Gay Pride

Originally posted on August 04, 2008 – by Andre Piet

homo festival

Last weekend the thirteenth edition of the homo festival Gay Pride was celebrated in Amsterdam. This time with the theme ‘culture and religion’. Various cabinet members also did not hold back this time and sailed along with the parade through the canals. The cabinet members from CU circles muttered that they found it all somewhat ‘too much’, but were far too shy about the issue to make firm statements about the stance of their PvdA colleagues. The commotion surrounding Yvette Lont and the report of the Cnosssen commission has made it clear that within the CU constituency there is certainly no single tune being sung on this point. This was evident, for example, from the fact that during Gay Pride a boat sailed along with Christian homosexuals.

sexual orientation

“Why does God find homosexuality not good if He Himself has given it to the baby when it developed in the womb? He makes something, but He finds it bad—that does not fit together, does it?”

I came across the above quotation in the (Christian) Nederlands Dagblad. It reflects the core argument of those who plead for acceptance of homosexuals among Christians. The presupposition is that homosexuality is innate and therefore forms part of someone’s nature. From this idea one also speaks of a homophilic orientation. Whoever goes along with such terminology will then indeed hardly be able to raise any objection against homosexuality. After all, one would then merely be following his or her (God-given) nature?!

unnatural

In Romans 1, however, Paul draws from a very different vessel. When in this chapter he speaks about “men committing indecency with men,” he speaks, in unmistakable terms, of what is “unnatural” (Rom. 1:24–27). Biologically speaking, sexuality serves procreation, and that is possible only through heterosexual intercourse… Also anatomically speaking, the female is designed for the male and vice versa. In other words, sexuality by its nature is heterosexuality.

innate?

For the view that homosexuality would be innate or fixed in the genes, no proof has ever been produced. Certainly, one person may by nature be more susceptible to homosexuality than another, but that is something different from homosexuality being innate. This is also contradicted by the fact that in identical twins (who are therefore genetically identical) one is sometimes heterosexual and the other homosexual. The difference in sexual orientation evidently does not lie in the DNA but in other factors.

homophilic animals?

From within the homosexual movement it is pointed out that homosexual behavior also frequently occurs in the animal world. That is true—frequently changing sexual contacts are also quite normal in the animal world. Such behavior we then call “beastly”…
But take note: however often homosexual behavior may occur among certain animal species, the existence of purely homophilic animals is unknown. A male chimpanzee, for example, may, for lack of better, mount another male without any problem, but when a suitable conspecific “of the other sex” presents itself, it will immediately become clear where the preference lies…

disorientation

When we have established (1) that sexuality by its nature is heterosexuality and (2) that homosexuality is not genetically determined and (3) that homosexuality is unknown in the animal world, then this means that the origin of homosexuality evidently does not lie in biology. Everything points to homosexuality being a mental developmental disorder, in which one has become alienated from his or her sexual identity. Research has shown that this is mainly due to disturbed relationships with role models in the years of youth. This may be a disturbed relationship with the father, but also sexual abuse by, for example, a family member. Such causes in early childhood can (with a certain type of personality) leave indelible traces, even if one is totally unaware of them. That is sad enough, but it does confirm that homosexuality is not someone’s sexual nature, but precisely the alienation from it.

creation or evolution?

Whoever proceeds from the assumption that the entire creation (including the sex distinction) is designed by GOD understands that the male is created for the female (and vice versa). That is nothing other than self-evident and natural. If, on the other hand, man is no more than a refined animal and sexuality is not a design of the Creator but a by-product of a big bang so many billions of years ago, then heterosexuality or homosexuality is completely indifferent. Then it is a sign of ‘enlightenment’ if one regards homosexuality as normal…

GOD is Masculine

It is the apostle Paul who in Romans 1 shows the deep connection between, on the one hand, failing to acknowledge the Creator and, on the other hand, homosexual behavior. For the Creator Himself stands as masculine (as a He) over against His feminine creation. GOD is the One who, as loving Father, through resurrection (Latin: erectio…) brought new Life into being in ‘mother’ creation. Since then creation is rightly ‘in joyful expectation’! (read more)
In any case, it should be clear that behind the concepts male and female a Divine concept is hidden. Whoever understands this will see how misplaced a phenomenon such as Gay Pride is. Such Pride (= arrogance) merely flaunts alienation and disorientation from its Creator.

Delen: