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.
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.