Monthly Archive: May 2012

The big story this week has been the President’s announcement that he support’s same sex marriages. The responses have, not surprisingly, taken us down that familiar road of arguing whether people are homosexual by choice or by genetics.

One local radio talk show personality made the argument that it is ridiculous to believe it is choice. The logic used in this argument was that if it was a choice the person could change their choice and could be changed. Going on, they argued, therefore If I could change someone from homosexual to heterosexual then it stands to reason I could do the inverse – change them from heterosexual to homosexual. Well, what’s to say you can’t?

No case was made to refute the idea that this would indeed be possible – it was just assumed that it was utterly ridiculous to imagine a person being convinced to change from heterosexual to homosexual. The logic used for this argument is awful, almost as bad as ‘If A equals B then B must equal C’. If one’s opinion is that homosexuality is a choice then by default the homosexual chose to change from heterosexual to homosexual. They were indeed convinced (by someone, by circumstances or some combination) to change . Whether you agree with the premise of choice or not, there is nothing in the talk show host’s argument that disallows the possibility to change – in either direction. If you do agree with the premise of choice you have to believe one can change in either direction.

The logic falls apart even further if we examine it deeper. The argument for genetics is that you either are attracted to people of the opposite sex or people of the same sex and it is determined by biology. The assumption that must hold true is that attraction is biological. But is that true? Is that what all of the evidence says?

The basis for this assumption and the reason it is so popular is that heterosexuals seem to be attracted to numerous people of the opposite sex – therefore it is driven, yes, determined by biology. That leads to another assumption, specifically, that this is the norm. I will certainly grant that if it can be established that it is indeed the norm for people (whether heterosexual or homosexual) to be attracted to many different people in a sexual manner the assumptions and ultimately the theory stand on much firmer ground. I am not convinced that this latter assumption has been established.

First, lets discuss the word norm. In many cases people will use the word norm to express what happens in most cases. But this is not an accurate description for this word. In America most people will refer to a soccer match as a soccer game, but it was meant to be referred to as a match. The actual norm is to call it a match. Calling it a game is a derivative or corruption from the norm – even though the vast majority call it a game.

Let us begin with the premise that there is a norm for attraction and that there are certainly corruptions or perversions of that norm. Another big story this week involves a 33 year old female teacher having a sexual relationship with an underage student. People are upset and outraged by this story. The teacher has been indicted for doing something illegal. Very few people do not see this as corrupted or perverted. It would not matter how many of these cases took place we would not see them as normal because normal in this case is not based on the number of incidents but rather on what we believe acceptable, an absolute right or wrong. Thoroughout society we do not believe that it is normal for a 33 year old teacher to be attracted to an underage boy.

While some cultures may differ as to whether a man should have one wife, or two or five for that matter, no culture believes a man should have as many and whatever woman he wants. We do not believe that is normal. If it is purely biological then why not? How does biology provide for a morality; a morality that on some level all people’s agree?

As Christians we believe that man was created a certain way. We then, through rebellion went astray. We believe there are all manner of consequences and effects of that history. As Christians we believe that God made man and he made a companion woman. What if this was the norm? What if when God created man the norm was for a man to be attracted to one woman and a woman to be attracted to one man? What if the fact that we certainly seem to be attracted to multiple people is a corruption or perversion of the norm? We can see other corruptions of our original state of creation – for example, we die.

There is evidence there is a norm and that it is built into us, for example our view that the unnatural attraction of a 33 year married woman to an underage boy is abnormal. Or the universally accepted morals that we live by providing limits. If it is true there is a norm and it is built into us and has simply become corrupted it blows up the assumptions that the genetics argument is built upon. It doesn’t just address the homosexual issue though. If it is true it means it is just as much a corruption of the norm to desire more than one person of the opposite sex as well. While it may be the norm in the sense that is common among people it does not mean it is the norm in relation to how we were made.

Man has gotten it so backwards. We spend the majority of our lives pursuing the ‘feeding’ of ourselves and our families. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a firm believer in the work ethic, as admonished by the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “If a man is not willing to work, then let him not eat.” But I’m talking about something different here.

In Matthew chapter 4, verse 4 Jesus is in the wilderness and what we know as his time of temptation has started. Satan has just encouraged him to turn the stones around him into bread to address the certain intense hunger that was upon Jesus after having fasted. That verse reads like this; Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Most of the time we read that and think, “well of course, we need the Word of God in our lives along with food and other things.” But is that all it says to us? How many of us are trying to live ‘on bread alone’, or at least something close to that? The bread here could extend to all of the temporal things in our lives, both material and non-material. And what about the second half of the statement? Jesus essentially says man is to live on, or find his life in every word that comes from the mouth of God. For it is the will of God that He commands that gives us life, both spiritual and physical. If we would but understand it we would realize that we could more have life without bread than we could by doing without the word that comes from the mouth of God. All things temporal no more provide life than you and I can breathe life into one of those very stones Satan refers to.

Consider this as well – Jesus is quoting a reference to Deuteronomy chapter 8 verse 3. In that verse the children of Israel are being reminded how God had delivered them with the manna from heaven when they were hungry. God provided the manna from heaven to sustain the children of Israel by His will commanded. John Wesley says this about this reference, “By every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God – That is, by whatever God commands to sustain him. Therefore it is not needful I should work a miracle to procure bread, without any intimation of my Father’s will.” (John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible). Just as the children of Israel were supplied by that which God commanded, Jesus, regardless of what power He had, would live the same way – to live by His Father’s will rather than His own.