Saturday, December 6, 2003
"There is no force more divine than love." Hmm ... profound. It must be profound because it is pure philosophical hogwash. In reality, Nicholas Kristof's whole article, "Lovers under the skin," is one of the most pathetic excuses for wasting ink and paper I have ever read. As a justification for changing social order, however, it is far worse. In fact, it's altogether frightening in its implications.
Kristof paints the struggle for homosexual rights as one between "religious conservatives" and those who argue for a "biological basis" for the behavior, and he is right on that point at least. There can be no question that the Christian church represents the greatest threat to the normalization and celebration of homosexual behavior. Gay activists no longer just want to be out of the closet; they want to occupy the high moral ground where Biblical principles have ruled for centuries. If this is to happen, scripture must be discredited as well as those who believe it.
Kristof does a hatchet job on both Christians and scripture. In his article, he casts doubt on the relevance of scripture as a basis for law by citing a few verses, either in part or just by reference, and then telling us what they say. For instance, he says "Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages." This verse doesn't mention races at all. In it, God is prohibiting the Israelites from intermarrying with the people in the land that they are about to possess in order to keep them from being influenced by their immoral practices. scripture does not forbid interracial marriages and neither should Christians be shamed from speaking in the public square because of the implication that we are racist. His other uses of scripture display the same biased treatment.
Christians fare worse than scripture in Kristof's writing. I find that what I and billions of others believe to be true about God is absolutely wrong. God is not a person, after all. He, or it, is actually a "force" and its greatest manifestation among us is not in the person of Jesus Christ but in "divine" love. (Sigh. Can you say Star Wars meets Love Story?)
As quoted above, "There is no force more divine than love" Kristof says. His point, apparently, is that there is more of the divine in two men or two women having sex than there is in the biblical portrait of God. The logical result of that is Kristof's conclusion: "... the blasphemy is not in those who want to share their lives with others of the same sex, but rather in anyone presumptuous enough to vilify that love." So I and all who believe in God as he is revealed in scripture are those who truly defame God and call him (it), unholy. And we are guilty of this because homosexuals embody the divine in a sexual relationship that we have the audacity to say is immoral and therefore unholy. Should I repent? Don't hold your breath.
Kristof looks to rationalize sodomy not only because it is a "divine" act but also on the basis of natural law. His argument is that if it's natural it must be normal and therefore right. There are dubious examples of homosexual behavior in animals cited by Kristof as behavioral precedents for humans, such as "supposedly lesbian seagulls." If seagulls "do it" then it must be reasonable -- and acceptable -- for humans to also do it. But why do we need an argument from nature? Why search for a basis for homosexuality in anything other than pure hedonism? This search betrays the frustration of the mind that rejects God.
Homosexuals and their allies are bound by their consciences to excuse or somehow rationalize their behavior. It's sort of like getting caught with a hand in the cookie jar. We know we are guilty but we want to talk our way out of it. In the end, even Kristof feels accountable to justify his views, and lo and behold if he doesn't appeal to Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Appealing to nature is the homosexual activist's primary way of justifying his or her behavior. Instead of finding a basis for morality in that which is supernatural they seek it in the natural. Without a supernatural God who defines morality, all we have left is the natural. If it's natural then it must be moral. Homosexuality is natural, ergo, it is moral. Wrong, unless we are prepared to accept everything that is natural as normal. This would include cannibalism, incest, murder and whatever else it takes to ensure "the survival of the fittest." Hitler's program of eliminating those whom he regarded as the weak elements of the human species should be celebrated as a bold step forward in carrying out the logical conclusions of Darwinism. Too bad it included homosexuals.
The argument from nature doesn't solve anything. If I could prove a genetic origin for kleptomania, would that then justify my immunity against laws prohibiting theft? In fact, why shouldn't those who are genetically prone to alcoholism demand that we celebrate their drunkenness? Homosexuals decry those who offer hope to those who want to escape the homosexual lifestyle while at the same time demanding more money for research into the cure of HIV. But why try to find a cure for HIV or any other disease? Aren't they natural, normal occurrences, and therefore moral? Who are we to go against the morality that nature has ordained?
Kristof argues for equality for homosexuals in marriage. In reality, however, he is arguing on behalf of those who want to be treated as more than equals in marriage. They are Orwellian in their insistence that they are a little more equal than others. Christians and others who have dissenting views regarding homosexuality must be silenced. We are not far from the time when letters like this will be labeled as "hate speech" and those who write them will be criminals. We're seeing this happen in Canada, where pastors and others cannot say that homosexuality is a sin. For example, a Saskatchewan man recently was fined $5,000 for buying a newspaper ad that quoted verses from the Bible condemning homosexual behavior. That is now considered a hate crime, and that is exactly what's going to happen in the United States.
This isn't a trivial debate. In the end, those who are advocates for homosexuality are attempting to redefine our social order by rejecting God and any accountability to our creator. They will not succeed however, for without God there was and can only be chaos. Love is not a divine force. As scripture says, God is love. If we don't recognize God, is it any wonder we don't recognize love?