The writer over at Eternity Matters take pro-homosexual theology for a test drive:
People who hold to pro-gay theology* (i.e., God doesn’t consider it a sin and that he approves of “same-sex marriage”) use all sorts of fallacious arguments to make their case. In this post I am taking the pro-gay theological reasoning out for a test drive, so to speak, to see how it applies to other passages. After all, if their principles are sound they should work in other situations as well.
Ideas have consequences. Anyone who is concerned about truth should be concerned with being consistent. Unfortunately, it’s most often not the case. But this is one test for whether or not an idea is sound. Does it make sense in contexts where the logic carries over?
It’s a good read. You can check it out here [link].
In my last post (where I recounted my conversation the girl representing the ACLU) I had mentioned that under state law an employer could fire any one for any reason. I got a little push-back in the comments (which I don’t mind) and thought about it a little more.
First, I think I overstated that a little. The commenter is partially right. It is illegal for someone to be fired for race or sex. Religion was also mentioned, but it’s not true that a person cannot be fired for religion. Specifically, in the cases of churches and this was the context of my conversation with the girl. Can a person be fired for being a Muslim? Yes, if this person was hired into, or converted while working, a Christian or Jewish church or organization. And a Christian could be fired for the same reason in other religious contexts.
The question is, do religious organizations have a right to hire and retain only those people who hold to those worldviews/ideologies?
I think the they should. But this highlights one of the challenges with rights of this type. The different groups represented fall along a continuum ranging from non-moral to moral/ideological.
And one end of the spectrum we have Race. Race does not have a moral component. Race is expressed through appearance and physical characteristics. Sex is the similar, though one could argue that the differences between the sexes moves it slightly down the continuum.
As we move further, we come to two categories that differ from race and sex. Religion and sexual practice. Sexuality by nature is expressed through behaviors, and behaviors have a moral component. Religions deal with the nature of reality, inform our worldviews, and influence our behaviors and ideologies.
But sexuality also brings its own ideologies. Especially in a cultural climate where homosexuality is such a politicized area. If you disagree in regard to legal rights they feel should accompany this aspect of their lives, then you are branded as hate-filled. In essence, the accusation is that your views are immoral.
This moves sexual orientation and practice to the ideological end of the spectrum. The problem is that there are competing ideologies at that end, all fighting for what they see as their rights. To offer one group a right to say, never be fired for being a member of that group is to threaten other groups. In a sense saying to the other group “your ideology takes a backseat, you must embrace theirs.”
My point here is not to say what the neat and tidy answer is. The point is that this is the nature of the political and cultural landscape. So when I talk to someone on the street, taking money in order to promote rights at the idological end of the spectrum, I expect them to know the challenges. I expect them to have at least heard the other view. Unfortunately, the young lady I spoke with seems to have not been familiar with it at all.
One of the most mindlessly used terms these days is “equality.”
Every word has a range of meaning, but we never hear this term defined. It’s usually thrown around as a way to shut up opposition. “There should be equality, so X should be supported.” “Those who don’t agree with X are perpetuating inequality.”
Mostly we hear this in the same-sex marriage debate and, more recently, in regards to the economy.
I was watching a debate between Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton when Prager said that men and women were equal but not the same. Hilton reacted as if Prager had uttered nonsense which tells me that “sameness” and “equality” are synonyms in Hiton’s mind. But the question is sameness in what regard? Equal in what?
There may be equality among individuals, but that does not mean that all relationships between those individuals are equal. And the marriage debate is about relationships, not primarily individuals, even though individuals are involved.
So when a man and a woman are in a lifelong committed relationship, they are not in an identical relationship as two men or two women in a same-sex committed relationship. How do I know? I know because:
- 1)The natural outcomes are not the same* (heterosexual relationships naturally produce the next generation of society, as a rule)
- 2) There are innate differences between men and women.
Though many would contest #2, the fact is a man can never truly know what it’s like to be a woman and vice versa. That innate distance creates a dynamic between heterosexual couples that does not exist between same sex couples.
Individuals may be equal in terms of basic human rights, but that does not mean individuals have a right to everything. I do not have the right to engage in certain things just because others do. And incidentally, every American citizen currently has the same rights. Everyone (straight and gay) can engage in, through marriage, the type of relationship that results in the next generation of society and is with someone of the opposite sex. No one (straight nor gay) can engage, through marriage, the type of relationship through marriage that does not result in that end, and is with someone of the identical sex.
Everyone currently has the same rights. No one has ever been able to legally engage in the relationship they are trying to legitimize through legislation. Those who champion gay marriage as a right that has been denied are simply wrong.
*Obviously not all heterosexual relationships are able to result in children. But those are exceptions. I am talking here about categories as a whole. Childless heterosexual couples are still not the same as same-sex couples because #2 still holds.
There’s a lesbian couple in California who have an 11-year-old son. He says he wants to be (or is) a girl. So they are giving him hormones to delay the onset of puberty to give him more time to make his decision as to which gender identity he wants.
They say Tommy – whom they now call Tammy — began taking GnRH inhibitors over the summer to give him more time to explore the female gender identity with which he associates.
Tommy began saying he was a girl when he was three years old, his parents said. He was learning sign language due to a speech impediment, and one of the first things he told his mothers was, “I am a girl.”
When I was 11, I wanted all kinds of things that were foolish. And when I was three? I’m pretty sure I was still discovering that the people on TV couldn’t hear me when I talked to them. (I was trying to diffuse uncomfortable misunderstandings between characters. Those episodes still make me stressed.)
Tommy will continue the treatment until he turns 14 or 15, at which point he will be taken off the blockers and pursue the gender he feels is the right one.
So, I have two questions: 1) If gender is naturally a result of environmental factors, and not intrinsic or based on biology, why would you need to suppress nature to make the choice? 2) If gender identity are merely affectations forced upon us by society, why not be content with merely acting like the other identity without trying to manipulate your physical body?
To physically attempt to alter your body to accommodate your preferred gender identity is to head down a continuum from one sex to another. Any attempt to manipulate the body in this way can never achieve the goal. There is a impenetrable wall, and that wall is the biological design.
No matter how many surgeries, no matter how many hormones, Tommy can never truly be a “Tammy.” For starters, he will never give birth, he will never menstruate, and he will never change Y chromosomes in to X chromosomes and vice-versa. This should be a clue to the absurdity of the desire.
Just because we think or feel we are something does not mean we are that thing. The fact that inhibiting hormones are needed to aid in this decision shows this couple knows it, too.