Lately, there has been a commotion raised about homosexuality due to a certain bill introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature. From my perspective, the root of the debate revolves around a key issue: Is homosexuality an uncontrollable trait, or is it pure choice? This issue will be laid to rest throughout my discourse.
Certainly, homosexuality cannot be purely conscious choice, for who in his or her right mind would outright choose to live a lifestyle that brings scorn from society? On the other hand, the futile belief that homosexuality is innate shows absolutely no foundation because it thrives merely on obscurities.
This leaves only one solid conclusion. Homosexuality is a choice made in one's subconscious mind, free from both the detection of the conscious mind and the bonds of heredity.
Most people can accept that homosexuality is not a conscious decision. However, I perceive many still hold to the teaching that homosexuality is genetic.
Psychologists and other such "experts" claim scientific evidence "points toward" congenital homosexuality. The ambiguity of that statement, however, is good reason not to embrace the belief. Regardless of how much data "points" that direction, the cold reality is there is no solid link between homosexuality and heredity. So, we have researchers spending millions to find an unequivocal link so homosexuality may be justified, but the most they've unearthed to date are just a few obscure and unspecified characteristics, and even those are open to scrutiny.
I've heard many people use the generic phrase, "scientific data points toward innate homosexuality," but they never seem to give any specific information about this "linking" data. Why?
The reason is quite simple — the data they refer to doesn't conclusively prove anything, nor does resemble anything that would. I, however, would like to challenge the reader with evidence and logic that arrives at the steadfast conclusion that homosexuality is not inherent.
My first argument takes a biblical stance on homosexuality (because I think we'd all agree that the Bible is the infallible word of God). Leviticus 18:22 states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (KJV). This verse speaks for itself, but some people may disregard it because it is from the Old Testament.
However, Romans 1:27 states, "And likewise also the man, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving ... recompense of their error ..." (NKJV).
Clearly, this verse describes the immorality of homosexuality. Another more obvious biblical point is the creation of man and woman. God created man for woman and woman for man. As we all know, there were not two men (or two women) alone in the garden of Eden. So, the point to be made here is that if homosexuality is impure in God's perfect sight, then why would he create us with genetic inherence toward such behavior? Think about it.
My next argument is simple, yet powerful — anatomy. Consider the male organ and the female organ. Anatomically, they were designed for each other. Now consider two male organs. Obviously, that combination will not work in the anatomic sense, nor will two female organs. Sexually speaking, the levels necessary for homosexuals goes beyond the level of decency that must be maintained in this article, so I won't describe those actions. However, if anyone is curious about homosexual sex, they can find a homosexual and ask him or her to describe it. Then they can see for themselves it is not anatomically fitting. The rules of anatomy cannot be broken.
My third argument, biology/reproduction, also is simple and related to the above argument. Frankly, a sperm and an egg create an embryo. This is the only way humans can create an embryo (disregarding genetic engineering). An embryo cannot arise from two sperm nor can it form from two eggs. Clearly, the very nature of biological reproduction goes against teaching homosexuality is a hereditary trait.
Despite the resounding truth of my biblical argument, I realize some people do not give any merit to the creationist viewpoint. So, to appease that particular crowd, I will present evolutionary logic that also will show conclusively that homosexuality is not innate.
According to classic evolution teachings, creatures evolve through a process known as "survival of the fittest."
Hence, stronger genes get passed through generations, while the weaker genes get eliminated. Now pay attention carefully. Homosexuality, by nature, does not allow for the reproduction of offspring (see my biology argument). Ergo, if homosexuality is congenital, then it would have been snuffed out eons ago simply because there would be no offspring to carry the gene through the next generation. Also, if by a mutant gene homosexuals were brought into a generation, the gene would only exist for that generation again due to the lack of offspring from homosexuals. As you can see, even evolution doesn't permit the possibility that homosexuality is inherent.
As the intelligent reader can see, the above arguments provide logic and scientific data that is clear and inexorable in its position against innate homosexuality.
These truths are not some complex scientific matter only a genius could understand, but they are open to the comprehension of all. Friends, you don't have to rely on ambivalent statements that claim "scientific data points toward" innate homosexuality. This is just a cover-up for the lack of convincing evidence discovered about the "gay gene." I'm here today to tell you there is no such thing as a "gay gene." It is nothing but a vain hope of homosexuals that would help to justify their lifestyle.
There is a lot of garbage floating around out there. Don't go swimming in it. If someone claims to have scientific evidence for something, then have them present it to you immediately. Don't eat up the foundationless claims of so-called "experts" about innate homosexuality. Next, they'll have you believe that people who commit sodomy were born with gene that makes them sexually attracted to dogs. Get real.