There is no evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined. In fact, there is evidence that disproves it. They are called twins. Since identical twins experience the same hormone bath in the womb and the same DNA, when one twin is gay, both should be gay 100% of the time. But both are gay less than 15% of the time (11% for men; 14% for women). In fact, non-identical twins are twice as likely to both be gay as identical twins, which can only be explained by environmental factors, not DNA. At best, sexual orientation may be biologically influenced. But clearly, the major cause of same-sex attraction is social in nature. It is nurture, not nature that is the primary cause of sexual orientation. And sexual orientation is not something that is fixed and unchanging, but changes over time.
And now, there is a report released showing that 49% of young people in the United Kingdom say they are not 100% heterosexual, but experience degrees of same-sex attraction. And what’s really interesting is seeing how this compares across other age categories: (more…)
This has been making its rounds in the media. This pastor, and all those clapping at this immorality will have to give an answer to God one day for their actions. It is shameful to celebrate as beautiful something God considers to be abominable, and to do so in the name of Christ. I sympathize with those who experience same-sex attraction, but the church ought to be there to help them resist their temptations, not to applaud them for giving in to them.
We find out that Catwoman is bisexual, the Green Lantern, Loki, Iceman, and many more are gay. Now, Wonder Woman is officiating a same-sex wedding. It seems that DC Comics and Marvel are bending over backward to push homosexuality. And who are they pushing homosexuality to? Your children. Parents, it’s time to parent.
LifeWay Research conducted a survey of 1000 American adults and 1000 Protestant pastors to get their take on what is considered a justifiable divorce and what is not. Only 38% of Americans think it is a sin to get a divorce on the grounds that a couple no longer loves one another. It’s no wonder we have so much divorce.
Ironically, the percentage of American people who see divorce as being wrong is consistent, despite the reason. For example, 39% think it is sin to divorce one’s spouse for adultery, and 37% think it’s a sin to divorce one’s spouse due to physical abuse. Protestant pastors, on the other hand, were much more discriminate. Here is a chart detailing the responses:
Back in February, Katy Faust penned an open letter to Justice Kennedy (whom everyone recognized would be the swing vote on the same-sex marriage case the U.S. Supreme Court decided recently), arguing that he should not make legal provision for same-sex marriage in the U.S. What makes Katy’s letter so interesting and pertinent to the debate is the fact that her mother is a lesbian and she was raised in a same-sex household. This gives her an interesting and important perspective on this debate.
Katy points out that the reason government involves itself in the institution of marriage is for the sake of children. The welfare of children is the only reason for the government to be involved in anyone’s romantic relationships. She further argues that children have the right to their natural parents and the influence of both genders: “Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence.” Same-sex marriage is an injustice because it intentionally robs a child of their fundamental right to both of their parents.
Political correctness has progressed from silliness, to annoying, to downright stupidity. From CTPost.com:
Under pressure from the NAACP, the [Connecticut] state Democratic Party will scrub the names of the two presidents from its annual fundraising dinner because of their ties to slavery.
Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night in Hartford to rename the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting of nine worshipers at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were wrong to think they could own black people. We see that clearly now, but these men were men of their generation. We honor them, not because of their actions in regards to slavery, but for their many other accomplishments in the founding of this nation. To remove their namesake because they did not think and act like people in the 21st century is absurd. What’s next? Should we throw away the Declaration of Independence since Jefferson the slaveholder wrote that too?
In the future, when America comes to see that abortion is a moral tragedy, and the practice is outlawed, will we remove the names of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton from everything their names are attached to as well? Will we fail to honor them for whatever good they were honored for, just because they could not see as clearly as future generations will see? No. We honor the people of the past for the good they did, not for their flaws. To remove their names from monuments or anything else due to their flaws is wrongheaded and petty.
This past week has brought to the public’s attention the discovery of two important manuscripts: one of Leviticus and one of the Qur’an.
Leviticus
The Leviticus manuscript was actually discovered in 1970 in a Torah ark from a Byzantine-era synagogue excavated at Ein Gedi in Israel. It was burnt by a fire, however, and could not be deciphered until now. The scroll was found to contain Leviticus 1:1-8. It is dated no later than the 6th century A.D. (when the synagogue and village were burned).
Qur’an
Two pages of the Qur’an (portions of Surahs 18-20) were discovered inside the codex of another late 7th century Qur’anic manuscript at Birmingham University. Radiocarbon dating of the manuscript has revealed an age of A.D 568A- 645. Muhammad lived from A.D. 570 – 632, making it a live possibility that the manuscript fragment was composed while Muhammad was still alive.
A story broke on July 15 that I’ve been meaning to write about. During an interview[1] with Florian Mundt, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, made it clear that she does not want Germany to follow the American example of making legal provision for same-sex marriage. Merkel said she supports civil unions with benefits equal to marriage, but she “make[s] a different at some point.” For her, that point is the definition of marriage: “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together.”
While I disagree with Merkel that same-sex couples should receive the same benefits as married couples, her position is actually quite sensible. Essentially she is saying “Same-sex couples should be treated as equal to married couples in every way, but they have no right to have their relationship called a ‘marriage’ because a marriage is, by nature, a male-female union.” She is drawing on the intuition that “marriage” has an essence – that marriage is fundamentally a male-female union, and thus it is impossible for a same-sex union to be a marriage. This position is quite rational since it is based on objective observations about human nature and biological function.
Thinking to Believe 