I wanted to follow up on what I wrote the other day because I don’t think you can cover this subject in one blog. On the surface the argument for an against homosexuality and other variant sexual preferences simply appears to be a number world views clashing and appealing to legitimacy as its advocate.
At one point those who promoted and supported the LBGT lifestyle spoke of it as an alternative lifestyle. Now if you listen to their arguments you don’t hear the word alternative very much anymore. They have moved from pleading and negotiation to insisting that this lifestyle preference be accepted as legitimate. Note that I use the word preference instead of orientation. Orientation implies a natural inclination towards something. As I said last time science has not proved orientation but ironically the bible has and the evidence is everywhere all the time…. I will come back to this later
One can argue the semantics as to the meaning of orientation, preference, choice and all the other buzz words that are thrown about in this debate but all they do is take us down all kinds of rabbit trails that are dead ends. However, it is this very same tactic which is used to obfuscate clear meaning and definition. In other words we can become so caught up in meaning and definition that we lose sight of the objective which is to say this is right and this is wrong and here is why.
But it doesn’t end there. While all the semantic maneuvering is bogging everyone down it detracts from illuminating the facts by muddying the water with emotive argumentation.
I have just finished watching a number of presentations from the leading proponents of the LBGT movement and their so called ‘Christian‘ supporters. I use the word Christian in italics because to me they are suspect; I don’t know their true heart state before God but I do question their genuineness because they have left the foundational teachings of the Bible and are leading others into serious error.
The method used to lead many astray is really quite simple. appeal to the emotions! Yep, that’s it! It doesn’t matter what the subject is or whether it is even true or a fairy tale you start appealing to peoples emotions by building a version of history that paints the perpetrator as the victim or the deviant as a freak of nature and how badly they were treated you add in a little bit of commentary of groups that villanized these poor misunderstood souls and you have an outraged audience. Did you just feel your own injustice meter start to rise? Were you suddenly reminded of a situation you or someone you know of was wrongly accused? Do you feel angry’ sad’ ‘guilty‘?
Guilt is the big one. “You don’t understand what its like to be me! I can identify with this or that minority because I have suffered persecution”. “I am just like you I love my dog,I have a mom and dad, I have a right to love and be loved, I know how Jesus felt on the cross”.
Some will think I just built a straw-man argument that I caricatured all those minority groups using stereotypical presuppositions. Actually no I didn’t, all I did was repeat the well worn arguments that are laden with straw-man type arguments against their detractors. Emotive arguments are more powerful than factual arguments most times simply because once your emotions are engaged its harder to distinguish facts.
Let me give you an example of how to turn an audience on its head; how about a group of small school children. You read them an adventure about the Smurfs, but instead of just reading how the evil Gargamel wants to destroy Smurf civilization, you first tell a story about the Ugly Duckling about how he was misunderstood and mistreated but in the end turned out to be a beautiful Swan. You take the character of Gargamel and show how he is like the ugly duckling. By doing so you create sympathy for his character. Gargamel after all has a right to be loved and accepted, his actions are misguided. If the Smurfs would only show him the love he needed then all would be well. The fact that Gargamel created Smurfett to create disunity is no longer a central theme. The story of good and evil is no longer the point of tension on which the moral of the story pivots. Good and evil are no longer relevant, right and wrong are no longer the point of the story. Putting aside differences and finding acceptance regardless of the facts becomes the main emphasis.
Defense Lawyers and psychologists are very good at making perpetrators look like victims. Create a back history of how the perpetrator had a tragic childhood or was mislead and you move away from the fact that the perpetrator did anything wrong. The perpetrator had bad role models or didn’t have the same opportunity as others to live a different life. “If you only understood how bad their life was, they had no choice, they were the victim of circumstance”. In other words you just don’t understand. The old saying “Walk a mile in my shoes! becomes the central theme not the act itself.
This is the very same tactic the LBGT community are using to gain acceptance within the Church and it seems the Pedophile advocates will be next. When I told some people 25 years ago that this would happen they were horrified. They wanted to shut the conversation down as quickly as possible and move away to some other issue because it was just too disgusting to acknowledge. No one wanted to go there.
Beware that avoidance does not lead us into further darkness. We as Christians (true Christians) cannot bury our heads in the sand and be lead astray by emotive arguments. We cannot dismiss what the bible says about the human heart that it is sinful, that it deserves death and that it hates the light that God has shed on the world through His Son Jesus Christ This is the very thing the bible says about orientation, it isn’t so much the actions we undertake, it is the very intent of the heart that it is wicked all day long. What we do is overt you can’t change what you do once it is done. It is the intent or covert nature of the heart behind the actions that tells the real story.
What may appear to an act of humanitarianism or altruism on the surface may in fact be an act of pure selfishness and evil underneath. In terms of dealing with this whole issue under discussion it has the appearance of enlightenment ,tolerance and civility; but at what cost and to whom?
Some leading proponents of the LBGT movement are now openly admitting that they want our children they are not just wanting to offer an alternative lifestyle through sex education, they are openly admitting they want to convert (pervert) your children. Think down the track to a point of time where pedophilia is just another accepted sexual orientation. Does this mean there will be children who are born with a natural sexual orientation towards adults?
Of course that is the argument of the pedophile movement already. Pedophiles are already of the opinion that children can and do make a conscious decision to have sex with adults. I would want to know how much coercion and manipulation is involved in any such transaction or if a young child can or could make such an informed decision. What happens to the law when society goes down this track?
If you don’t think this will become a reality at some point or you somehow arrive at the belief that people are born this way and its not a choice please tie an anvil around my neck and throw me off the bridge!
The Calvinist 