The following comments of mine were posted by someone on Facebook:
“The homosexual, transgender, bi-sexual, and whatever-sexual movement works overtime to hitch its cart to the civil rights horse. . . . Sexual behavior cannot be compared to the struggle of blacks to secure full civil rights. . . . Being black is not a behavior trait. Homosexuality is. Homosexuality is what a person does.”
As usual, there were varying opinions. Here’s one response, which is typical of many of seen elsewhere:
“Sexual orientation is no more a choice than skin color. No one chooses their sexual orientation. Even if it was a choice it’s not a choice that infringes upon the rights of others. Regardless of what you think about comparisons made in the media, the discrimination is counterproductive and should stop.”
Tell that to the baker who was sued for not making a cake for a homosexual wedding or the ordinance in Houston, Texas, where now men can use the women’s bathrooms.
Pedophiles argue that they were born with an orientation to have sex with children. They claim they can’t help themselves because of their orientation. In addition, there is no confirmed evidence that homosexuality is a genetically innate orientation.
Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist, argues that “there is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.”
The Human Genome Project did not identify a homosexual gene. Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that “the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the ‘discovery’ of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims . . . has been confirmed.”
But for the sake of argument, even if homosexuality had a genetic cause, it does not mean that the behavior is either normal or moral. Consider the following:
“Some of us, it seems, were just born to be bad. Scientists say they are on the verge of pinning down genetic and biochemical abnormalities that predispose their bearers to violence. An article in the journal Science . . . carried the headline EVIDENCE FOUND FOR POSSIBLE ‘AGGRESSION’ GENE.”1
The same critic of my comments added the following in a later post:
“What you’re describing is the definition of discrimination. Nature is full of homosexual creatures, nearly 1500, none of which matters.”
We are not animals. If we are animals, like evolutionists claim, then we should be able to abandon our weakened young and eat our own as well since that’s what many animals do.
Here’s the premise: Whatever animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s normal is moral. So if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral. How can we mere mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what’s natural in the animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without any moral judgments attached.
But the lower animal/higher animal model breaks down when other so-called natural behaviors in animals are considered. For example, the Bible states, “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT’ [Prov. 26:11] and, ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’” (2 Pet. 2:22).
Consider the case of Timothy Treadwell depicted in the movie Grizzly Man. He lived among bears for 13 years and thought of them as his “family.” In 2003, Treadwell and his companion, Amie Huguenard, were mauled and mostly eaten by one of the Alaskan grizzly bears he considered to be “All in the Family.” While he thought of the bears as his brothers and sisters, the bears thought of him as lunch.
Then there’s David Attenborough’s documentary about chimpanzees that are said to share 97 percent of human genes. The following clip shows one group of chimps attacking, killing, and eating chimps from a neighboring territory. If it’s OK for chimps to kill and eat their neighbors, then why is it immoral and illegal for humans to do it since animals are our moral examples?
“Sir David Attenborough narrates this violent and bloody natural history video recording the disturbing scenes of a real Chimpanzee territorial attack. Truly amazing scenes from BBC natural history epic, ‘Planet Earth.’”
If animals are our moral example, then why didn’t Attenborough and his film crew intervene?
- Dennis Overbye, “Born to Raise Hell?,” Time (February 21, 1994), 76. [↩]