Skip to main content

The Irrelevancy of the Born Gay Argument

For many years there has been a proposition made that some people are born gay and others born straight. This is a difficult argument to settle since it is almost impossible to prove true or false.  That is why I believe that it has been used so successfully by those who support homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.  If some people are born gay, then they are presumably not culpable for their homosexuality.  In fact, as they pursue their homosexuality and act upon it in relationship with another, they are only doing what God designed them to do.  Who can blame them for that?  If God designed some gay and some straight from birth, then homosexuality is just as legitimate as heterosexuality.  Indeed, if anyone is to blame, it is God Himself.

My contention is that the debate over whether one is a born homosexual or not is irrelevant.  Suppose that it could be substantiated scientifically that there is indeed a "gay gene".  If, through genetic testing, it was discovered that I had inherited an inclination towards same-sex attraction, would this be God's sanctioning of my participation in homosexual sex?  If I just do what comes naturally to me, isn't that a good enough rule to live by?  Who has the right to tell me that I cannot act upon my natural instincts?

I believe that there are some people who are born with a tendency towards homosexuality.  Same-sex attraction is indeed an inherited trait.  Like all other deviant sexual desires, the desire for homosexuality is inherited from mankind's progenitor- Adam. "Gay-ness" is not a matter of cell chemistry, or the physical properties of a person's genetic makeup. Homosexuality, as with all sin, springs from a spiritual sin nature. God is not to blame. He didn't design anyone with a sin nature. We owe that to Adam.  He was the one who became a sinner because he refused to live within the boundaries that God set for him. As his descendants, we have all inherited his sin nature.  And like our father, we balk at God's right to put boundaries around our sexual choices.

What makes homosexuality right or wrong has nothing to do with what tendencies we were born with. Doing what comes naturally is not the rule of life.  What is the standard that determines whether my sexual conduct is right or wrong? What rule should I conduct my life by?  The Scripture is clear that the standard of morality is not what seems good to me, but rather that which is in submission to the boundaries of God, the rule maker.  I cannot use the "doing what comes naturally" excuse if I were to steal, or to murder, or to abuse another person.  Neither can I use it when I choose to act sexually outside of God's rules for my life.  In every area of our lives we are told to submit to God's will, not to our own wills.  The problem is that we have inherited sin natures that are constantly at war with God's will for us. Therefore, if we are to ever be free from slavery to fulfilling the lusts of our sin natures, we must be born again and receive a new nature from a new Father- this time not born in accordance to the corrupt human nature of Adam, but born from above by the Spirit of God.

This new birth takes place when we turn to God by placing our trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior.  He died to free us from the penalty and power of sin and to give us His righteousness.  The one who places his trust in Jesus as his Savior is given the gift of new birth from God.  The Holy Spirit comes to live inside the believer and gives the believer a new nature with new desires.  He also empowers the believer to follow God's will, even if the old sin nature's will is contrary to that of God's.

Homosexuality is not the only sexual sin.  God has determined that any sexual practice that is not between one man and one woman, united in a marriage relationship, is wrong.  We do not have the luxury of making our own rules or following our own hearts in the matter.  We are accountable to God to live within the boundaries He has set.  Therefore, the "born gay" argument is irrelevant.  

Popular posts from this blog

We Call Him "Terrorist"

courtesy of www.freeimages.com This man cuts off the head of a hostage and is rightfully condemned as the epitome of wickedness.  We think of him as evil to the core. We call on the government to bring justice to this murderer.  We know that we cannot tolerate this kind of evil in the world.  He must be stopped and we will spare no expense to make sure that he doesn't kill again.  We call him "terrorist". courtesy of www.freeimages.com This man cuts off the heads of hundreds of unborn babies with no real condemnation.  Some think of him as a champion of women's rights.  Others choose to ignore him, pretending that he doesn't exist.  To some he is not really bad, just misguided. Perhaps he has the wrong priorities but is generally a decent person. We tolerate his decapitation of innocent babies and don't spend too much time or energy trying to stop him. We call him "doctor".

A Personal Testimony

I grew up in a loving home with Christian parents and Christian siblings (an older brother and sister). My dad felt God's call on his life to become a pastor before I even started school so I have been a preacher's kid for practically all of my life.  Yeah, I'm that kid.  The one that got to go on the youth group snow skiing trip before I was in the youth group because I got to tag along with my pastor/dad. I have heard a lot of stories of preacher's kids (pk's) who are bitter about their experiences; the perceived constant scrutiny from church members, the lack of privacy, having to share their dad with hundreds of other people, missing out on family vacations because someone's aunt so-and-so died, etc. Those are real experiences, but I consider it a privilege to have the example of a godly dad who gave himself to minister to others as their pastor.  The blessings of being a pk far outweigh the challenges in my opinion. When I was around five years old, my ni...

Isaac Asimov's book "In the Beginning": Part Four- Chapter Three

I had good intentions.  For various reasons I was delayed in blogging and didn't get further in the book than chapter 3, which I hope to comment on today.  Working my way through Asimov's book was like digging through a garbage dump looking for something useful.  I found that the whole thing stunk and what little I finally did pull out of his worthless writings made the effort seem wasted.  I was already contemplating not finishing what I boldly set out to do, i.e. comment on all thirteen chapters, when I realized that the book was overdue at the library.  I returned the book today and am using this as an excuse to not finish my series. With that said I will comment on what little I found in chapter 3. A little chronological background of the creation account of Day 6 in Genesis chapter two will help us understand my comments later in this post.  First of all, God made Adam and placed him in Eden.  God then told him not to eat from the tree of the kn...