The Contradictions of Gay "Marriage"
There is an inherent problem with the gay “marriage” movement, and it lies with the claims of its proponents. On the one hand, they claim that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”, yet on the other hand, they claim that they are gay because “God made them that way”, i.e. it’s in their genes that they like to get into each other’s jeans.
Horse apples and cow pies. Let’s address the points sequentially.
Take at face value the second statement. If you believe that homosexuality is genetically determined, then it is not a choice any more than eye color or skin color is a choice. Therefore, it logically inconsistent to say that a person can enter or exit a lifestyle of homosexuality whenever they want. Not that I agree with that conclusion, but it is the logical conclusion of genetic homosexuality.
Now let’s assume that the first statement is true, that is, homosexuality is a lifestyle and not genetically determined. If that is true, then gay “marriage” is no more a civil rights issue than cyclists wanting a wider bike lane for their lifestyle. To call it such is to demean other, more important social and civil rights issues like the right to vote.
Gay “marriage” advocates have some explaining to do. If, on the one hand, they believe in the lifestyle choice, they should apologize for denigrating the struggles of the black community in their fight for true civil rights throughout the 50s and 60s. However, if they believe in the gay gene, then how in the world could someone convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality? How could someone ever even want to be gay if they didn’t have an active gay gene? It would be like a man becoming a woman at the chromosome level (an X-Y to X-X conversion).
The conclusion that I draw is that homosexuality is a conversion at the mental level, not one at the cellular level. There is a conscious mental choice that is made, sometimes over the course of several decades, where a person agrees with the homosexual lifestyle to a point where they begin practicing it. If a person ever switches back, that is known as repentance.
No, I’m not afraid of using a Bible word in the context of the marriage debate. If homosexuals want to claim that God made them that way, they should prepared to deal with the whole enchilada of Biblical belief, not just piecemeal extractions for the sake of their prostrations.
Failures of conversion efforts are not a proof of genetic homosexuality, but rather an expos? of the failure of the methods used. If someone wants to be gay they will stay that way. If, however, someone is having questions about their supposedly inherent homosexuality, the conversion efforts are more likely to succeed, all the more so if Biblical means of conversion are used. A proof of genetic homosexuality would have to explain, scientifically, why a converted homosexual man no longer desires other men, not just rely on the explainable failures of the opponents of gay genetics.
These necessary explanations are added to the list of unanswered questions as to why society should adopt gay “marriage”. We’re still waiting on an adequate answer from the gays to Romans 1. We’re still waiting on how they plan to lower the divorce rate instead of increase it. We’re still waiting for a list of why it takes marriage and not other changes in law for a homosexual to visit their dying partner in a hospital. We’re still waiting for an explanation and proof that homosexuality is a better way of parenting children. We’re still waiting, and all we hear are demands that demean Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. These inherent problems have not been addressed.
I’m not holding my breath.