE.HOWEVER, WE DO NOT MAKE THIS GEIC-SO--MT-BE-OKAY LEAP OTHER AREAS OF LIFE. FOR EXAMPLE, REARCHERS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A FE GEIC BASIS FOR ALHOLISM. YET, WE DO NOT THK THAT ALHOLISM IS GOOD, OR THAT IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR ALHOLICS TO PERSIST DNKENNS. WE BELIEVE THAT ALHOLISM IS BAD AND THAT ALHOLICS SHOULD BE “CURED.” SO, SUPPOSG FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS GEILLY BASED, WHY SHOULDN’T WE SEEK TO “CURE” HOMOSEXUALS RATHER THAN ENDORSE THEIR BEHAVR? WHY SHOULDN’T WE LOOK FOR WAYS TO ERADITE THE HARMFUL HOMOSEXUAL GENE? GAY ACTIVISTS BEG THE QUTN NCERNG THE MORALY OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR WHEN THEY ASSUME THAT A GEIC BASIS FOR THE BEHAVR TOMATILLY TABLISH S MORAL PERMISSIBILY.IT IS TERTG TO NOTE, THIS NNECTN, THAT RECENT REARCH HAS FACT SHOWN THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS CURABLE. DR. ROBERT L. SPZER, PSYCHIATRY PROFSOR AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSY, HAS NCLUD REARCH WHICH SHOWS THAT “A PERCENTAGE OF HIGHLY MOTIVATED GAY PEOPLE N CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATN.”^[5]^ THE STUDY FOLLOWED THE LIV OF 200 GAY PERSONS WHO UNRWENT THERAPY TO CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATN. SPZER’S STUDY FOUND THAT 66 PERCENT OF MEN AND 44 PERCENT OF WOMEN WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE “GOOD HETEROSEXUAL FUNCTNG” AS A RULT OF THE THERAPY. AND IS HELPFUL TO NOTE THAT DR. SPZER DO NOT HAVE AN ANTI-GAY AX TO GRD. HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN AND HAS NO SYMPATHY FOR THE EFFORTS OF CHRISTIANS TO FEND THE BIBLIL VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALY. IN FACT, HE WAS THE LEAR OF THE 1973 MPAIGN TO REMOVE HOMOSEXUALY OM THE AMERIN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATN’S LIST OF MENTAL DISORRS. THIS STUDY PROVIS POWERFUL EVINCE FOR THE BIBLIL VIEW THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS A LEARNED BEHAVR.^[6]^I NCLU, THEREFORE, THAT THERE IS NO GOOD EVINCE THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS BLOGILLY BASED. THAT IS, THERE IS NO GOOD EVINCE THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS “NATURAL” THE SENSE THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE THIS BEHAVR ARE GEILLY PREDISPOSED TO .BUT MIGHT HOMOSEXUALY BE NATURAL SOME OTHER SENSE? AFTER ALL, WE N OBSERVE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OTHER ANIMALS. FOR EXAMPLE, CHIMPANZE AND OTHER AP ARE KNOWN TO ENGAGE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR. SO, MIGHT BE SAID, HOMOSEXUALY OCCURS NATURE. IT IS NATURAL THE SENSE THAT WE FD EXAMPL OF THE NATURAL WORLD. SO, SHOULDN’T WE EXPECT AND PERM SUCH BEHAVR AMONG HUMANS? THE ARGUMENT GO SOMETHG LIKE THIS:HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OCCURS NATURALLY AMONG SOME NON-HUMAN ANIMALS.WHATEVER BEHAVR OCCURS NATURALLY AMONG SOME NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMAN BEGS.THEREFORE, HOMOSEXUALY IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMAN BEGS.THE PROBLEM WH THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT PREMISE (2) IS SO OBVLY FALSE. THERE ARE LOTS OF BEHAVRS THAT ANIMALS ENGAGE THAT WE DO NOT THK ARE PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMAN BEGS. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY ANIMALS EAT THEIR YOUNG AS SOON AS THEY ARE BORN. THOUGH THIS MAY BE “NATURAL” FOR THE CREATUR QUTN, IS CLEARLY NOT MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR HUMANS TO EAT THEIR YOUNG. AGA, BLACK WIDOW SPIRS KILL AND VOUR THEIR MAT AFTER MATG, BUT I SERLY DOUBT THAT ANY FEMALE HUMAN ULD E THE “IT’S NATURAL” FENSE URT WERE SHE TO KILL AND EAT HER HBAND.PREMISE (2), IF WERE TE, WOULD IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO MORAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEGS. NOW SOME MTED ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTNISTS MIGHT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SO, BUT MOST OF WOULD NOT BE WILLG TO FOLLOW THEIR LEAD. WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR ANIMALS IS NOT ALWAYS PERMISSIBLE FOR PEOPLE. SO, JT BEE SOME ANIMALS ENGAGE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR, THIS LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE THIS THAT HUMAN HOMOSEXUALY IS EHER NATURAL ( ANY RELEVANT SENSE) OR MORALLY GOOD.WE MT ALSO QUALIFY PREMISE (1) OF THIS ARGUMENT. IT IS TE THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OCCURS NATURE—AMONG AP, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT, EVEN THE ANIMAL KGDOM THERE IS A CLEAR ABNORMALY WH REGARD TO HOMOSEXUALY. THOMAS SCHMIDT EXPLAS THATANIMALS DO NOT ENGAGE LONG-TERM HOMOSEXUAL BONDG AS HUMANS DO. SOME MONKEYS AND AP MOUNT OR FONDLE EACH OTHER TO THE POT OF SEXUAL AROAL, BUT EVEN THIS BEHAVR VOLV NUMERO QUALIFITNS: MOST IMPORTANT, THE BEHAVR DO NOT NTUE WHEN THE DIVIDUAL MATUR AND HAS A HETEROSEXUAL OPTN.^[7]^SO JT BEE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR OCCURS NATURE, THIS DO NOT MEAN THAT THIS IS THE NORM NATURE. NOR DO MEAN THAT THE OCSNAL OCCURRENC OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR AMONG ANIMALS MAKE NATURAL FOR HUMANS THE SENSE OF MORALLY PERMISSIBLE OR MORALLY NORMATIVE.THE CASE AGAST HOMOSEXUALYI TURN NOW TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS IMMORAL. THE REASON IS IMMORAL IS THAT IS CLEARLY UNNATURAL. HERE I AM G THE TERMS “NATURAL” AND “UNNATURAL” A SPECIFIC WAY. BY SAYG THAT HOMOSEXUALY IS UNNATURAL, I MEAN THAT IS NTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND SIGN OF GOD, OUR CREATOR. AND I MEAN TO ARGUE THAT WE N KNOW THIS EVEN APART OM WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT .^[8]^ MY ARGUMENT N BE STATED AS FOLLOWS:WHATEVER BEHAVR IS NTRARY TO GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS IS MORALLY WRONG.HOMOSEXUALY IS NTRARY TO GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS.THEREFORE, HOMOSEXUALY IS WRONG.NOW WHAT N BE SAID FENSE OF THE PREMIS OF THIS ARGUMENT? LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT PREMISE (1) FIRST. THIS PREMISE, OF URSE, ASSUM THAT GOD EXISTS. SOME PEOPLE ON THE PRO-HOMOSEXUAL SI OF THIS BATE WILL CRY, “FOUL!—YOU N’T BRG RELIGN TO THIS BATE! YOU N’T BRG YOUR BIBLE VERS TO THE PUBLIC ARENA TO CI THIS ISSUE!” FIRST OF ALL, TAKE REFUL NOTE THAT MY ARGUMENT DO NOT QUOTE ANY BIBLE VERS, NOR WILL I DO SO FENSE OF PREMISE (1).AND IS NOT MY TENT TO BRG RELIGN PER SE TO THE BATE AT THIS POT. I AM MERELY APPEALG TO THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE OUR SOCIETY BELIEVE, OR AT LEAST SAY THEY BELIEVE, THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. TO BE SURE, THERE ARE THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE GOD. I THK THEY ARE PROFOUNDLY MISTAKEN. I THK THE EVINCE FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE IS OVERWHELMG AND THAT THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO DISMISS HIS EXISTENCE ARE “WHOUT EXCE” AS ROMANS 1:20 STAT.^[9]^ BUT WE N SAVE THAT BATE FOR ANOTHER TIME. MOST OF —EVEN THOSE WHO ARE NOT PARTICULARLY CHRISTIAN, EVEN THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THE DIVE THORY OF THE BIBLE—NEVERTHELS BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A PERSONAL, ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWG, AND SUPREMELY GOOD GOD. MORE SPECIFILLY, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WERE CREATED BY GOD. AND WE BELIEVE THAT GOD GAVE ALL OF OUR FACULTI AND ABILI, PHYSIL AND MENTAL, FOR A BENEVOLENT PURPOSE.IT FOLLOWS OM THIS THAT IF I E THE ABILI AND FACULTI THAT GOD GAVE ME A WAY THAT IS NTRARY TO HIS GOOD TENTNS, THEN I HAVE DONE SOMETHG WRONG. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I E THE HANDS THAT GOD GAVE ME FOR SERVG HIM AND OTHER PEOPLE TO STRANGLE AND KILL MY BROTHER STEAD, THEN I HAVE DONE WRONG. SO PREMISE (1) OF MY ARGUMENT IS TE: ANY BEHAVR THAT IS NTRARY TO GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS IS MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE.NOW WE E TO THE CCIAL QUTN. IS HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR NSISTENT WH GOD’S CREATED SIGN FOR HUMAN BEGS? OR DO N NTRARY TO HIS SIGN? IN PREMISE (2) I HAVE STATED WHAT I TAKE TO BE THE RIGHT ANSWER TO THIS QUTN. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS CLEARLY NTRARY TO GOD’S SIGN.WE BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE. WE BELIEVE, THAT IS, THAT HETERO-SEXUALY IS GOD’S TENT. OTHERWISE, HE WOULDN’T HAVE CREATED TWO SEX! AND LET SIMPLY EXAME THE BLOGY OF ALL. WHO N REASONABLY NY THAT PENIS ARE SIGNED TO F TO VAGAS? AND WHO N NY THAT VAGAS ARE MEANT TO RECEIVE PENIS? AND I AM NOT G THE BLOGIL STATEMENTS TO REFER TO REPRODUCTN. HOMOSEXUALY ADVOT OFTEN REMD THAT SEXUAL ACTIVY IS NOT ONLY MEANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTN. IT IS ALSO TEND FOR PLEASURE AND FOR EMOTNAL BONDG. I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY! BUT THIS DO NOT JTIFY HOMOSEXUALY.IF YOU GRANT THAT THERE IS A NATURAL “F” BETWEEN PENIS AND VAGAS THAT IS CREATED BY GOD (AND THIS NNOT BE NIED), THEN IS EASY TO SEE THAT GOD TENDS FOR SEXUAL ACTIVY TO BRG MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTN TO BE SURE, BUT ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATG A SPECIAL UNN THROUGH THE PLEASURE AND EMOTNAL BONDG THAT TAK PLACE SEXUAL TERURSE.AND THERE ARE OTHER THGS ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN THAT TELL THAT THIS IS GOD’S SIGN. IT MAY NOT BE POLILLY RRECT TO SAY THIS NOWADAYS, BUT MEN AND WOMEN NEED EACH OTHER. BEE THEY BEAR AND NURSE CHILDREN, AND BEE THEY ARE THE “WEAKER VSEL,” WOMEN NEED THE STRENGTH AND BREAD-WNG ABILI THAT MEN ARE NATURALLY DISPOSED TO PROVI. AND MEN NEED THE NURTURG AND RE THAT WOMEN ARE NATURALLY DISPOSED TO PROVI.^[10]^ BUT, HOMOSEXUALY UNRM THE GOD-SIGNED TERPENNCE OF MEN AND WOMEN.IMAGE, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ALL HUMAN BEGS OPTED FOR HOMOSEXUALY. IF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE, THEN WOULD BE MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. BUT, THEN, GOD’S CLEAR TENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN TO ENTER TO TIMATE UNNS THROUGH SEXUAL TERURSE WOULD BE THWARTED. GOD’S TENT THAT MEN AND WOMEN CLEAVE TOGETHER MUTUALLY PENNT RELATNSHIPS WOULD BE THWARTED AS WELL. AND, BY THE WAY, SO WOULD GOD’S TENT THAT HUMANS REPRODUCE.SO, I NCLU THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS CLEARLY NSISTENT WH GOD’S CREATED PURPOSE FOR HUMAN BEGS. THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS WRONG.STEVEN B. COWAN IS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE APOLOGETICS ROURCE CENTER.THIS ARTICLE IS THE AREOPAG JOURNAL CALLG EVIL GOOD VOLUME 1 NUMBER 4NOTES1 THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT STUDI SO FAR WERE PUBLISHED SIMON LEVAY, “A DIFFERENCE HYPOTHALMIC STCTURE BETWEEN HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN,” SCIENCE 258 (AUG. 30, 1991): 1034-37; AND J.M. BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “A GEIC STUDY OF MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATN,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 48 (1991): 1089-96.2 MICHAEL BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “ARE SOME PEOPLE BORN GAY?” NEW YORK TIM (DEC. 17, 1991, P. A21).3 SEE THOMAS E. SCHMIDT’S HELPFUL DISCSN AND CRIQUE OF THE STUDI HIS STRAIGHT AND NARROW: COMPASSN AND CLARY THE HOMOSEXUALY DEBATEHOMOSEXUALY DEBATE 142. ALSO SEE JOHN AND PL FEBERG, ETHICS FOR A BRAVE NEW WORLD (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1993), 185-205.4 W. BYNE AND B. PARSONS, “HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATN: THE BLOGIC THEORI REAPPRAISED,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 50 (MARCH 1993): 228. INED, WE SHOULD ALSO POT OUT THAT OM THE STANCE OF EVOLUTNARY NATURALISM (A VIEW WHICH MANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS HOLD) THE ARGUMENT FOR A GEIC E FOR HOMOSEXUALY BREAKS DOWN. FOR, IF HOMOSEXUALY WERE GEILLY BASED, “HOMOSEXUALY WOULD HAVE BEE EXTCT LONG AGO BEE OF RCED REPRODUCTN” (EDORIAL, BRISH MEDIL JOURNAL (AUGT 7, 1993), P. 1.5 ROBERT L. SPZER, OM AN UNPUBLISHED REARCH PAPER LIVERED AT AN AMERIN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATN MEETG NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, MAY 9, 2001.6 OF URSE, THE GAY MUNY IS ALREADY CHALLENGG THE RULTS OF THIS STUDY. BELIEVG THAT REAL CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATN IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEY ATTACK THE STUDY BY CLAIMG THAT THE SAMPLE OF PERSONS SELECTED FOR THE STUDY WAS SKEWED BY THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM HAD BEEN REMEND BY CHRISTIAN GROUPS DITED TO “CURG” HOMOSEXUALS. BUT, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? REGARDLS OF WHERE THE PEOPLE ME OM, THEY WERE SELF-PROFSED HOMOSEXUALS, AND MANY OF THEM ARE NOT NOW LIVG THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFTYLE. HOW DO THE CRICS EXPLA THE CHANG THE GAY PEOPLE? I SUPPOSE THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE CHANG ARE ONLY TEMPORARY, BUT THAT WOULD BE PURE SPECULATN. OR THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE PEOPLE WERE NOT REALLY GAY TO START WH, BUT ONLY THOUGHT THEY WERE. BUT, THEN, HOW DO WE EVER INTIFY A “REAL” GAY PERSON?—APPARENTLY ONLY BEE REAL GAY PEOPLE PERSEVERE A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN. SUCH AN ANSWER, OF URSE, WOULD PLETELY BEG THE QUTN OF WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALY IS GEIC.7 THOMAS E. SCHMIDT, STRAIGHT AND NARROW, 134.8 OF URSE, I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALY IS UNIMPORTANT. IN FACT, IS ALL-IMPORTANT. I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE’S NMNATN OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS ALL THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS GOD’S WORD NEED ORR TO KNOW THAT SUCH BEHAVR IS WRONG. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SI OF THIS BATE DO NOT ADHERE TO THE THORY OF SCRIPTURE. MY ARGUMENT HERE AIMS TO SHOW THAT GOD’S WILL ON THIS MATTER MAY BE KNOWN TO THEM EVEN SO, BEE GOD’S LAW “IS WRTEN ON THEIR HEARTS” (ROM. 2:15; CF. 1:32).9 IN ADDN, I THK THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE WHICH N PUT TO RT ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THIS MATTER. SEE, E.G., WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, REASONABLE FAH (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1994), 77-125; AND J.P. MORELAND, SLG THE SECULAR CY (GRAND RAPIDS: BAKER, 1987), 15-75.10 FOR A MORE TAILED DISCSN OF THE TERPENNCE OF MEN AND WOMEN, SEE GREGG JOHNSON, “THE BLOGIL BASIS FOR GENR-SPECIFIC BEHAVR”; AND GEE ALAN REKERS, “PSYCHOLOGIL FOUNDATNS FOR REARG MASCULE BOYS AND FEME GIRLS,” BOTH REVERG BIBLIL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD, EDS. JOHN PIPER AND WAYNE GM (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1991).[1] THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT STUDI SO FAR WERE PUBLISHED SIMON LEVAY, “A DIFFERENCE HYPOTHALMIC STCTURE BETWEEN HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN,” SCIENCE 258 (AUG. 30, 1991): 1034-37; AND J.M. BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “A GEIC STUDY OF MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATN,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 48 (1991): 1089-96.[2] MICHAEL BAILEY AND RICHARD PILLARD, “ARE SOME PEOPLE BORN GAY?” NEW YORK TIM (DEC. 17, 1991, P. A21).[3] SEE THOMAS E. SCHMIDT’S HELPFUL DISCSN AND CRIQUE OF THE STUDI HIS STRAIGHT AND NARROW: COMPASSN AND CLARY THE HOMOSEXUALY DEBATE (DOWNERS GROVE, ILL.: INTERVARSY, 1995), 137-142. ALSO SEE JOHN AND PL FEBERG, ETHICS FOR A BRAVE NEW WORLD (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1993), 185-205.[4] W. BYNE AND B. PARSONS, “HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATN: THE BLOGIC THEORI REAPPRAISED,” ARCHIV OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 50 (MARCH 1993): 228. INED, WE SHOULD ALSO POT OUT THAT OM THE STANCE OF EVOLUTNARY NATURALISM (A VIEW WHICH MANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS HOLD) THE ARGUMENT FOR A GEIC E FOR HOMOSEXUALY BREAKS DOWN. FOR, IF HOMOSEXUALY WERE GEILLY BASED, “HOMOSEXUALY WOULD HAVE BEE EXTCT LONG AGO BEE OF RCED REPRODUCTN” (EDORIAL, BRISH MEDIL JOURNAL (AUGT 7, 1993), P. 1.[5] ROBERT L. SPZER, OM AN UNPUBLISHED REARCH PAPER LIVERED AT AN AMERIN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATN MEETG NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, MAY 9, 2001.[6] OF URSE, THE GAY MUNY IS ALREADY CHALLENGG THE RULTS OF THIS STUDY. BELIEVG THAT REAL CHANGE SEXUAL ORIENTATN IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEY ATTACK THE STUDY BY CLAIMG THAT THE SAMPLE OF PERSONS SELECTED FOR THE STUDY WAS SKEWED BY THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM HAD BEEN REMEND BY CHRISTIAN GROUPS DITED TO “CURG” HOMOSEXUALS. BUT, HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? REGARDLS OF WHERE THE PEOPLE ME OM, THEY WERE SELF-PROFSED HOMOSEXUALS, AND MANY OF THEM ARE NOT NOW LIVG THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFTYLE. HOW DO THE CRICS EXPLA THE CHANG THE GAY PEOPLE? I SUPPOSE THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE CHANG ARE ONLY TEMPORARY, BUT THAT WOULD BE PURE SPECULATN. OR THEY ULD ARGUE THAT THE PEOPLE WERE NOT REALLY GAY TO START WH, BUT ONLY THOUGHT THEY WERE. BUT, THEN, HOW DO WE EVER INTIFY A “REAL” GAY PERSON?—APPARENTLY ONLY BEE REAL GAY PEOPLE PERSEVERE A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATN. SUCH AN ANSWER, OF URSE, WOULD PLETELY BEG THE QUTN OF WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALY IS GEIC.[7] THOMAS E. SCHMIDT, STRAIGHT AND NARROW, 134.[8] OF URSE, I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALY IS UNIMPORTANT. IN FACT, IS ALL-IMPORTANT. I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE’S NMNATN OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR IS ALL THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS GOD’S WORD NEED ORR TO KNOW THAT SUCH BEHAVR IS WRONG. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SI OF THIS BATE DO NOT ADHERE TO THE THORY OF SCRIPTURE. MY ARGUMENT HERE AIMS TO SHOW THAT GOD’S WILL ON THIS MATTER MAY BE KNOWN TO THEM EVEN SO, BEE GOD’S LAW “IS WRTEN ON THEIR HEARTS” (ROM. 2:15; CF. 1:32).[9] IN ADDN, I THK THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE WHICH N PUT TO RT ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THIS MATTER. SEE, E.G., WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, REASONABLE FAH (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1994), 77-125; AND J.P. MORELAND, SLG THE SECULAR CY (GRAND RAPIDS: BAKER, 1987), 15-75.[10] FOR A MORE TAILED DISCSN OF THE TERPENNCE OF MEN AND WOMEN, SEE GREGG JOHNSON, “THE BLOGIL BASIS FOR GENR-SPECIFIC BEHAVR”; AND GEE ALAN REKERS, “PSYCHOLOGIL FOUNDATNS FOR REARG MASCULE BOYS AND FEME GIRLS,” BOTH REVERG BIBLIL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD, EDS. JOHN PIPER AND WAYNE GM (WHEATON, ILL.: CROSSWAY, 1991). IMAGE URTY OF SERGE BERTASI PHOTOGRAPHY AT POST NAVIGATN
If homosexual acts are nsired morally good bee those who engage them say they have no choice but to want to engage them, then follows pedophilic and zoophilic acts are also morally good for the same reason. Homosexuals, zoophil, masturbators, and all the rt are th actg agast human nature bee is human nature to reproduce via male-female pairg (ask your parents for nfirmatn; I clu the procreative ia the notn of a natural blogil fay raisg children; rape n lead to procreatn but not parentg).
It’s worse now than ’s ever been: “In fact, the fact that we have only one sat repeatedly quoted on this topic om 19 centuri before our own prov to me that we have never had an epimic of so many homosexuals the prithood as today. To accept such anecdotal self-jtifitns at face value also is not scientific are askg for a fair alMore:Michael Church letter: Homosexualy is a ticket to perdnAberratns non-human animals do not even e close to the rate humans, and have not been shown to have any relatn to heredy.
In 1999, rearcher Bce Bagemihl showed that homosexual behavr has been observed close to 1, 500 speci, rangg om primat to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them and many creatur that do not have the nsc pacy to was almost 13 years ago. But rather than workg agast the teleologil argument, that prciple works agast a mon argument favor of homosexualy, which is, if homosexual terts are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. Now when theologians and moralists speak of homosexualy, ntraceptn, abortn, and other forms of human behavur as beg unnatural, and say that for that reason such behavur mt be nsired to be wrong, what sense are they g the word unnatural?
IS BEG GAY REALLY SO UNNATURAL?
Are they sayg that homosexual behavur and the e of ntraceptiv are ntrary to the scientific laws of nature, are they sayg that they are artificial forms of behavur, or are they g the terms natural and unnatural some third sense? They nnot mean that homosexual behavur (to stick to the subject prently unr discsn) vlat the laws of nature the first sense, for, as we have poted out, that sense is impossible to vlate the laws of nature.
Even if the fenrs of the theologil view that homosexualy is unnatural were to appeal to a statistil analysis by potg out that such behavur is not normal om a statistil pot of view, and therefore not what the laws of nature require, would be open to their crics to reply that any scriptive law of nature mt acunt for and rporate all statistil viatns, and that the laws of nature, this sense, do not require anythg.