re: "Born Gay"
[The first paragraph below is from a comment I posted on a friend's Facebook wall in response to that friend's stated support of "gay marriage." I'm reproducing this here-- along with some additional thoughts-- since the matter of "gay marriage" has recently become front-and-center once again in our society due-- for example-- to referenda regarding "gay marriage" on many state ballots in the recent election.]It's strange how our culture is so hardcore 'free-will'/free choice, EXCEPT when it comes to sexuality; then people swing the other way and become entirely deterministic, speaking as if people are entirely enslaved to their hormones and desires. And while there may be some truth that some of us sinners are "born gay"-- in the same sense that a person may be genetically predisposed toward alcoholism, or men with an extra Y chromosome are genetically disposed toward violent crime-- this does not negate individual decision or responsibility.
The truth is, whether one agrees that people can be born with a predisposition toward homosexuality, it is certain that every person is born with a corrupted nature: a nature bent against God and His will. Because sin resides within our very nature, we need a supernatural work of God's Holy Spirit in order that our nature may be renewed into the image of Christ.
[See also: "Gay marriage" and the Gospel."]
Labels: Christian worldview
posted by Andrew Lindsey | 4:51 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Disclaimer: My tone here is not to be read as heated or too impassioned. I'm genuinely interested in discussing religious freedom, not arguing about our differing views of homosexuality or the bible.
To me, gay marriage, homosexuality, and the sinfulness of homosexuality are all distinctly separate issues. The first amendment gives anyone the right to be morally opposed to homosexuality based on their religious beliefs, while simultaneously preventing the creation of laws based on religious belief. I have never understood the pride many Christians have about living in a country where they are free to worship and evangelize while they continue to try to tailor the laws of the country to make it illegal to not follow Christian doctrine - when not even all Christians agree on all subjects. This country was not founded to offer democracy and capitalism exclusively to heterosexual Southern Baptists and those willing to follow their rules. But it was founded to allow you to publicly minister, blog, preach, and evangelize. If you believe homosexuality is against the will of God, tell everyone. And tell them why following God's will for their life is the better choice. Help people make that decision based on their heart and hearing the truth as you see it. But neither you, nor Christians, nor those practicing homosexuality have anything to gain from our government telling gay people"you can't do that" when they ask for the same spousal partnership treatment that the government provides heterosexual couples. And as far as the word "marriage", if it really is exclusively biblical and exclusively heterosexual, then I advocate removing the language entirely from the government and handing it over completely to the church. To me, the problem isn't really whether or not non-Christian US citizens are allowed to use the word marriage in non-Christian contexts, it's whether or not the United States Government should be limiting spousal rights to the couples that get a pass from (some) Christian churches.
More could be said here, but briefly:
When you speak of "the United States Government," you are not speaking of some outside force, but-- in our system-- of an entity that arises from "we the people." As one of those "people," if I have the chance to cast a vote on how marriage is to be defined, I must do so in accordance with my conscience, and I must also seek to persuade others to take the same view. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.
When it comes to many of these issues-- such as the definition of marriage, the legalization of narcotics, severely rolling back the government's regulatory powers, etc.-- sometimes people take too individualistic a view. We have liberties, but we also have responsibilities toward one another. We particularly have responsibilities toward the weakest members of society-- the children-- who are the ones that are most harmed when adults around them pursue their desires in immoral ways.
Post a Comment
<< Home