Another On the Gay Thing

• John Vandivier

This article revisits the controversies within Christianity and politics surrounding homosexuality.

First, this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzV1r5SCc8U

So his argument is what might be called the, "Born this way" argument. Several problems here:

  • We are born uneducated, is education bad? We are born naked, are clothes bad? We are born one way, should we stubbornly refuse to change or learn any of life's lessons?
  • Empirically, sexually is largely a learned behavior. There is certainly some nature to it, but it is in fact empirically a minor role.
  • Even if nature was the predominant role and nurture the minor role, this does not make it alright in the secular sense nor sinless in the Christian sense.
  • Certainly, control of sexuality is harder for some than others. Just because something is hard to control doesn't mean it shouldn't be controlled. God gives different people different tests for different reasons, but the answer is the same in this case.
If it's how people are built, then why is South Carolina University holding a \"How to be a Lesbian Seminar?\"

The guy then commits a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tu_quoque&oldid=595771986">tu quoque fallacy attacking the guys reading of the Bible, which is odd because the guy had just said he was an informed Christian. Anyway, the Bible does teach that slavery is a natural condition, but it also says if a slave can get its freedom it should (1 Corinthians 7:21). This is hilarious because it goes right to the gay thing. Homosexual attraction may be born into someone to some degree (although again, empirically this is not the case), but even if that is so that doesn't imply that a person should hold back from ceasing on an opportunity to free themselves from homosexuality.

Then he goes on to conflate American Slavery with Biblical Slavery, which have similarities and important differences as well. Nonetheless, his sarcastic quip about "We should have fought for the confederacy in the American Civil War" really irritates me because it implies that the North winning the Civil War was a good thing, which it was not. The South had every right to secede and the North came in and attacked it. Slavery was not even the point of the civil war, as slavery was already voluntarily on the down and out both in the North and the South. Anyway, I digress, but read the following for an understanding of why the South wasn't some nasty slave loving rebellion, in fact it was attacked by a power-hungry North:

Lastly, the guy conflates \"love,\" which I agree is the main point of the New Testament, with \"letting people do whatever they please,\" which is certainly not love or any part of the New Testament. Finally, legal recognition for homosexual relationships is very different from recognition of gay marriage. The Christian definition of marriage is of course between a man and a woman, but even the secular definition of marriage is also historically between a man and a woman! Even in non-Christian society, the norm has always been one man and one woman. Note: I did not say every society says marriage is a man and a woman, I said the norm. Furthermore, it has been the norm in the US since the British came over.

We are messing with social institutions here and this is big stuff. It's not an exaggeration to say: Modification of the recognized social institutions of our country could radically alter and undermine our whole culture and thereby our socio-economic and political systems. Let it sink in. This is not some country bumpkin, uneducated, racist, or gay-hate argument. This is a sophisticated argument from intellectual conservatism which, when seriously considered, makes strong sense. Not just theoretical sense either. This stuff has empirical and historical backing.