RE: AiG on choosing to be straight
AiG released an article on their opinion on when someone chooses to be straight. They are responding to this video and I have to say they first start out criticising that they didn't show anyone standing by the biblical reason they are against homosexuality as if to imply that the creators of the video expertly cut out certain interviews so that it meshed with their overall theme, which is the exact thing that their fan boy Comfort has been known to do and has refused to released the raw footage on.
They say they are just calling sins as they see them but I don't see them condemning divorced / remarried people on a daily basis. I don't see them writing articles on how people should stick with an abusive husband or wife because some book written 2000 years ago says that they should. If you're letting a book written by people that have the mental capacity that a baby would laugh at now, maybe you should re-think your life decisions.
In this section of the blog, they suggest that asking "When did you choose to be straight?" presupposes that we are born in a neutral position:
The questions being asked presuppose a neutral state from which you choose to be gay, straight, transgender, bisexual, a fornicator, an adulterer, etc. So, we must reframe the question since it does not align with reality. God made us male and female and designed us for heterosexual activity within the bounds of marriage (Genesis 2:18–25).
I cannot begin to even contain my laughter about their issue with presupposing something that defies reality. For one, their entire position presupposes something that defies reality and they use bassackwards science in order to "prove" their shitty position. Their idea that someone chooses to be a certain sexuality insinuates that there is a neutral position that we can transition in and out of at will.
From a Systems Engineering Standpoint, their assertion that because we have parts that match means that we have a single purpose for those parts. In the system that is sexuality, there are a lot of parts and genitals are a single subsystem of a system of systems. Brain Chemistry has a lot to do with sexuality. If the proper chemicals do not get released then the delivery systems, aka genitals, can't be activated in order to deliver the payload. During pregnancy there are outside forces that work on the fetus that dictate what will trigger this release of chemicals in order to activate the delivery system. Typically a child's sexuality is set in stone by the time they reach age 3.
That is just the tip of the iceberg of an engineering point of view of sexuality as a system. "God," being the ultimate designer that he is, would take all of the factors of sexuality into consideration. If he indeed did create humans and design them to his own specifications, not only did he mean for some humans to practice homosexuality, but he also specifically meant to create us flawed biologically as if it were part of some fucking soap opera he's watching on his 65" screen holding an american flag screaming "YEAH MURICA BITCHES"
This section also negates the fact that over 5K species are known to practice homosexuality. They claim that we choose to act on sinful urges yet what choice does a ram make when it acts on instinct? The answer is that the ram doesn't make a choice. Just like we don't make a choice as to what we are attracted to. This is the reason why I despise those that hide and protect pedophiles more than the pedophiles themselves. Does this mean that I don't despise pedophiles? No. I certainly do. They are criminals of the most horrendous nature and they should be locked up and kept from civilized society. But I hold that position because I know they can't control themselves and that they can regret and apologize all they want to but short of castration their nature isn't going to change.
In this section they try to speak to a moral authority, you can't do that with the bible though.
Without the foundation of a moral absolute, there is no basis upon which anyone can call any kind of sexual behavior wrong; they can only call it different and pass no moral judgments. Christians look to God for the absolute standard and trust in His revealed truth to make our judgments.
The fact of the matter is that even biblical morality isn't absolute. Slavery is a really big indication of this as you all know. I know it's kind of a tired argument but so is the idea that the bible provides an absolute authority. Even in the New Testament they talk about slavery and give laws about how slaves should act. This has changed countless times across the ages. Most recently the bible was used during the civil rights movement in an attempt to keep African-Americans oppressed.
It's odd how this absolute moral authority has back pedaled so much in the past few hundred years. This one subject alone shows that religion is losing moral ground in our society. That's not to say that the misogynistic nature of the bible is anything to dismiss. The bible was used to keep women in their place for years and is even still used today in some households.
You can in fact pass moral judgements on people without an absolute authority. You pass moral judgements based on the society you live in. We condemn things in America that are seen as morally neutral in other parts of the world. Recently a Pastor in Pennsylvania was brought up on charges of statutory rape of a 16 year-old in his ministry. In other countries this wouldn't be an issue but in America it is in fact condemned as immoral. Morality changes as society changes. Seriously all you have to do is simply look at history and you can see it. Problem with Ken Ham and AiG is that they have jesus glasses on that prevent them from seeing the objective truth.
Basically his advice for arguing against this question is to disregard everything we know about biology, chemistry, and pretty much science altogether and go with the 2000 year old book because they know better right. Fact of the matter is that the only thing you can say you know for certain is what we can analyse and test in reality. It's a biological fact that some people and animals are born with a sexual predisposition to those of their own gender. It's not a choice and it's not a defect. It's just one biological trait out of hundreds. If you're talking to someone that is so eager to dismiss basic science, then there is no point in fighting too hard. You should still assert your position with a firm voice and mature attitude but I wouldn't expect to really make any kind of progress with that individual person.
The fact that you are speaking up and standing up for the equality of all people is a big step in the right direction. Each and every one of you is essential to changing the flow of society towards the acceptance of all LGBT individuals.
Speaking out against those that wish to condemn people unnecessarily is what is generating the momentum for the societal change that we need.
Remember to keep planting those seeds of doubt and skepticism.