Sunday, June 16, 2013

A Novel Argument Against Homosexuality

This topic is getting a lot of airplay lately.  In fact, a lot of great airplay from folks like James White and Doug Wilson.  Great folks arguing from an accurate and powerful perspective.  Arguing against fickle folks trying to move another boundary stone.

Folks arguing from a biblical as well as a pragmatic perspective.  Folks unwilling to engage a "secular civil argument".  Unwilling to apply a mass of statistics indicating far greater unfaithfulness, illness and divorce among homo's (I'm not allowed to call them "Sodomites" in my country).  Unwilling because such application against the fickle is powerless.  Powerless since such a significant mass of statistics are allegedly conquered by a few feeble anecdotes.

But at the risk of offending some of my strictly pre-suppositionalist buddies- I'd like to submit a novel argument against homosexuality.  Submit a "secular civil argument" against homosexuality as requested by the homo's themselves.  In the spirit of John Frame (Gerstner, Sproul and Van Til), submit an ancillary argument.   Submit a direct, positive, ad rem argument- rather than the indirect, negative ad hominem argument of my pre-sup buddies.
Admittedly, not as accurate or powerful as the pre-sup argument- but as the implication method/transcendental method/pre-sup popularizer Van Til would say, "Just for the sake of argument" let's "meet our enemy on their own ground".  A ground that strict pre-sups meet all too lightly.

So in this post I will submit a "secular civil argument" that reduces their argument somewhat.    An argument that may also be seen to be hugely pre-sup- if you can actually grant the ontological argument that causally follows.  If you can actually grant, 'An  argument that presupposes the "what" as well as the "that".  An argument that simply obliterates the homosexual argument.

Now, some of you may have seen the recent Wilson-Sullivan debate at Idaho University.  Among the questions received by pre-sup Wilson continued to be the question, 'What is essentially wrong with homosexuality?'.  A question presumably hoping to attract some specific statistics. Statistics which are just beginning to appear.
Statistics which will soon show the folly of this latest lobby group as well.  Statistics which will show the innate folly of this particular promiscuity.  Statistics that promiscuity-endorsing Sullivan will not be convinced by either.

Will not be convinced since Sullivan and his supporters are rather blind to statistics.  Blindly refuting statistics with bleeding-heart anecdotes.  Refuting generalities with anomalies.  Refuting bloopers with blips. 

Regardless, Wilson basically responds to these new lobbyists with the standard 'What is essentially wrong with polygamy?' rhetoric.  Rhetoric that begs a higher standard of right and wrong for imposing new moral laws.  Rhetoric that doesn't tug at statistics, but tugs at a part of the conscience that may be less seared.  An excellent response to those "epistemological loafers" (VT).

Yet what if Wilson were to respond,  'What is essentially wrong with xenophobia?'.  A response with a more direct connection.  More direct since in essence, homosexuals truly are xenophobes- truly afraid of intimacy with a strange gender.  Or to be even more direct someone might ask, 'What is wrong with genophobia?'.  A fear of actual sexual intercourse.

'What?  Are you crazy? We love strangers... and we love a lot of them', those homo's  might reply.  

Sure this is true to some degree.  Sure they love strangers and intercourse- just not to the same degree ...and not in the same way.  As this recent American census indicates, their love for minority groups, justice and equality is a much lesser consideration than their love for themselves.    Their love for making and adopting children is considerably less as well.  They are functionally intimacy-challenged. 

That recent census  also indicates to me that there are greater degrees of this xenophobia and genophobia among homo's.  And I'm not surprised (as Sullivan is) that a large minority (40%) of this demographic are merely loosey-goosey with their body--- have no real preference.

It may be seen from that census that the love of homo's is basically immature. Primarily loving a gender that is really easy to love... easy enough for children to love.  Playing the same old children's games.  Playing doctor or playing house with the same gender.
Children loving to play with a gender that they very well know how to please- because they very well know how to please themselves. 

Yet, pleasing a radically different gender is considerably more difficult- much harder to play house with.  Pleasing the opposite gender is much more of a challenge... a challenge for adults.
To put it in politically correct terms, homo's are tremendously gender-challenged. Gender-challenged in a sociological as well as a sexual sense.  Inept at embracing "gender diversity".

Now, homo's may preach about "diversity" and resort to the "tolerance" rhetoric - but this rhetoric is hypocritical and duplicitous (as Wilson so aptly demonstrated at Indiana University).  Homo's are actually wholly inept at embracing their alleged 'neutrality'.  As Van Til said, 'Their "neutrality" is simply a colorless suit that covers a negative attitude toward God'.

And I expect a future census to indicate about as much "tolerance" as was shown by Sodomites to Lot and some strangers- Gen. 19:9.
I expect a future census to indicate about as much "tolerance" as was shown by incestuous and  pederast-Romans to Christians ("Off with his head!"). 
I expect a future census to indicate about as much "tolerance" as homo's have for freedom of speech in my country (Canada).

And I expect to see a survey indicating far more "tolerance" and "diversity embracing" evident  among hetero's.
Why?  Because it is "tautologically true" (a terminology that Sullivan seems to enjoy) of the word "hetero".

And this "tolerance" is much more evident among those people who have actually been embraced by a Holy God. Embraced by someone who is truly "hetero".  The Holy embracing the unholy. 

In closing, we are not embraced by a xenophobic God.  Not embraced by a genophobic God.
Not a God who is loosey-goosey.  Not a God who is promiscuous.

But embraced by a God who gracious and faithful.  

A God who embraces those who once were hostile and gender-challenged like Rosaria Butterfield.
A God who embraces us to become homogenous with Him.

What a glorious embracing.