Why Christianity is Homosexuality's Best Hope
In the Land of Liberty, the United States of America, government implements two fundamental ideals into its system: freedom and the separation of church and state. Although the founding fathers borrowed the concept of free will from the Bible when drafting the Constitution, separation of church and state now hinders Christianity’s defense against the legalization of gay marriage. While pastors arm themselves with the Word of God, the government simply overlooks Biblical scripture as irrelevant. Deeper philosophical reasoning reveals that if Christianity is as true as Christians believe, they can find support for their arguments within the natural laws of existence. In this way, Christians can use the observations and logic found outside of the Bible to uphold the teachings within it. By comparing creationism, the Christian philosophy of origin, to evolutionism, a widely accepted alternative, logic reveals that both perspectives draw similar conclusions on homosexuality’s role in nature. In contrast, the two philosophies preach vastly different approaches in handling the homosexual movement. Only after understanding why the government should deny gay marriage and why its dangerous to allow a pro-homosexual mentality will the Christian solution prove to be homosexuality’s best hope in this world.
When examining change that will affect an entire civilization, pragmatism should supersede emotion. Among other prominent individuals, Obama has spoken on numerous occasions in favor of gay marriage. His widely popular viewpoint hones in on the fact that gay people feel love just as strongly in their relationships as heterosexual couples. While his argument seems compelling, careful examination reveals it as a fallacy of relevance. Those against gay marriage do not oppose it because they doubt a gay couple’s strength of emotion; they oppose it because it either conflicts with their religious views, the natural laws that govern our existence, or in many cases both. Emotions are subjective for every person on every topic, meaning they lack the consistency to base legislative decisions on them. While passion creates a drive for change, activists must accompany their emotional zest with logic in order to explain how their demands would benefit the majority population, not just their own sub-culture. Logic is the consistent force that determines whether a thought has any pragmatic merit or is merely based on misguided instinct. Confronting the questions ‘what is homosexuality?’ and ‘why am I different?’ must certainly be difficult for individuals experiencing same-gender attraction, but since these questions cannot be answered definitively, the government has no solid basis on which to re-define the union between man and woman that is already proven to be natural.
Defining and re-defining marriage has been a major point of contention throughout the legislative process. Christians claim it as a God-given institution, while others insist that the government alone determines the meaning of marriage. Ultimately, the government may claim full authority over marriage, but the argument of definition still holds sway. From the formation of the United States to 2003, every state accepted marriage only as a union between man and woman until 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage. Even after two centuries of maintaining the same marital laws, the new legislature may have arrived premature. Before focusing on the definition of marriage, people should first investigate the definition of homosexuality. The surface answer, ‘a physical attraction between persons of the same gender,’ excludes the most crucial information: the cause of homosexuality. Despite numerous scientific and psychological studies, researchers have yet to definitively prove genetics or psychology as solely responsible for gay tendencies. Once again, without clearly understanding the cause and therefore the complete definition of homosexuality, the government has no stable basis on which to re-define the age-old definition of marriage.
Setting aside the causes of homosexuality, it can be proven unnatural from both a creationist and evolutionist viewpoint of the origin of our species. From an evolutionist perspective, all lifeforms’ only purpose is survival. The first life ever formed, through whatever process, either began as an entity that could reproduce itself or possessed the ability to evolve into something that could reproduce itself. This means that the original life was able to preserve itself through inherent means or had an instinctive determination to continue existing which prompted rapid evolution into a reproductive being. In essence, the original life had an inherent compulsion or desire to continue existing. Carrying on that fundamental trait, the offspring of that original life would have continued to procreate and evolve in order to preserve existence. Throughout this process, two variations of reproduction came about, but most descendants would be limited to one method or the other. In other words, life forms would either come to rely on asexual reproduction, a process of self duplication, or sexual reproduction which requires an attracted male and female partner to mate with one another. Therefore, when early lifeforms that would eventually evolve into human beings inherited the heterosexual approach of reproduction, all future descendants would have to maintain existence through the same process. Science reveals that throughout the reproductive process, genetic codes developed flaws that could inhibit the offspring’s survival. Any condition that threatens survival contradicts the sole function of life. Once humans developed the intelligence to identify genetic flaws and other life-inhibiting conditions, medical practices were developed to combat any threat that could inhibit, shorten, or even prevent life. If homosexuality is genetic, it is a flaw that contradicts life all the way back to its origin by preventing the reproduction of our species. If homosexuality is purely a psychological state of being caused by circumstance or choice, then it is unnatural through its contradiction with the biological attraction between male and female that predates thought itself.
Humanity has displayed not only a biological desire for self preservation, but also a conscious desire through art, architecture, and written language. A conscious desire for self-preservation inherently correlates with the biological desire for reproduction. Modern medicine upholds this theory by battling physical and psychological conditions that impair, end, or even prevent human lives. Since homosexuality prevents the natural conception of human life, it fits into the category of a life-preventing condition. Accepting and promoting this condition denies help to affected individuals and spreads a mentality that betrays the core identity of the human species. Therefore, from a worldview centered around survival through reproduction and adaptation, the human species must adapt to this condition by curing or eliminating it.
Another worldview draws the same conclusion about homosexuality but provides an alternative solution. From a creationist standpoint, predominantly Christianity, if an intelligent and all powerful designer truly did create our species, he intentionally limited our biological lifespans and granted us only one method of earthly preservation: reproduction through male and female intercourse. Therefore, not only does homosexuality remain unnatural as a genetic or psychological flaw, but also defies an almighty God’s intentions for mankind. Not only does the embrace of homosexuality threaten the human race through false mentality, but it could also incur the wrath of God as happened once before with Sodom and Gomorrah. Unlike the evolutionist perspective, Christianity provides some hope through free will. God clearly intended for man and woman to procreate, and signified his love for the church by creating marriage as a union between man and woman. Biblical scripture unquestionably condemns homosexual acts as sin, and therefore does not recognize or condone gay marriage. Within a Christian worldview, embracing and promoting homosexual acts remain unacceptable, but loving an individual in spite of his or her sin is equally encouraged. In this way, Christianity becomes the preferred worldview over atheistic and agnostic evolutionism. Although the government needs to remain religiously impartial, it should consider embracing the Christian principles in regards to homosexuality for the sake of our country as well as for gay individuals.
Regardless of an individual’s worldview, the acceptance and promotion of homosexual behavior within society poses a danger to the entire human species. Since homosexuality will continue to exist, issues surrounding it should receive careful consideration. No government can pass a law that appeases both the homosexual and Christian, and therefore should never have involved itself in the issues of gay marriage and adoption. To remain unbiased and still promote equality, the government should consider recanting all laws allowing gay marriage, but consider granting gay partners the financial benefits of a husband and wife without the title. This solution provides homosexuals with the rights that fit their role in nature, but also maintains the religious freedoms for which America has become renowned.
Thanks for Reading!
If you enjoyed the article, please share it with your friends through Facebook or other means. Feedback is always welcome too, so feel free to leave a comment!