Homosexuals have been able to convince many Americans that homosexual behavior is normal using some bad logic. Since most public schools do not teach students how to think, it’s no wonder they fall for fallacious arguments. Homosexuals have also been adept at using pop culture to their advantage, placing homosexual characters in non-stereotypical roles. Then there is the normalization of homosexuality for children. For example, And Tango Makes Three [1] is an illustrated children’s book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin. It’s based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City’s Central Park Zoo that “adopt” a fertilized egg and raise the chick as their own. Some concerned parents see the book as a homosexual propaganda piece and want it removed from the library’s regular shelves. A parent would have to consent before his or her child could check out the book. There’s no doubt that the book is being pushed as a homosexual primer to soften up young minds for the more scholarly propaganda that will come later.
The above is a story from 2006. We are far down the road from the halcyon days of “gay penguins.” Pro-homosexual and transgender affirming books are standard in public schools, as well as drag shows, and don’t you dare question them or you will be labeled a Nazi or a “domestic terrorist.” The extremism is real. Consider this from Great Britian: “A report from the Telegraph in the United Kingdom reveals there are those in Britain’s government who insist people who affirm that biological sex matters are ‘Nazis.’”
Apologetics 101: Defending the Christian Faith
Apologetics 101 is an in-depth study of defending the Christian faith. The Greek word apologia simply means "defense," and apologetics is the art and act of giving a defense. Christian Apologetics then is the art and act of defending the Christian faith, not a proof of God in general. The Christian apologist must be ready to answer truth claims about the Bible, not claims about Hinduism, Islam, or any other false religion. The Bible makes the bold claim that Jesus is the ONLY way, and the Christian apologist must set his sights on the Bible alone, not on a defense of arbitrary theism.
Buy NowFormer Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, lashed out at parents for criticizing school curricula by declaring, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” Parents have shown up at “public meetings to exercise their First Amendment rights and participate in the democratic process of managing a public institution. And they often encounter furious resistance from public officials, who have turned off microphones, ended comment periods early, and occasionally mocked parents behind their backs.”
The LGBTXYZ brigade has infiltrated every facet of society. Films that have nothing to with anything related to sexual roles include homosexuals. You see it in commercials as well. One of the more interesting developments is to use evolution theory to account for homosexual behavior. Since (not if) evolution is true, we can study the history of evolutionary development and come to some conclusions as to the normalcy of homosexual behavior. If it can be shown that homosexuality has an evolutionary origin, then there can’t be any reason to question the behavior. For example:
In more than 1,500 animal species, from crickets and sea urchins to bottlenose dolphins and bonobos, scientists have observed sexual encounters between members of the same sex.
If “this behavior” shows “up in roughly four percent of mammal species,” and Mother has not “bred same-sex attraction out of all of the other animals,” one could assume that the behavior is an evolutionary norm. The conclusions of the study aren’t new. In Biological Exuberance the author Bruce Bagemihl claims, “The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather…. From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States to more than 130 different bird species worldwide, the ‘birds and the bees,’ literally, are queer.”
Here’s the premise: Whatever animals do in nature is natural. What’s natural is normal. What’s normal is moral. So, if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral. I deal with this simple but important question in my book Why It Might be OK to Eat Your Neighbor? If Atheism is Right Can Anything be Wrong?
Why it Might be OK to Eat Your Neighbor
The most damning assessment of a matter-only cosmos devoid of a Creator is that we got to this place in our evolutionary history by acts of violence whereby the strong conquered the weak with no one to support or condemn them. Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor repeatedly raises the issue of accounting for the conscience, good and evil, and loving our neighbor. It’s shocking to read what atheists say about a cosmos devoid of meaning and morality.
Buy NowHow can we mere mortals impose our rules of sexual behavior on what’s natural in the animal kingdom? Homosexuals extrapolate that what animals do naturally in nature applies to what higher “animals” can do naturally without any moral judgments attached. But the lower animal/higher animal model breaks down when other so-called natural behaviors in animals are considered. For example, the Bible states, “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT’ [Prov. 26:11] and, ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’” (2 Pet. 2:22). It’s unlikely that animals can be used as moral examples when they are compared with human behavior. Gregory Koukl makes these striking points:
It’s not unusual, for example, to see male dogs mount each other in an erotic way. There are two problems with this view, however.
[T]he observation is flawed because it assumes that erotic behavior in other mammals is the same as homosexual desire in human beings. Male homosexuals engage in sodomy because of an attraction to a gender. They are male erotic, and sodomy is an expression of that desire.
Does the animal kingdom display this kind of same-gender eroticism? When a male dog mounts another male dog, is it because he’s attracted to the male gender of the other dog? I don’t think so. This same poor pooch will slavishly mount sofas or shrubs or anything else available, including the leg of your dinner guest. None of these things are the object of the canine’s sexual lust; they are merely the subject of it. The dog does not desire your unfortunate visitor. He simply desires to be stimulated. It doesn’t prove they have homosexual desire in any way parallel with humans. [2]
Consider the case of Timothy Treadwell depicted in the movie Grizzly Man. He lived among bears for 13 years and thought of them as his “family.” In 2003, Treadwell and his companion, Amie Huguenard, were mauled and mostly eaten by one of the Alaskan grizzly bears he considered to be “All in the Family.” While he thought of the bears as his brothers and sisters, the bears thought of him as lunch. Then there’s the case of Armin Meiwes who killed and ate 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes. [3] What did Mr. Meiwes do that was wrong given the premise that animal behavior is a normative model for human behavior? [4] If the bears that ate Treadwell were only doing what came naturally, then how can the cannibal nature of Meiwes be judged as abnormal given evolutionary assumptions?
We mustn’t forget other “natural” animal behaviors. Animals rape on a regular basis. Should we make the leap the homosexuals want to make regarding penguins? If homosexual behavior in penguins is a template for human sexuality, then why can’t a similar case be made for rape among humans? As hard as it might be to believe, the connection has been made. Randy Thornhill, a biologist, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist, attempt to demonstrate in their book A Natural History of Rape [5] that evolutionary principles explain rape as a “genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection—a successful reproductive strategy.” They go on to claim, however, that even though rape can be explained genetically in evolutionary terms, this does not make the behavior is morally justified. Of course, given Darwinian assumptions, there is no way to condemn rape on moral grounds. The same could be said for homosexual behavior, and everything else. If we are truly the products of evolution, then there can be no moral judgments about anything. So then, if scientists want to use animals of all kinds as their behavioral model, then they need to take all animal behavior into consideration. If we should follow the animal world regarding homosexual behavior and thereby regard human homosexual behavior as normal, then we must be consistent and follow the animal world regarding rape and eating our neighbors as well.
[1] Cristina Cardoze, “They’re in love. They’re gay. They’re penguins…. And they’re not alone” (June 6, 2006).
[2] Gregory Koukl, “Just Doing What Comes Naturally: Mother Nature’s Way.”
[3] “German cannibal tells of fantasy,” BBC News (December 3, 2003).
[4] Theodore Dalrymple, “The Case for Cannibalism” (January 5, 2005). For a more detail telling of the story, see Nathan Constantine, “A German Revival,” A History of Cannibalism: From Ancient Cultures to Survival Stories and Modern Psychopaths (Edison, New Jersey: Chartwell Books, 2006), 186–191.
[5] Randy Thornhill, and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).