Tag Archives: biological
But this is what happens when you remove the clear definition of what a family is and is not. While the secular culture would quickly say that the definition of family is a “man-made” construct that can be altered. Christians would confess that God established the family and the definition of what construes a family is not alterable, similar to the definition of marriage. Yet man, is his defiance and rebellion against God is seeking to reverse and undo all that God has established. But by doing so, man will create greater trouble, confusion, and harm to people.
A court finds living as a boy when you are a girl is punishable by jail time. The American College of Pediatrics believes advocating for youth transgenderism is “child abuse.” And I am really confused by it all.
As you probably know, there is a massive push to “support” youth transgenderism. Schools and other public facilities are being pressured to allow transgender students to use whatever bathroom and locker room they want. Apparently they think it’s a great idea to let hormone-driven boys into girls bathrooms and locker rooms. Since everyone now has cell phones with cameras you can only imagine the privacy and safety issues that will no doubt result in such actions. Nonetheless, the push continues because: equality.
The media has been focused on North Carolina where a “controversial” bill to require people to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their biological sex has been passed. There has been nationwide outcry from media and activists saying that this a form of discrimination. Again, some people think allowing anyone to use any facility they choose simply by claiming to be the opposite sex is a good idea. I’m sure pedophiles and sex offenders do think it’s a good idea. However, common sense says that such measures are absurd, at best.
This post will likely be deemed “offensive” and “hate speech” by some. It will certainly be considered politically incorrect. Those realities make it all the more necessary and bewildering.
It seems Caitlyn Jenner, the new identity of the man formerly known as Bruce Jenner, will be named “Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine. Now, there is so much packed into that statement that needs addressed, it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s consider the state of a society that celebrates and throws parties when a man is named “Woman of the Year.” It seems our culture loves embracing confusing ideas that aren’t based in realty. And by doing so we have become hypocrites that loathe the truth. We tell a man dressing as a woman that “she” is courageous and beautiful. We then tell people that believe in God, heaven, and eternity that they are “anti-science.” Even though biologically Bruce Jenner is a man and, therefore, scientifically he is living a lie. Our culture says we should celebrate his decision and support him in his confusion. But don’t you dare claim to pray or believe in divine intervention because that is unscientific.
Speaking of science. It has been shown, scientifically, that unborn babies have a heartbeat by 8 weeks. They can hear sounds and have recordable brain activity by 12 weeks. And by 20 weeks they can feel pain. And yet our President and many others praise Planned Parenthood for killing unborn babies. All the while, Planned Parenthood (and many abortion advocates) can’t really say when an unborn child really becomes human. You know, scientifically speaking. But let’s go ahead and tell a man dressed as a woman that he is in fact, a woman. Because, you know, equality and all.
Is it fair to say that children do best with their mother and a father? Is that statement both specific enough and true to be made without argument? Maybe, but it might need just a little editing to make it the most accurate and true statement possible.
Of course LGBT activists would argue that children do just as good with two moms or two dads as they do with a mother and a father. They might have a solid argument if we leave the statement as is. But, if we edit the statement by adding just one word, it becomes a nearly irrefutable statement. That one word: biological.
The statement now reads: children do best with their biological mother and father.
That statement can hardly be argued by anyone considering the rapidly growing body of evidence that shows the truth in the statement. We know from decades of evidence that children with step-parents and children in single parent homes do not do nearly as well as those in homes with their biological mother and father. And try as they may, advocates of marriage redefinition have a hard time arguing that children in same-sex homes do as well as children in homes with their biological parents.
Some might view such a discovery as dangerous to the biblical understanding of sexuality. I don’t necessarily agree because as it stands, without the support of research, the biblical understanding of sexuality is being relentlessly attacked. Though no such “gay gene” has been located and every attempt has failed, those certain that they were “born that way” champion their cause against any attempt to use the Bible to say otherwise. They are, in essence, distorting the biblical understanding of sexuality as we speak and twisting Scripture to fit their agenda.
Furthermore, the discovery of a “gay gene” would in no way remove or alter the biblical understanding of sexuality that is clearly taught from beginning to end. Homosexuality would no more be legitimate or un-sinful if there was a “gay gene” than it is right now. Just as alcoholism, adultery, theft, lying, or bestiality would be legitimate and biblically lawful with the discovery of their respective gene. Christians would still not be able to approve of what the Bible clearly calls sin just because a gene was found that supposedly predisposes people toward homosexuality. Sin is sin.
What is the logical end of the new sexual revolution that seeks to erase inherent differences between the genders and make sex a matter of cognitive choice rather than biology?
Nope, I’m not overstating it even a little bit. If anything that might be an understatement. But just in case you still aren’t convinced by my fool-proof logic and obviously sound reasoning, let’s look at a couple of recent accounts to see if my hypothesis holds up to scrutiny.
Bryan John Ellicott was born a woman, but now identifies as a man. According to a recent article the 24-year-old went to a Staten Island public pool where “he” changed into swim trunks and a t-shirt. A little while later when “he” returned to change shirts an employee of the pool told the transgender man that he had to either use the women’s locker room or leave.
New research has concluded what most of us already knew: children need fathers.
There is a myriad of evidence that shows a father in the home reduces violent crime, produces a better social environment, and provides essential growth opportunities. However, researchers have questioned the need for fathers thinking they only provide more parenting, not distinct and unique parenting.
New research conducted by Professor David Eggebeen of Penn State University, uncovers the unique impact fathers have on their children that is pointing researchers to the conclusion that fathers do not merely give more parenting, but distinct and unique parenting needed by children of both sexes.
Fathers do not merely give more parenting, but distinct and unique parenting needed by children of both sexes.
It was bound to happen sooner or later. A transgender woman is suing CrossFit for refusing to allow “her” to compete in one of their annual CrossFit games in the women’s division.
The Blaze reports:
“The lawsuit brought Thursday by Chloie Jonsson, 34, accuses CrossFit Inc. of violating her rights under a California law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Jonsson’s complaint says she was born male but has been living as a woman since she was a teenager and underwent sex reassignment surgery eight years ago. The surgery, coupled with the female hormones she takes, satisfied the state’s requirements for her to be recognized as female on her birth certificate and other official documents.”
Marriage was intended to be the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of bearing and raising kids in order to propagate humanity and society. From a biblical position, marriage was also intended to be a visible image of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His bride, the church. On an individual level marriage was intended to make us holy, others-centered people. Anything outside this understanding of marriage is inadequate and presents a false view of God’s intended purpose for marriage.
In the effort to redefine marriage, proponents often say that marriage is just a legal contract intended to convey governmental benefits. Ok, I’ll accept that as a secondary, far less significant, man-made construct for modern marriage. That does not in any way alter the true purpose and definition of marriage. Nor should it somehow assuage the conscience and allow support for marriage redefinition.
When we as a society stray from the established purpose and definition of marriage we bring upon ourselves a whole new set of moral, societal, and legal troubles.