I saw this graphic posted on Facebook today. I had every intention of doing some writing about climate change, but having seen this graphic I decided climate change was going to have to wait. My apologies to both Al Gore and President Obama. A response to the question posed in this graphic was in order, and a higher priority.

graphicIf the fetus you save is gay, will you continue to protect its rights?

Wow, what a question. After a clear assertion of a false premise, it continues with what appears to be another false premise made by implication. An assertion of something that doesn’t exist.

The first false premise in the question is obvious: Homosexuality is apparently present in the individual from the womb. It’s the way they are made.

The second part of the question is a bit trickier to discern because the word “rights” here is undefined. All people, of course, have certain rights that should be protected. The right of the unborn not to be aborted would be an obvious one! But taken in context I think it’s fair to say that what is generally contemplated in this graphic by the word “rights” is same-sex marriage. That being the case, this is a second false premise.

An inference may be made as well that the one asking the question probably doesn’t care much for the activity of “saving fetuses”,  thus the question is supposed to be a big “gotcha” to those of us who are opposed to both abortion and same-sex marriage.

As I’ve written in the past, I think it can be an unfruitful discussion to debate endlessly about whether homosexuality is genetic or natural as opposed to learned, developed, or chosen. I think that in a fallen world, that which seems “natural” is so skewed that it may not be helpful ultimately in defining right and wrong. But, in any case, to presuppose in an absolute way, as this graphic does, that an unborn child’s homosexuality is already determined is something that I flatly reject out of hand. 

More importantly, our Creator has told us how He views the matter: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:6-7. Homosexuality is sin. It is wrong in the sight of God. That’s it. Period.

Whenever the subject of same-sex marriage arises, there are two things that are always assumed by its promoters. One, that the institution of marriage is alterable from its traditional understanding, and, two, that a governmental body (whether judicial or legislative) has the authority to do just that. I flatly reject these two assumptions out of hand as well. If these assumptions were indeed true it seems obvious that the institution of marriage will inevitably become meaningless. In a declining culture such as ours what is to prevent its further alteration? If the gender arrangement in marriage is alterable, why not number, why not consanguinity, why not species? Some of this is happening already.

The traditional view of marriage goes back to the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2. God Himself provided a companion and spouse for Adam, and she was female. God provided no other adult human beings of either sex for this purpose. One man, one woman. There exists no right to marriage for any other arrangement. If we presume to say otherwise we will simply destroy the institution we allege to value.

As for the unborn, some of us will indeed continue to attempt to save their lives. And we will continue to protect their other God-given rights as well.

3 comments
  1. Thats the funny thing about facts. You can ‘flatly reject’ them but that doesn’t make them false.

    Comparing homosexuality to incest is a non sequitur. Same with the comparison to bestiality. It really shows how desperate your argument has become. Its like if someone says “Abortion is murder” and then following it with a statement like “Abortion will lead to drownings and increased car insurance.” Its completely unrelated, ridiculous and does nothing to help your argument.

    However, if you can come up with an argument for a government interest in only allowing straight marriages that isn’t rooted in religion then you might be able to win a court case or two.

    1. That is ridiculous analysis. It wasn’t a comparison. Perhaps you should read the piece.

  2. Ok. First, my point was not fallacious with regard to marriage. There exists no- zip, zero, notta- logical stopping point if marriage is alterable. There is no slippery slope, there’s merely an abyss. On what ground would future courts deny anyone to define marriage in any way that suits them? The effect of this is that marriage will have no fixed meaning. And I suspect that you know as well as I do that there are already elements of the culture that fit into each of the categories I mentioned who will be making this very point.

    Second, you are quite right that states have differing laws on consanguinity. I’m not sure how that is relevant to my concern, which is not that a state can’t alter their definition of marriage (governments can do unwise, unjust, and immoral things), but that it’s wrong to do so.

    Lastly, I’d frankly love to simply ignore the state with regard to this issue. However, unlike many in Evangelicalism nowadays, I think the state has a role in marriage. It’s a civil ordinance that involves paternity and property. It can’t be a mere religious matter.

    Of course, there’s more to it than that with respect the effect that such godlessness has on the culture. I’m not obligated to sit back and watch as we circle the drain. I want my thoughts on marriage to be codified just as much as the Gay lobby does.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Weight, This Is Too Heavy To Bear

Proverbs 16:1-4 says, “To man belong the plans of the heart, but…

Where I Review The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

I had earlier written about the two previous Chronicles of Narnia movies…

The Problem of Judicial Tyranny

Brian Myers says one of the greatest problems we face as a nation is judicial tyranny which he believes can be best solved through an Article V convention.

Overruled: Government Invasion of Your Parental Rights

The following is a trailer of a new docudrama from ParentalRights.org entitled…