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.
