There’s a larger agenda behind the LGBT+ movement. If the government can convince enough people that something as absurd as transgenderism is real and should be protected by law, then it is in the position of redefining anything, even when what’s being redefined is obviously irrational and harmful.
This type of pressure politics has been going on for a long time. Evolutionists claim that something came from nothing, and biological information systems self-organized, and resulted in the development of the most intricate “designed” lifeforms that no human has been able to replicate using every man-made tool available to him.
The realized dream of autonomous man is to have power over nature. Darren Cross, the villain in the film Ant-Man (2015), neatly summarizes man’s attempt to control and redefine the natural order of things:
“The laws of nature transcend the laws of man. And I’ve transcended the laws of nature.”
Killing unborn babies is the essence of freedom, same-sex sexuality is a matter of “pride,” and men can be women and women can be men or any of 56 different varieties of gender, and all normalized and protected by the State. How can any of these positions be defended in a world where rationalism seemingly rules the day?
“From the day that Adam tried to test the word of God concerning his destiny, man has attempted to find some voice of authority other than God. By locating their preferred voice of authority outside of God’s revelation, both verbal and natural, men thereby create for themselves a series of unsolvable intellectual dilemmas. . . . As ‘autonomous’ man has become more consistent with his own presuppositions, he has become more irrational.” (Gary North, Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Chrsitian Economics, 1994), 39).
The rationalists are willing to accept elements of the irrational so long as the ultimate goal “to shove God out of the universe” is carried out. Here’s a perfect example:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”1
No matter how impossible or irrational a materialist worldview might be, it must be believed because the alternative might suggest a Creator.
Everything an evolutionist uses in an attempt to disprove the existence of a Designer was designed by a designer and built by people following the designers’ design. The pure rationalist has become irrational.
If you are going to win an argument, you must get down to the operating assumptions of what’s being argued. We first heard that homosexuals were born that way, just like heterosexuals are born with desires for those of the opposite sex. While numerous scientific studies have been done to find a genetic link, nothing is conclusive. And even if there were a genetic link, it would not mean that the behavior was either normal or moral.
There are males and females. People who engage in same-sex sexuality do not become a new sexual category. There is no third gender. The same is true of people who identify as transgender. It’s all made up. These new categories of gender and sexuality are social constructs.
How would genetics explain bisexuality? Where are the genetic markers for men who “identify” as women, and women who “identify” as men? Again, there are no genetic markers.
Facebook has 56 gender categories. Check out “From Agender to Ze: A Glossary for the Gender Identity Revolution” to see how absurd but seemingly “scientific” this movement is. Are we to believe that all of these are based on genetics? In reality, people choose to identify with one of the 56 categories. And I say, “So what?” People can self-identify as anything. It’s their right, irrational as it is, but it isn’t their right to use the law to force me to accept their fiction.
In the Broadway play and film Arsenic and Old Lace, “Teddy” believed he was Theodore Roosevelt. “Each time Teddy goes upstairs, he yells ‘Charge!’ and takes the stairs at a run, imitating Roosevelt’s famous charge up San Juan Hill.” He was humored and tolerated to a point, but no one was forced to accommodate his delusion.
In addition, just because there might be a genetic cause for certain behaviors does not mean that the behavior is normal or morally acceptable. For example, consider the possibility that aggression has a genetic origin:
“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.”2
Two scientists have claimed that “rape is a ‘natural, biological’ phenomenon, springing from men’s evolutionary urge to reproduce.”3
Should people who exhibit aggressive behavior and rape be accommodated because their behaviors have a biological or evolutionary cause? Of course not. But why not? Because there are moral standards that people can’t shake even if they can’t account for them. What is the source of those moral standards? Why do they apply in some cases but not others?
Pedophiles argue that they were “born that way” or their brains are wired differently. How could anyone prove otherwise? Are we to accommodate people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children? While the desire to engage in sex with children cannot be criminalized, the behavior is. Why? Is it only because the sexual act is not consensual? Would it be morally acceptable if there was consent? Given the operating assumptions of materialists, there really aren’t any moral laws. If rape is part of the evolutionary process, and it was that evolutionary process that got us to this point in evolutionary time, why is rape considered to be criminal?
Even if a person says he or she can’t change their sexual desires, it does not mean those sexual desires are morally justifiable. This is the essence of the debate. We as a nation have lost the ability to think in terms of first principles.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield “was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, a skeptic of all things Christianity, and in a committed lesbian relationship. Her academic specialty was Queer Theory, a postmodern form of gay and lesbian studies. Today Butterfield is a mother of four, a homemaker, and wife of a Presbyterian pastor named Kent. They live in Durham, North Carolina.”
What made the difference? It came by way of a letter in response to an article she had written in a local newspaper that was written by Ken Smith, then-pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church.
“It was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week, confronting me with the worldview divide that demanded a response. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview, but Christianity is a supernatural worldview. Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
When is the last time (or even the first time) you have heard anyone approach the subject of same-sex sexuality and transgenderism and the more than 50 other gender identifiers on the basis of the fundamental presuppositions that undergird worldview of forced compliance of sexual abnormalities?
It’s time that we stop arguing in terms of rights, protecting children, freedom of association, and liberty and challenge the presuppositions that have given rise to the overthrow of a moral worldview grounded in the character of God. Man through the agency of the State has become the new god. There is no telling where such a topsy-turvy worldview will take us.
1. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31.
2. Dennis Overbye, “Born to Raise Hell?,” Time (February 21, 1994), 76.
3. Dan Vergano, “‘Natural, biological’ theory of rape creates instant storm,” USA Today (January 28, 2000), 8D.