THE CICAK.com

Gay play can’t have it their way

By MARC JITAB

The homosexual agenda is an interesting one.

It is said that you can’t choose who you fall in love with— even if this means falling in love with a person of the same gender, or even falling in love with your siblings. Some scientists back this claim, saying there are “gay (inducing) genes� that cause people to become homosexual, thus allowing the “gay-is-just-as-natural-as-straight� argument.

A study conducted by the National Cancer Institute said, a gene for homosexuality seemed to be maternally linked and found on the X chromosome.

However, if a man says he rapes because it is his nature to do so, would his actions be justified? Certainly not. Rape is still a crime, and we jail convicted rapists for 20 years or so, or whip them, whether they were “naturally inclined� to go on a raping spree or not.

How does this apply to the homosexual agenda? I can begin my argument after I have assumed that homosexuals are atheists. This assumption can be made because:
1. I am a Christian, and Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a serious sin. A homosexual can’t be both homosexual and Christian; he is either one or the other, and
2. No other major religion allows homosexuality. Therefore, a homosexual person is highly likely to be an atheist. Some may perceive this tirade to be contradictory to the love that religions preach about. However be reminded that the Bible only condemns hypocritical judgement and not righteous judgement.

The problem we have is this: a homosexual person reasons — in the only way he or she can reason as an atheist— that everyone decides for him or herself what’s right or wrong, according to his or her own free will. However, he or she does not really have this free will, because he or she is inclined to be gay, but thinks he or she does have a will which is free. What this simply means is that there is no absolute right or wrong and that everybody just makes up his or her own right and wrong. People, this is exactly the situation we have in our society today, which is why we have moral chaos.

Because the homosexual is likely to be an atheist, he or she has no real answer as to why homosexuality is right, except to cling on to a “natural occurrence� argument. How defeatist. In the end, the homosexual is a slave to evolution and that by chance we can’t choose whom we fall in love with. An alcoholic attributes his alcoholic tendencies to genetic makeup, but will still have to pay for the consequences of breaking the law whilst under the influence. And so does the rapist.

At this point allow me to be pre-emptive. Some homosexuals shout down heterosexuals because they feel that in the case of the straight man (or woman, conversely), he is also just inclined to like women. However, what they fail to realise is that by falling in love and eventually, I will assume, having intercourse with a person of the opposite gender, heterosexuals are functioning the way humans are supposed to, with their naturally functioning organs and hormones to produce a child naturally to ensure the survival of mankind and the balance of the ecosystem. This simple flow of events is fundamental knowledge in the study of biology.

However, homosexuality goes against such fundamental wisdom. Instead homosexuality seeks to impart complex “wisdom� as if to make a more convincing case. This is just like making up excuses for being late to class, but if you’ll look past the excuses you’ll see what is fundamental here — you’re just plain late! Either that or we should start rewriting biology textbooks.

Human Opinion or God’s Opinion?

Homosexuals don’t want to concede that they are basing their viewpoint on popular opinion. This is why they are elated when there are social studies which could prove there are a significant amount of homosexuals in our society. They then try to justify the small numbers by the assumption that some just choose to stay mum about their sexual preferences because they are afraid of bias and oppression.

If I truly believed something was truly right I would do something about it, risking life, limb and reputation — which is why I am writing this commentary, despite the fact that I will get lambasted by homosexuals.

Homosexuality is accepted because of moral relativism, whereby morals change relative to current tastes, cultures and times. But in actuality homosexuals should know it can’t be an absolute right when it is merely people who are giving them these rights in the first place.

Here lies the weakness of the arguments of people who have no absolute authority for their moral beliefs; their rejection of God — who does pronounce absolutely correct and moral standards — is hypocritical in light of the fact that they want their own moral rules to be absolutely correct and moral.

Since homosexuals reject God’s never-changing decision that homosexuality is wrong, tell me on what basis they should decide what is right or wrong? Their relative morals, which can change at any time?

Why was it wrong for someone like Hitler to do what he did? If God made no absolutes, Hitler or anyone else would have the right to set his own rules and his own agenda. Most of Germany agreed with his ethics, which he, and they, sincerely believed were good and right. Because of this, many innocent people perished.

Are you willing to say that he was right? If you think he was wrong, on what basis are you deciding that it is wrong? Relative morals? If a stance can change, since relative morals do change, and thus justify his actions, what then?

The answer is that we need absolute morals — those that never change even if our situation goes south and people start agreeing to commit crimes.

The next question is: where do we find absolute morals? The answer, if not already made obvious by yours truly, is God and only God — since legislation can and does change. But then again you have homosexuals and atheists shouting down the existence of God and all that, but that is for another opinion-editorial article.

My point here is the case of homosexuals claiming what is right and wrong and really being just a bunch of hypocrites.

So therefore the final question is this - Why then should people believe the arguments for homosexuality? In this light, a homosexual person’s argument is that of a “wannabe-absolutist-but can’t-admit-it” position and the fallacy of the shifting-sand foundation of his or her ethics is more than obvious.

—
MARC JITAB is a staff writer for theCICAK.

He is loud, obnoxious, cynical, sarcastic, brutally honest, transparent and opinionated. Marc takes no prisoners and is ready to take on the world.