Saturday, March 29, 2014

The Problem with Homosexuality: What is "normal"?


The problems of the homosexuality argument begin with the whole idea of “normal.”  Every effort is being made to “educate” people (children and adults alike) that homosexuality is normal.  We need not be against it because it is apparently normal behavior and we should embrace it.

Define “normal”

The main problem with this is the definition of normal.  Do we mean natural?  As in, it occurs naturally.  Maybe genetics determines your sexuality before you’re born.  Do we mean typical behavior? So, people should “normally” want to have relations with the same sex.  Do we mean it isn’t any different than any other behavior?  Answering each question leads to a further stripping of the homosexual argument, ultimately leaving it as irrational, incompetent, and utterly defenseless, like every other liberal argument.

“. . . born this way.”

A huge push some years ago was to say, “We’re born this way.  Do you think we would choose this if we had a choice?”  The effort was to make homosexuality the byproduct of a cruel mother nature cursing the individual to a life they didn’t want to embrace or forcing the religious to accept that their God made the person gay.  However, as homosexuals trumpeted this cause treatment centers sprang up trying to help people leave behind the homosexual lifestyle.  Their argument was being used against them, showing that if indeed they could choose differently, treatment would be given to help them make that choice. 

This seems natural, because if it is a byproduct of genetics, then why should we not treat it like we do other genetic disorders.  People that are alcoholics are said to have a genetic disposition that responds differently to alcohol than others.  We offer numerous treatments for them to help them break out from a self-injurious lifestyle.  “AH!” the liberal shouts, “See they injure themselves and others!  That is different than homosexuality!”  Though I could argue that homosexuality does indeed cause injury, I find that we can easily accept the liberal premise and still destroy their argument.  

The easiest way to expose this fraudulent argument is to simply ask a moral question, “If we could determine that there is indeed genetic triggers behave differently and result in homosexual tendency (accepting the argument that they are “born that way”), what if we could isolate that cause and eliminate it – never again having another homosexual walk the earth?”  So we accept their premise that there is nothing wrong with it, we accept the premise that they’re born that way, and now we say what if it was completely preventable, “Should we prevent it?”  The issue arises for the liberal because the trumpeting of homosexuality is actually just the liberal looking for a pass for ANY sexual behavior.  If they say we should prevent it, then they admit that it indeed IS NOT normal.  In fact, by saying we she prevent it then we further strengthen support for offering treatment to those who are currently living the homosexual lifestyle.  Either it is some type of abnormality (NOT “normal) and therefore, given the power to prevent it, we should prevent it or it is normal and they cannot justify why is should be prevented. 

Now, if they say it should not be prevented, then the liberal has revealed that they aren’t interested in the freedom of the homosexual (as a person) but rather interested in everybody accepting the liberal’s sexual pursuits.  An atheist must think about what is better for humanity.  Intentionally allowing a genetic disorder to continue on when given the power to prevent it is sabotaging the evolution of humanity.  Normally, weaker genetic mutations would be naturally eliminated by nature by simply allowing the stronger to overwhelm the weaker.  Within human evolution, if human life has some sort of natural value, different than other animals (NOT an atheist belief) then the “weaker” still have a place and have value.  However, without some intrinsic value within humanity itself, then that which could be shown as a weaker development, abnormality that if it became dominant among the species would lead to our demise (like homosexuality), then we should seek to eliminate that.  So the liberal who does NOT want us to prevent homosexuality (if we had the power) is openly rejecting their only priority as an atheist – to help advance and strengthen the species.  Their aren’t really a lot of excuses the liberal can offer for this position, so even though they could create some generic excuse, establish a baseless pseudo morality, or just admit that they are really only interested in justifying all sexual behavior.

Basic biology - we have males and females, and together they can reproduce (we’re talking humans here).  This is how genetically speaking our species is able to survive.  Healthy, genetically normal females can reproduce with healthy, genetically normal males.  If we accept evolution and atheism, then we must know that the advancement of the species is the only value a person can add to humanity.  Genetic abnormalities that prevent advancement should be eliminated.  Atheism has no place for a barren woman, a crippled, or the elderly that are too frail to take care of themselves.  The only way these people survive in atheism is if the atheist declares that there is a moral law that compels people to help these people.  The problem is they have no basis for this moral law.  They would like to present a pseudo moral code, but if a person completely obliterates their fake moral law in attempt to advance the species further, that person is a better atheist, and in these terms, a better person.  Now, when the homosexual enters this picture the pseudo moral group tries to defend the homosexual and wants others to embrace their lifestyle.  However, the better human (in evolutionist and atheist terms) would be the one who destroys the homosexual.  The homosexual is a person that voluntarily is the equivalent of the barren woman or the sterile man.  Voluntarily?” the liberal asks.  Yes! Because even if they desire a person of the same sex, it is their BIOLOGICAL (evolutionary duty!) to try and reproduce to propagate the species and by rejecting that role (even if they don’t desire it) they reject the only reason they exist biologically and therefore are useless in the advancement of the species.  “Well, what if they are a doctor or scientist?” Well, they cumulatively add less than a person that does the same job, on the same level, but is also capable of reproducing and actively pursues their biological duty.  Maybe the homosexual that participates in their biological duty to reproduce while still engaging in homosexuality would be granted a place in this world, but that is NOT what they are seeking.  The liberals want us to call it normal and even say we’re all equals.  But where does the liberal have any ability to back up that desire?  Pseudo morality has no basis and offers little in terms of accomplishing the evolutionary goal of advancement and they have no biological role given the basic biological reason for a human being is to reproduce.

So, when they make the claim to be born homosexual, logically that should be MORE damaging to the advancement of gay rights.  They’ve just staked claim to be genetically abnormal, biologically deviant, and evolutionarily weak.  To be genetically made to have a predisposition toward homosexual behavior is to admit the need for treatment and to admit that homosexuality is NOT normal.

Normal sexual behavior

Perhaps the homosexual simply understands that the sexual behavior itself is normal and should not be looked down upon.  So typical human sex would somehow include a tendency to have sexual relations with somebody of the same gender (I use gender here to specifically spit in the face of the sociologists that try to define gender as whatever we think we are – crazy liberal sociologists, abandon reason and science to pursue a specific agenda).  Obviously it doesn’t take much more than common sense to say it’s obvious that biologically that is not how humans were designed. 

Now here the liberal pipes up with something about hormones, studies that show a small majority of people have thought about or experimented with same sex relationships on some level.  This seems to be a biological justification, along with a somewhat psychological attribution to social norm, that it is the natural design of things. 

On the biological side, we can simply show how hormones are meant to function to produce a sexual desire that results in reproduction.  The hormones are NOT somehow trying to force a person toward the same sex, but rather toward sex – real sex where reproduction can actually occur.  If a person’s hormones are helping spur a desire for the same sex, that would be biology failing and some type of abnormality.  To biologically be drawn toward the same sex is to say that the human species is biologically designed to commit suicide.  Leave exactly three billion people on this planet, all of the same sex, whether male or female, and come back in one hundred fifty years and you will have exactly three billion dead.  Not one would have survived; none one would have reproduced; complete biological suicide –a real problem and evolution is a complete farce if that is how humanity is designed.

So if hormones are the culprit, they are so as an abnormality to basic biological function and design.  Therefore a homosexual can’t claim their sexual behavior to be normal.  Now the liberal must cling to the second point that studies show a majority of people have had thoughts of relations with the same sex or have experimented with a same sex relationship of some type.

The problem here is that they must somehow draw a correlation between thought and normal behavior.  First they are defining normal thought based on a simple majority, which is logically fallacious (argumentum ad populum).  Second, there must be some objective method to define which thoughts are normal or which links between thought and behavior should be considered normal.

For example, many people think about killing somebody (I don’t have a specific number and I don’t need one for the point to be true) and yet people don’t accept killing other people as perfectly normal.  In fact it is considered deviant behavior.  Just because people experience thoughts one cannot rationally define normal behavior as people who act on those thoughts.  If indeed it is completely normal, the great murderers in history should never be thought of as unique or different because they are simply behaving normally.

This brings up an interesting point, homosexuality is strange, NOT because of religion, but because of biological design.  Years ago people called homosexuals “queers” which is perhaps the most fitting description.  Not as an insult, but as a look at the strange and abnormal nature of the behavior.  People all over the globe have given daughters with dowries, but I don’t know any place where they offered their son with a dowry to another man’s son.  What would be gained?  It isn’t religious to want to have children to support you as you get older and to take care of you, it is biology at work.  Reproduction provides a means of survival for a society and any society that doesn’t reproduce dies.  No need for studies or surveys to discover that which we know – it takes two distinct sexual organs, working properly, in order to be able to reproduce (again, speaking about humans).

Reproduction is what the hormones drive.  Sex, in the very real sense (meaning two people of the same sex can’t actually engage in sex, but only imitate it), is what we were designed for.  When we deviate from this we are acting contrary to what nature intends and therefore we are the ones that are abnormal.  No matter which way somebody tries to classify sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, everybody intrinsically knows how we are supposed to behave.  It takes reprogramming people and constant excuses to try and justify anything different than what we biologically know to be true – a man and a woman are meant to be together, any other combination is unnatural.  Defining same sex relationships as normal is nothing but a denial of the same science, naturalism, and evolution that the atheist uses to justify sexual freedom. 

Friday, November 29, 2013

Christ - Ideal or Reality?


The Christmas season seems to be a tough season for me.  As I talk to more and more people, I come face to face with the reality that Christmas brings out the selfish, greedy, indulgent, self-centered thinking of many people.  A recent Facebook post I saw had taken the opportunity to turn the idea of being able to lie to your kids about Santa as proof that we can simply tell our kids that gay couple are alright because they have love (I don't link it here because why would I want to give it any more places to exist?).  This post appeared on an alleged Christian's page.  I specifically say alleged because I have come to doubt the reality of belief in almost everybody I meet that claims to be a Christian.  I have no idea whether or not they are true Christians and more likely than not they are better people than I am.  But the thing I've realized is that many people tend to be fonder of the IDEA of God or Jesus rather than actually believing the reality of God's existence.  Really, when these people say they believe it is really saying, “I like the general idea of it, so I accept that position.”  However, the position is excepted on the condition that they don't have to actually believe it (which would impact their life).

I find this idea of the Christian idealist to be the most common person I meet claiming to be a Christian.  The problem is I have no idea who is sincerely chasing Christ and just failing as a sinner or who is the person attached to the idea – I don't think there is any way to tell without really getting to know the person, but even then we can't look inside their heart to see their true intentions.
  
With that said though, something strikes me; certain things flat out contradict the very thing you say to believe and so accepting those positions means you really can't believe that which you say.  Gay marriage is one of those things that is so blatantly against the Bible, one cannot possibly believe that Christ is who He claims to be and still support gay marriage as a Christian.  One cannot possibly believe Christ is who He claimed to be an still believe the only thing that matters in life is the nice car, nice cell phone, and whatever little thing fills you with happiness aside from Christ.  Materialism is a sign of those who see themselves as the center of the universe and therefore cannot be serving Christ.  Liberalism and its pursuit of murder of children, gay marriage, the suppression of religion, and conformity to social morals is against Christ and therefore supporting liberalism means you are NOT supporting Christianity.   I find that people that claim to be Christians yet support these opposing views are simply NOT Christians at all (doesn't mean they don't live better lives than me), but somebody who got attached to the idea of God rather than believed in God. 

How can you judge them, you know you aren't supposed to judge? How can I? Simple, because I know some things are mutually exclusive.  You cannot be an atheist and a Christian.  You cannot support gay marriage and serve Christ.  Simple.  But I'm not supposed to judge right?  You see though, I'm not judging here, I'm simply stating the conclusion of the truth claim.  Liberals try to find ways to reinterpret the scripture to fit their belief system but that just shows the point, they serve liberalism and not Christ. Jesus himself says you cannot serve two masters.  The idea of serving your own belief system and making it to say what you FEEL it should, means that you are serving YOURSELF and not Christ.  These are not judgments, they are simply observations based on basic rational thought.  Though I could defend being judgmental in certain circumstances, I don't even have to offer any justification for a simple statement of truth – if the two claims are mutually exclusive then one cannot accept the position of one claim and yet hold the other to be true as well. 

Christmas is a reminder that I am a disgusting sinner in need of a savior and that God graciously provided one.  I see the darkness is the people around me, everywhere I look.  It's not the unbelievers that make me sick; it's those claiming to be Christians while clearly serving the wrong master.  This Christmas season, I find myself trying to look at the mirror and make sure that I am not attached to an idea.  This Christmas, I want to find that I BELIEVE and that I'm not stuck in the pursuit of an idea – my own ideas especially.  It isn’t my goal to condemn the world, but rather to make sure we have some rational thought.  We must understand that one cannot accept all positions equally.  Naturally, if some beliefs are to be accepted others are rejected in the same action.  It is sometimes worth looking at our lives to see if maybe we've compromised a bit and have started to embrace the IDEA of God rather than the REALITY of Him.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Atheism - The "Neutral" Enemy


Is Atheism neutral?  This question arises because within politics it is often easy to find people on both sides, liberals and conservatives, that believe atheism is a neutral position.  Part of the problem comes from the effective re-branding of atheism.  The atheist movement has made an intentional effort to redefine atheism as a simple lack of belief in a deity.  This watered down definition is not really what it means to be an atheist however.  Noe-atheism, as it is called in some philosophical circles, tries to include everybody that simply lacks a belief in god.  When we talk atheists though, what we really mean are those who reject the existence of God or a god.  We don't mean the person that hasn't considered the question; we mean the person who has considered it and concluded positively that there is no god of any sort. 

This definition is important because it contains the direct answer as to whether atheism can be neutral at all.  If somebody has already drawn a conclusion then they are NOT NEUTRAL.  Most politicians or political groups that go out to try to eliminate religious belief in politics do not just lack a belief.  They have taken a position against God and rejected all religious belief.  Of this belief, the 1828 edition of the Webster dictionary has this to say, “Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness. Do we want leaders who have rejected our belief system?  This is what gets me, politics is precisely where belief SHOULD be expressed.  Leaders should lead based on BELIEFS.  The atheist REFUSES TO BELIEVE there is a God.  It’s not scientific.  It’s not the default belief. Most of all, it IS NOT NEUTRAL.
  
So what's the point of this?  I guess the more I look at the world, the more I see believers getting sucked into the mentality that leaders should govern outside of their religion.  The assumption has become that the atheist position is not only neutral, but also the default.  These so called believers need to be slapped because this is total nonsense.  First off, as pointed out atheism cannot be neutral (I also touch on it in my other post: Is Religion Bad?).  Second, all these believers need to realize the default position is belief.  Look at the history of the world, look at the primitive tribes that exist today, look at the studies of belief, and look at the kids of the world.  BELIEF IS DEFAULT.  Atheists always try to act like belief is learned and that atheism is the natural way.  This however is complete false!  A quick look at primitive tribes or study of ancient history shows that the default has always been BELIEF in a deity.  We might learn our particular religious belief system, but we don’t have to be taught to believe.  G.K. Chesterton covered this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland.”  Dr. Alvin Plantinga also discusses the idea of a properly basic belief frequently – he actually lists belief in God as properly basic.  My point is Christians need to wake up and stop acting so dumb about atheism.  Understand that to be an atheist is to REJECT the Christian view.  It doesn’t mean the person that never considered your position, but rather the person that considered and chose to reject belief in God.  This is an opposing view to Christianity, not the pre-Christian belief.  Those who lack belief need to be educated.  Those who rejected it need to be opposed.

When we vote for leaders, when we encounter laws, we need to reject the liberal view that religion should be separate.  Religion should permeate politics!  Governing should be done based on a belief system other than atheism.  The U.S. government cannot promote a single religion, so why do we not get up in arms when they promote the religion of atheism?  People need to be educated that atheism isn't a neutral position; it is the partner of liberalism, the enemy of conservatives, and in direct opposition to Christianity.