Tag: Homosexuality

“I Was Born This Way”: Soul Mates, Gay Genes, and Plato

~ Evan Lenow ~ 8 Comments
Plato from The School of Athens by Raphael (1509)

It has been said that all of philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. Could we same the same about the homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate? You may ask, “What in the world does Plato have to do with homosexuality?” The answer may surprise you.

In his work Symposium, Plato explores an alternative explanation for the origin of mankind and gender. Rather than the normal assessment that mankind was created with two genders—male and female—Plato suggests a three-gender origin (male-male, female-female, and male-female) that explains both heterosexual and homosexual orientations. He writes:

In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word “Androgynous” is only preserved as a term of reproach.

Plato describes these humans as “terrible” in might and strength. These humans were two-sided (two faces, two sets of legs and arms, etc). After they waged a war against the gods, Zeus decided to humble mankind by cutting them in half. This effectively reduced mankind to the two genders we know today, but according to Plato, mankind longed for his original state. He states:

Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male. . . . And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other’s sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another.

Here in Plato’s Symposium, we see the origin of the idea of “soul-mates” which forms the basis for much of the argument promoting homosexuality. For example, proponents of same-sex marriage argue that it is unjust to deny marriage to individuals who love each other. They claim these homosexual relationships are as intimate as heterosexual relationships and should be legalized. However, such an argument is based not on science or tradition, but instead it is based on Plato’s concept of soul-mates. According to Plato, when two halves meet and recognize the unexplainable love they have for one another, they have no choice but to spend their whole lives together. Based on this logic, proponents of same-sex marriage claim it is against nature to deny marriage to such soul-mates.

No one today would agree with Plato’s “science” claiming that Zeus cut mankind in half and that we search the earth trying to find our soul-mate. However, this is basically the substance of the “I was born this way” argument. Proponents of homosexuality make a claim based on self-identified sexual preference and argue for rights of matrimony for individuals incapable of biologically reproducing themselves. They are merely two soul-mates professing undying love for one another.

When this argument moves into the scientific realm, many supporters of homosexuality propose that genetics are at work—they were born this way. However, this is illogical because it makes an emotional claim as the basis for a scientific declaration. Jumping from “I love this person” to “I was born this way” or “God made me this way” is a leap from emotions to science. However, science is never based on emotions.

Ultimately, this argument demonstrates the dichotomy between the Christian argument and the pagan argument regarding sexuality. In fact, those proponents of homosexuality who attempt to reinterpret Paul’s statements in Romans 1:26–27 regarding the “natural function” of men and women must also deny Plato’s influence on Roman culture regarding this issue. Paul was almost certainly aware of the discussion of sexual orientation from the ancient world’s most influential philosopher.

It is important to interact with the arguments of the homosexual agenda on many different levels. Not all will be swayed by a biblical argument. For some, philosophical discussions similar to the one above may prove more convincing. In either case, we need to be faithful to proclaim the truth and address this pressing issue in our culture.

_________________________

Plato, Symposium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html.

*I would like to thank a wonderful friend and mentor for his guidance on this particular argument. Although he remains unnamed, his influence and words are present in this article. Thanks.

Radio Interview Audio Available: “Gay Christian Agenda Exposed”

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

The audio from today’s interview on Knowing the Truth radio program is available here.

I would like to thank Pastor Kevin Boling for hosting me today and leading us in a Bible-centered discussion of this issue. As Kevin mentioned, the church is being attacked by those who seek to normalize homosexuality, not only in our culture but also in the church. As Matthew Vines has stated, his organization “seeks to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The only way to combat this in the church is to go back to the Scriptures.

I pray that this interview will be beneficial to you and will glorify God by taking the focus off our own happiness and back to the truth of God’s Word.

You can find out more about Knowing the Truth radio program and Kevin Boling at www.knowingthetruth.org.

Radio Interview Tuesday April 2

~ Evan Lenow

For those of you in the Greenville, SC area, I will be on the Knowing the Truth radio program Tuesday, April 2 from 11:00 am until 12:00 noon (EDT). Pastor Kevin Boling is the host of the program, and it is a live, call-in radio show. The main part of our discussion will be a response to Matthew Vines and his attempt to make a biblical argument supporting homosexuality.

I was interviewed by The Christian Post back in the fall for an article on this issue. I also published on series of articles on my website expanding my answers to Mr. Vines. In recent days, Vines has launched the Reformation Project, which is a “Bible-based, Christian non-profit organization that seeks to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity.” I take issue with Vines’ description of his organization as “Bible-based,” and this will be part of my discussion with Pastor Boling tomorrow.

If you live in South Carolina, you can listen to the program on AM 660 or 92.9 FM. If you are not in the listening area of those stations, you can stream the audio live or download the recording at www.knowingthetruth.org.

Good Reading: The Empty Language of Equality

~ Evan Lenow

The buzzword flying around the debate regarding same-sex marriage is the phrase “marriage equality.” What does that phrase mean, however? Steven Smith, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego offers a word on that issue in an article posted at the Public Discourse. Here are some of the highlights:

[T]hink for a moment about the meaning—and the rhetorical uses and abuses—of equality and inequality. Do we treat blind people unequally by denying them drivers’ licenses when others are permitted to drive? Do we treat convicted felons unequally by putting them in jail when other people are free to move about as they wish? In the purely descriptive sense of different treatment, inequality is ubiquitous. Thank goodness. But we have something different in mind, obviously, when we talk about equality and inequality in political contexts.

Here, as Aristotle long ago observed and as Michigan law professor Peter Westen explained some years ago in a much-discussed article in the Harvard Law Review, equality has a more normative sense. It means that like cases (or, as lawyers say, “similarly situated” instances, or similarly situated classes of people) should be treated alike.

But in that normative sense, equality is wholly uncontroversial—and entirely useless. Everyone favors equality: Everyone thinks that like cases should be treated alike. Nobody argues, “These groups are alike in all relevant respects, but they should be treated differently.” So when people disagree about legal or political issues, they aren’t arguing for and against equality. Instead, they are disagreeing about whether two cases, or two classes of people, actually are alike for the purposes of whatever is being discussed.

Smith goes on to explain his illustration of the blind person and a driver’s license:

Consider an example. We would treat blind people differently either by denying them the right to vote or by denying them drivers’ licenses. But we would treat them unequally only in the first case, not in the second. That is because an ability to see is not a relevant qualification for voting, but it is a relevant qualification for driving. We know this, though, not by applying the idea of “equality,” but rather by thinking about the nature of voting and of driving. Probably there is no disagreement about these particular conclusions. But if you did happen to encounter a good-faith disagreement, you would not be saying anything helpful if you thumped the table and declared that “blind people should be treated equally.” You would only be begging the question.

Ultimately, Smith argues that the use of the language of equality in the same-sex marriage debate is a red herring. It draws on emotion and rhetorical power without addressing the real issue. He states:

Even so, the rhetorical power of “equality” arguments is plain enough. An advocate who frames arguments in terms of “equality” can get rhetorical mileage out of the descriptive sense of inequality—after all, people are being treated differently—and even more rhetorical mileage out of the irresistible injunction to “Treat like cases alike!” Meanwhile, the real substantive disagreements are kept mostly out of sight. Concealing the hard questions while free riding on truisms can be a powerful rhetorical strategy.

I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the entire article. It will be worth your time.

_________________________

Steven Smith, “The Red Herring of ‘Marriage Equality,'” The Public Discourse, March 27, 2013.

History, the Supreme Court, and Same-Sex Marriage

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment
The 9 justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

For the last two days I have been telling my classes that we are living history in this moment. Most of us take little notice of the oral arguments being made before the Supreme Court of the United States. We recognize few of the names of cases, and even fewer names of those who have served as justices. However, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor may become as familiar as Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas. In fact, the names Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan may become quite familiar through the years. Much of the historical significance of these cases and justices hinges not on what happened during the oral arguments on March 26–27, 2013, but on the written opinions that will likely be released in June.

The two cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, address one of the most controversial cultural issues of our day—same-sex marriage. Hollingsworth takes up the question of California’s Proposition 8 and whether the voter referendum approved in 2008 which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state can stand. The Windsor case is the challenge against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. DOMA restricts federal marriage benefits to heterosexual marriages and only requires states to recognize heterosexual marriages.

I am the son of an attorney but not one myself so I will not attempt a legal analysis of the cases; however, I want to address some of the cultural and ethical implications of the debate.

First, the heart of the debate is the definition of marriage. As noted by Theodore B. Olson, attorney for the couples challenging Prop 8, “the label ‘marriage’ means something.” Mr. Olson is correct. Marriage has a meaning. In his argument, he tried to convince the justices that civil unions were not enough—marriage was the only acceptable label for his clients’ relationships. Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Mr. Olson by stating, “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend.’ But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”

Chief Justice Roberts went straight to the core issue. What is the meaning of marriage? There are essentially two approaches. Supporters of same-sex marriage typically define marriage as an intimate, emotional union between individuals. This definition would open the door to marriage for members of the same sex who self-identify as homosexual. The only standard for marriage would be emotional intimacy. By contrast, defenders of traditional marriage define marriage much more specifically than emotional union. In their book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, Girgis, Anderson, and George offer what they call the conjugal definition of marriage:

There is a distinct form of personal union and corresponding way of life, historically called marriage, whose basic features do not depend on the preferences of individuals or cultures. Marriage is, of its essence, a comprehensive union: a union of will (by consent) and body (by sexual union); inherently ordered to procreation and thus the broad sharing of family life; and calling for permanent and exclusive commitment, whatever the spouses’ preferences.

Chief Justice Roberts implied by his comment that allowing same-sex marriage would completely change the definition of the term “marriage.” The change would be so significant that the historical understanding of marriage would no longer apply. This is a key element of the debate. Attaching the term “marriage” to same-sex relationships so changes the meaning of the term that it no longer carries any of its historical meaning and context.

Girgis, et al, make a couple of key observations in their definition. Marriage is comprehensive. It involves all aspects of life. It is expressed through sexual intercourse that is directed to procreation. Of course, not all heterosexual intercourse results in procreation, but all homosexual intercourse is biologically incapable of procreation. The procreation of children and rearing them are then part of the meaning of marriage, but once again, same-sex partners cannot produce their own biological children. Only in recent years, same-sex couple adoption and reproductive technologies using donor sperm or eggs have made child-rearing by same-sex couples even possible.

A change to the historical definition of marriage is required for same-sex marriage to be legalized. It is not just using the term for a new type of relationship. It is a complete change in the meaning of the term.

Second, the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to other distortions of marriage. Most of the proponents for same-sex marriage ignore the logical implications of any legal success on their part. They believe same-sex marriage should be fairly monogamous and would never imply other forms of marriage. However, their logic is inconsistent. By redefining marriage as an intimate, emotional bond, there is no limit placed upon who can get married and how many. The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy, polyamory, and incestuous marriage.

Is that not simply an overreaction? Not at all. In fact, there is already a federal lawsuit in Utah calling for the decriminalization of bigamy using the exact logic of same-sex marriage. If an emotional bond between two men or two women can be called marriage, why not an emotional bond between one man and two women, or two men and one woman, or two men and two women? Or what about an emotional bond between a brother and sister or two cousins? The revised definition of marriage places no logical or biological limits.

Third, many proponents of same-sex marriage have employed civil rights language to support their cause. However, same-sex marriage is not a civil right. One of the biggest differences between the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and same-sex marriage is that the minority seeking protection today are only known by self-identification. Voddie Baucham summarizes it this way:

Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person’s claims regarding sexual orientation.

If “protected class” status can only be determined by self-identification, there is no way to protect that class. In fact, that class truly does not exist in the legal sense because it cannot be identified. Co-opting the language of civil rights for this debate is an offense to minorities of all types, especially African Americans who fought so hard to gain equal rights (including the right to marry members of other ethnicities) decades ago.

So what can Christians do about this? Our first step is to affirm the truth of Scripture. Beginning in Genesis, all statements about marriage involve a man and a woman. Genesis 2:24 declares, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Jesus affirmed heterosexual marriage in Matthew 19:4–6 as he states, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, . . . [quotes Gen 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” From the Old Testament to the New Testament, Scripture teaches marriage as a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman. We need to teach this and live it out.

Next, we need to address the sin of homosexuality. Romans 1:26–27 clears identifies homosexuality as a sin. Paul writes:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

However, homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin. Paul makes an interesting observation in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. After giving a list of sins describing the unrighteous—including the sin of homosexuality—in v. 9–10, Paul states in v. 11, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Even in the church in Corinth, there were former homosexuals. Their lives had been characterized by such sin, but no longer. It is our responsibility to declare the life-changing truth of the gospel and allow the Holy Spirit to do his work.

I want to remind us once again that we are living history. We are watching the world change before our very eyes. How will the Supreme Court decide? No one knows at this point. The implications, however, are clear. This will impact our culture, but God’s Word never changes. May we declare his Word with boldness no matter the cost.

_________________________

Adam Liptak, “Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case,” The New York Times, March 26, 2013.

Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter, 2012), 6.

Voddie Baucham, “Gay Is Not the New Black,” The Gospel Coalition, July 19, 2012.