For centuries, the topic of homosexuality has sparked discussion of morality among the cultures of the world. The vast majority of religions have either directly or indirectly condemned the activity (for the majority of history it was a question of activity and not of style of living or culture). It has only been recently in human history that homosexuality has come to be known as a way that one lives out their life. It is partly for this reason that homosexuality has come to be such a divisive issue. It has transformed from an issue of morality to an issue of civil rights.
The discussion of civil rights and civil liberties tends to be rife with emotions and opinions originating from different worldviews. Such conversations, by their very nature, will never solve anything. Their only result will be to enflame the masses and their passions towards whichever philosophical worldview they had already adopted. Moreover, any truly democratic decision based off of these discussions will not truly determine which side is objectively right in their argumentation, but only which side has the numbers of majority on their side. This, of course, does not determine objective correctness any more than anti-Semitism was correct in Nazi Germany because the vast majority of Germans accepted its practice.
Rather than delve directly into the enflaming discussion that is the cultural dialogue of homosexuality, I will instead look at the adopted worldview of the position and endeavor to assess it. The ideologies behind the homosexual movement are based on secular humanism. Secular humanism embraces reason, justice and ethics while rejecting the supernatural, religion, and theistic morality. It is a worldview, and as such it must answer several of life’s big questions such as “where did we come from?” and “why are we here?”
We are all well aware of the secular answer to the first question. According to secular culture, the universe is the product of a cosmological “Big Bang” that sent all of existence into being. Sometime after, through a sequence of random occurrences and massive amounts of time, simple life came into being. Then through the intricate biological progression of Darwinian evolution, these simple life forms became much more complex and diverse over time. After billions of years and millions of species, human being came into existence. We are therefore the product of generation after generation the fittest surviving… the product of Godless evolution.
This explanation of our origin also explains the secular humanist’s explanation as to our purpose. Though many will argue that there are greater purposes for mankind within secular culture, they must all agree that the only foundational purpose that we and all life share is to reproduce and propagate their species. Darwinian evolution by survival of the fittest is the only engine that drives all of life forward. It is the foundational truth and cornerstone of man’s existence. Every other purpose that man invents for himself is arbitrary and ultimately trivial. Survival is tantamount.
Now, let us suppose that the secular humanistic way of thinking is true. What ramifications would this have on the claims that popular culture makes regarding the acts of homosexuality? It has become common “knowledge” that one is simply born homosexual. It is genetic. This is the first and most basic truth claim of those defending homosexual activity. From this claim, arguments then proceed to defend the civil rights of all people born into certain circumstances that are beyond their control. If this claim were to be disallowed on their own merits, then the conversation would turn to a matter of preference, and the civil rights arguments would all be disallowed in turn.
If secular humanism is true, then there is no God. Or, at least, if there is a God, He is totally disinterested and inactive in the universe. Without even looking into the consequences this would have on the idea of morality, let us look at where we would have come from. Darwinian evolution is founded on the premise that the fittest survive and propagate their genetic makeup to the following generation. By “the fittest survive,” we really mean that those who reproduce most proficiently become the fittest and pass on their DNA. Those that are not successful in passing on their DNA through reproduction have not been “successful” in the evolutionary scheme and are deemed unfit. Those specimens that are born with some genetic makeup that makes them physically unable to reproduce can never enter into the genetic pool for all the generations to come. Such a genetic makeup would deem the specimen unviable for propagation. Within a few generations, such a gene would be permanently bred out of the population.
If there was a genetic variant that caused reproductive sterility from time to time, it might not cause the death of the specimen with the variation. The specimen itself might even be stronger than all of its contemporaries. However its sterility, within the secular humanistic framework, would be the paramount of all flaws. Supreme genetic makeup encased in a specimen either unable or unwilling to reproduce must be considered to be a flaw within the evolutionary ladder.
One can easily see the trouble this causes regarding the foundational argument in favor of homosexual activity. If people, or any species for that matter, were supposed to be born genetically to partake in exclusively homosexual activity, then they would have been wiped out millions of years ago. Since people with exclusively homosexual desires exist today, then we must find another solution.
There are only two logically consistent solutions to this problem. The first is that people are not actually born into homosexual activity. This would imply that people are either coerced into such activity by their surroundings, or that they choose to partake in homosexual activities on their own accord. However, this would disallow the civil rights implication that people who practice homosexuality often employ for their benefit. Therefore, this rejection is often rejected.
The second logically consistent solution is that Darwinian evolution cannot be true. If the randomness of “survival of the fittest” was to be discounted, and an intelligent designer was to be adopted, then this inconsistency could be accounted for. However, this goes against the very foundation of secular humanism, in which all things are to be explained without the supernatural. It would also complicate the matter from the moralistic point of view. If one were to adopt an intelligent designer, they would also be forced to consider that it could be morally wrong according to the designer’s design to practice homosexuality. Such is the stance of almost every major religion in the world today.
Cognitive Dissonance can be defined a number of different ways. Psychologists say it describes the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. The M.I.T. physicist Gerald L. Schroeder says that it is humanity’s inherent desire to ignore unpleasant facts. No matter which way one chooses to define it, it is quite apparent that the only way one can accept the presuppositions of the homosexual movement and the presuppositions of secular humanism is to ignore the facts of one or the other outright.
I do not write these words to condone hatred or animosity between sides in this ever-emotional and highly heated debate. As a Christian, we should always love those around us. The Bible teaches that ALL sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. To deem that one form of extramarital sexual activity is more wrong than another is not for us to say. Rather, it is our duty to stand by people living in sin with patience and love, encouraging them in times of hardship and always pointing them towards Christ. He, not our arguments or successful debates, is the only hope any of us have for salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
