This topic goes way back to when we had posted a picture on our social media profiles about Bruce Jenner. The responses we received were shocking. We decided to pray collectively and draw open dialogues with a few of the commenters. The biggest argument is that homosexuals will say that they are born the way they are and that it is a genetic orientation, and since they didn't choose it, it cannot be wrong.
If that is the case, then why do identical twins with identical genetics not have uniformity of sexual orientation? This proves it is not just genetic. (5) But let's not stop there. What if a person is born with a genetic orientation to dislike homosexuality? Is that okay? Should his orientation be protected by law so that he is not offended or discriminated against? If not, then why the double standard? Would it then be okay for such a person to want laws passed to protect his "homosexuality aversion orientation"? Or, is only the homosexual orientation worthy of protection? Just being born with an orientation doesn't mean it is okay. If a person is born with the orientation to lie, does that mean that lying is okay? Of course not. Should lying-oriented-people demand national rights based on their orientation and its resulting practice? Again, of course not. Same goes for murderers or rapists. What does it mean to have a sexual orientation, and what is a homosexual orientation?
According to the American Psychological Association . . . "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity-based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions . . . sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."(1)
Whether or not someone is naturally oriented to be romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender does not mean that it is automatically morally acceptable. If a person's natural predisposition toward same-sex attraction means that it is normal "for them" and thereby acceptable, then we run into problems. What do we do with people who are naturally oriented towards being attracted to children, i.e., pedophilia? Is it morally wrong? If so, why? You see, if we say that a "natural" orientation in sexuality should automatically be accepted because it is what is "natural" to a person, then the same logic could be used to support the idea that pedophilia--which people also claim is natural for them--is also acceptable. "Using the same tactics used by 'gay' rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals."(3)
So, is one's sexual orientation a sufficient argument to justify homosexuality? No, it is not. One's orientation doesn't mean it is okay. If you say it does make it okay, then you must accept pedophilia since that is also a person's "sexual orientation." If you say one's orientation doesn't make something okay, then you can logically reject pedophilia. But, this would mean that arguments based on sexual orientation are void--and rightfully so.(4) What about those who have an orientation that is heavily in favor of lying? Does one's "truth orientation" make it okay to lie since that is how he was born? Or what if someone is oriented towards adultery or murder or violence or hatred, pornography, various fetishes, etc. Does one's orientation--that natural predisposition toward a certain behavior and attraction--automatically make it okay just because he was born that way?(5) Of course not, yet that is the argument used by the homosexuals. They need a better argument than "I was born that way."
In 1996, The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine, asked readers what they believed the potential impact would be to the advancement of gay and lesbian rights if a scientific discovery proves a biological basis for homosexuality. About 61 percent of the magazine’s readers asserted that such scientific research would advance the cause of gays and lesbians and lead to more positive attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, if one can be born gay, much as one can be born with brown eyes, then a fair society could not possibly condemn him as being unnatural or immoral. To that end, gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought scientific evidence to back up that claim. Unfortunately for the pro-homosexuality movement, the research on this subject has failed to establish any scientific evidence that shows a purely genetic basis for homosexuality.
The controversy began with the work of Simon LeVay, M.D. In 1991, LeVay tested the brains of 41 cadavers and noted differences between homosexual versus heterosexual males. The hypothalamus, an area believed to regulate sexual activity, was smaller in homosexual males than in heterosexuals. Dr. LeVay believed the differences proved a biological basis for homosexuality, but he failed to consider a variety of reasons, other than genetic, that the brains were different. First, all 19 of the homosexual cadavers had died of AIDS, a disease known to affect the neurological system. It could be that the disease had shrunk the hypothalamus. Second, scientists who study brain biochemistry know that the way a person thinks affects the way his brain functions; specifically, it affects the neurochemicals released in the brain and the way certain pathways grow and change. Could the structural brain differences have started with the difference in thoughts between homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather than with genetics? Third, there is no proof linking hypothalamus size with homosexuality, either as a cause or effect.
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 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," (Rom. 1:26-27). People are responsible for acting in a manner that is proper even if they don't feel like it or are "oriented" in a different direction. We don't approve of lying simply because that's what people like. We don't approve of adultery simply because people like to have sex with multiple partners. We don't approve of bank robbery because people might have a predisposition to theft.
One's "orientation" does not justify behavior, nor does it qualify for government protection. The truth is when the ways of God are abandoned, people will receive "in their own persons the due penalty of their error." They will be given over to the depravity of their hearts and minds to believe the lie and to act in a manner contrary to the ways of God. But, in the world where people do whatever is right in their own eyes and are willingly led by their passions, the truth and absolute morality of God is relegated to the trash heap. The end result can never be good.
These are the ten biblical financial principles: God is the source; give first; live on a margin; save money; keep out of debt; be content with what you have; keep records; don't cosign; work hard and seek godly counsel.