Friday, May 29, 2009

The Piling Evidence: Homosexuality Is A Choice

As the issue of homosexuality continues to divide Americans, proponents have sought to prove that homosexuality is not chosen. Why? Because if one is born a homosexual, then the debate over gay rights, gay marriage, etc., becomes a civil rights issue not an issue of preference. Therefore, proponents of homosexuality have sought valiantly to find the "gay gene." But as time passes away, so does the reality of finding such a gene.

Recently, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. has been forced to admit that the gay gene simply does not exists. Likewise, the American Psychological Association admits:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

In other words, despite all of their effort, homosexuality remains choice. There is no such thing as homosexual orientation. "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no finding have emerge that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." Despite all of the research and money spent, there remains no proof that such a gene exists or that homosexuality is predetermined not chosen.

This does not mean that factors do not play a role such as abuse, experiences, etc. However, even with such factors considered, it does not change the fact that homosexuality remains a choice. Not everyone abused as a child, whether sexually, verbally, or whatever, become homosexual. So although some factors may play a role, they do not determine sexuality.

This should affect the debate over homosexual rights in the future. Although the media has ignored this and similar stories and many Americans assume that such a gay gene exists, we should acknowledge the effect this has on the debate. The Biblical, Christian worldview remains intact and valid: based on the evidence homosexuality is a choice.

And if homosexuality is a choice then it is subject to an honest debate regarding morality. The debate must move from, "I have the right," to, "is it right?" As Christians, we uphold that God designed marriage as being between one man and one woman and nothing else. And as time continues to move forward, it becomes clear that man's sexual obsession and experimentation runs contrary to God's divine plan.

If homosexuality is an issue of morality, than the shouting match and the accusations coming from proponents of homosexuality must cease. The argument that homosexuality is morally wrong is not one of bigotry, but of legitimate concern. Too long, proponents of homosexuality have moved their efforts by accusing those who affirm traditional marriage as bigots, homophobes, and hate-mongers. In light of the evidence, such accusations must end. This is not a debate over who has the right, but what is right?

But something tells me the shouting match and accusations of Christians as hate-mongers will not cease. To take a moral stand is itself intolerant whether one is for or against homosexuality. The door swings both ways. To have the debate is one thing, but to resort to name calling is another and as evidence continues to prove the validity of homosexual as a choice, the accusations made will only increase.

At the heart of this issue is not science, but liberation. Liberation from the shackles of morality. The Christian worldview holds that as society progresses, moral standards will be shredded because man always wants more. The fight over this issue is proof that man wants what he wants and will fight for it no matter what. The depravity of man is made clearly evident as America continues to be divided over this issue. But it will not stop here. Once man gets tired of homosexuality, he will move on to something else; polygamy, lowering the age of consent, and on and on it will go.

Man hates the idea that they might be wrong. In an age of self-esteem and "I have the right not to be told I'm wrong," Christians must realize that they will forever be viewed as the enemy in Post-Christian America. As long as Christians affirm the gospel, the culture will forever reject it. If truth is, by definition, intolerant, then rather than fear the name-calling, perhaps we should embrace it. Yes, we are intolerant, because truth is intolerant. Yes, we are bigots because any moral stand is bigotry (including supporting homosexual). Yes, we are closed-minded because we actually have the guts to stand for something; just like our homosexual counterparts.

Too long Christians have sought to be popular rather than right and faithful. We must embrace that we will not be liked by the culture. But our responsibility is not to be popular, but to be faithful to the gospel, regardless of the cost. Will Christians prove to have a spine, or will they be fickle as immoral movements threaten to shove their morality, intolerantly I might add, down our throats?


For More:

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Folly of Abortion Reduction: A Lesson in Commonsense

Since the heat of the 2008 Presidential election, we have been following the argument that a pro-choice President is the solution to reducing the number of abortions in America. The argument goes that common ground is possible between pro-lifers and what I call pro-deathers (pro-choicers that is): abortion reduction.

What I have found compelling about this proposed common ground solution is who proponents believe will bring about abortion reduction. As a pro-lifer, I certainly want to see the number of abortions in America to drop. However, I will not be satisfied until the number drops to 0. But proponents of abortion reduction argue that what we need in leading this movement is a politician who is vehemently pro-choice, like President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama raised this argument during the campaign. As a result, many flocked to his side believing that his policies, and apparent sincerity, was the solution they were looking for. They believed that although the President was clearly pro-choice and support pro-choice bills, laws, judges, etc. the President would nonetheless work to reduce the number of abortions.

And it has backfired in their face. Sadly, they still believe he is working to reduce the number of abortions. They fail to see their own ignorance in the midst of obvious failure.

Should we really be that surprised? Such an argument doesn't work: reduce the number of abortions by making it easier to get one.

As I have been thinking about the lunacy of this argument, I am drawn to the issue of smoking. Our government, both state and federal, have been on a rampage trying to ban smoking. However, in the meantime, they intend on making as much money as possible from smokers. How do they reduce the number of smokers? By passing legislation that makes it more difficult to buy cigarettes. They do this by putting an age limit on who can smoke: 18. They then raise the taxes on cigarettes making them more expensive so that those who can't afford to smoke will quit. Finally, they take the tax revenue gained from higher taxes and support anti-smoking programs. As a result, the number of smokers have reduced dramatically over the years.

But let's take the same logic of abortion reduction to smoking. Let say that rather than passing legislation that makes it more difficult to smoke, we pass legislation that makes it easier. Would that increase the number of smokers, or decrease? If we lowered the age from 18 to 15, would that lower the number of smokers? If we lowered the taxes on cigarettes, would that lower the number of smokers? If we ceased passing anti-smoking ordinances that ban smoking from all buildings, would that lower the number of smokers?

The answer is no. Of course. It would only increase the number of smokers. And yet, we think the same logic will work with abortion. If we make it easier, then less will be performed.

Do you really think preventing abortion candidates from seeing the ultrasound of their baby will reduce abortions? Do you really think that providing government money to support pro-abortion institutions, organizations, and policies will reduce the number of abortions? Do you really think that allowing a young person to have an abortion without the consent of the parents would reduce the number of abortion?

Of course not. Yet many bought into this nonsense and we are now reaping what we have sowed.

I want to direct everyone to an excellent article written by Kevin Deyoung (who has written an excellent book on the Emerging Church by the way) regarding the folly of supporting pro-choice candidates as the solution for reducing abortions. He sites the conclusions of the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-choice institution) which proves the foolishness of the abortion reduction argument.

The survey, he argues, concludes:

It would seem to be commonsense, as indeed the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute suggests, that if abortion services are more difficult to obtain (i.e., abortion funding decreases, abortion access is more limited, more restrictions on abortion are put in place) that fewer women will have abortions. And yet, some evangelicals and Catholics continue to argue that our politicians can do just the opposite of all this and still be serious about reducing abortions.

The simple fact--that no amount of rhetoric can erase--is that Pro-Choice groups are celebrating the President's First Hundred Days as signaling positive changes related to reproductive rights, from rescinding the global gag rule to increasing funding for international and domestic family planning programs to a host of other "accomplishments."

I cannot encourage everyone to read this article enough. It is a shame that Christians have fallen for this sort of foolishness and as a result, millions more will be killed because we voted for someone who said what we wanted them to say rather than do what we want them to do. Although politicians might say they want to reduce abortions, we must support politicians and policies which actually work.


For more:

Guttermacher Institute - Trends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions, 1974-2004."

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Social Conservatives Take Heed: 100 Days of Change

We can't say we weren't warned. When it comes to social issues, President Barack Obama has been has far left wing as any previous President. Within his first 100 days, the advances made by social conservatives have virtually been erased.

The following video documents some of these "Changes." My concern is not with Obama. He is exactly who we knew he would be and is serving as President exactly as we expected him to. However, what is most frightful to me is how vitriolic we can become of one person, namely former President George W. Bush, that we want change for the sake of change, even if it costs us our souls . . . not to mention the lives of millions of innocent yet-born children.


For More:
100 days of death
When Politics Hits Home: Sarah Palin and the Defense to Save Trigg
The Slavery of the Unborn: Why Abortion Reduction Is Not Pro-Life
From Life, to Choice, To Economics: A New President and a Change in the Debate Over Life
A Proud Legacy For a President: The Sanctity of Life
"No We Won't": Obama and the Lie of Abortion Reduction
"No We Won't": Obama and the Lie of Abortion Reduction - Part 2
Above Our Pay Grade: What The Candidacy of Barack Obama Says About Our Culture of Death
What Is To Be Our Response? Living as a Christian in an Obama Administration
The Abortion Record of Barack Obama
Update: "Let's Talk About Sex Baby" - Barak Obama and Sex Education
Obama and Infanticide