© Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw 2014
[This blog is in the form of a response to someone who took issue with my comments on same sex unions. My comments are in caps: CC, and the writer’s objections, who is from Duke University, are: OB (objection). My letter was dated 5/7/13.]
CC: Thank you for the reply. Sorry for my delay, but as dean of a seminary and pastor of a church, it is difficult to find time. I will make some short replies. I’ll number my paragraphs the same as yours, which were the same as mine.
1. CC: Whether people are happy or not with their transgender sexual operation is irrelevant. The questions is whether it is holy, the right thing to do. In my article I submitted that it was not right.
2. CC: I would like to see the research on some people being one gender in chromosomes and another gender in their genitals. I remain skeptical. As for being prejudiced in not wanting to attend a college where said college is justifying same sex unions with transgender operations, that is moral discernment. I would not want my kids attending such. Conversely, why aren’t you in a Christian Bible college? Moreover, you equivocated on my definitional of “prejudice.” I made it clear that prejudice, as used in our society, refers to discrimination based on color, not based on morality. For example, many black ministers, some of whom were in the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King, have reacted strongly against those they say are “high-jacking” (their word) the Civil Rights movement and applying it to LGBT. A large group of black ministers in Memphis, TN took out a full-page ad several times in the local paper in reaction to gays, condemning in clear terms same gender relationships, saying that did NOT represent the Civil Rights movement.
3. CC: In this paragraph, you said (OB): “Yes having children is impossible at the moment for two males [and two females]. Yes they can adopt. To be fair i guess everyone has their own standards on who should be able to adopt a child. I guess I am just silly and weird to want someone who would love the child as if it was their own and bring the child up to be a loving and caring individual who accepts everyone for who they are . . . regardless if the person doing the raising of the child is transgender or not.”
CC: You are 180 degrees out of phase with the Triune God with your answer. You are defining morality with love rather than love with morality. If “everyone has their own standards” regarding adoption, then there is nothing to debate. There is no objective morality, which could be applied to bestiality, as Peter Singer at Princeton is already arguing for (which I can document). Pedophiles should have the right to adopt because they will be “loving.” It is morality that defines love, such as what St. Paul says in Romans 13:8-10:
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom 13:7 NKJ)
CC: Is it loving to commit adultery? Is it loving to murder? Is it loving to steal? Is it loving to bear false witness? And so on. We can see that Paul quotes several of the Ten Commandments and says those define love. If we have it your way, then if people say it is loving, they can kill one another, swap wives, steal their property, kill babies by the millions, even after they are born, and so forth, all because it is loving.
4. CC: In this paragraph, you say (OB): “Cloning what?” Here is what I said: CC: “If one had changed from man to woman, and wanted to clone to have children, would not the gender be male, thus indicating he was still a man? Would the new artificially injected hormones make any difference.” I said that cloning the “woman” who was once a male would still be a male.
5. CC: [I do not get your answer.]
6. CC: As for gender identify not being the same as body gender, send me proof. I’ve personally seen homosexuals, males, who thought they should have been women, dressed like women, wanted to have sex as a woman, but then then they were converted to Christ. Their lives were changed, the other gender orientation they had went away, and they were delighted to be males, married women, and had children. You’re arguing for psychological determination, so there went the whole world of counseling. No one can change, which extinguishes all hope. But I’ve seen the same change with women who thought they were men. Indeed, James Dobson, a Christian Psychologist who has counseled hundreds of such gay males, and written about it in Bringing Up Boys, has said that he has never seen a homosexual male who had a good relationship with his father, thus confirming that a wrong orientation is learned and can be reversed by the grace of God. But through his counseling, many of them learned to relate to God as Father, and their lives were forever changed to being what the Triune God had made them.
CC: Those who have the presence of both genders in their bodies are extremely rare, and usually correct themselves in time. One does not make the abnormal to be normal. Moreover, your argument seems to be that whatever something is, should be designated normal, which not many accept. If we did, then Down syndrome would be normal and no birth problems should ever be researched to correct them. Also, your argument seems to be from “is” to “ought,” which is a logical fallacy pointed out by David Hume, now called Hume’s Guillotine. You seem to be saying that if something is a certain way, it ought to be that way.
CC: As for God creating male and female, we stand by that. As for defects in those born, there is original sin that has caused defects in some births, but they are the exception, not the norm.
OB: You said: “How do you know what transsexuals want? I mean honestly. How can you justify saying that. Unless you have some weird kinky thoughts of your own and you just assume transsexuals must think the same or something…” (CC: This makes no sense. I don’t know what you’re talking about.)
OB: “Who says that if LGB individuals are accepted that people will accept pedophiles? Those who act on their pedophile tendencies injure the children. In no way does that have anything to do with LGB individuals since like straight couples, LGB couples just want to be with their loved ones, their OF AGE AND CONSENTING loved ones. Totally different issues and that’s just plain fear mongering. Same with your bestiality argument. It’s not 2 consenting adults. So your argument is irrelevant.” CC: The dog may be an adult dog who consents.
CC: My response is what we Christians said when Roe vs. Wade was past that next would be infanticide and then euthanasia. The domino effect came just as we said. Gosnell is on trial for infanticide; Kevorkian spent years in jail for helping people die; and the movement spreads. In Houston recently, one of the hospitals let a woman starve to death over the objections of the family. Oregon is trying to pass a right to die law. Remember Terry Schiavo. When a culture turns from the Triune God and His commandments which are life, as ours has, there is only one option: death (Proverbs 8:36). Life now is cheap in the USA.
CC: Moreover, you are very naïve. It is not gender equality that people want; it is total sexual anarchy. They will not stop until there is nothing left sexually to explore. Mark my words: just as the murder of the unborn has led to infanticide and euthanasia, it could further lead to genocide, and the hated of Christians is already being noticed even by atheists, such as the atheist lady S. E. Cupp who wrote Losing Our Religion about the media unmercifully attacking us Christians, and Tammy Bruce, a lesbian atheist, who wrote The Death of Right and Wrong. Next, there will be three who will marry (already happening if you keep up with the news), then four, of both genders, then animals will join crowd. When one wants to divorce the others, who will get what property and who will get what children? In all cases, the children will be the losers, and pedophilia will come soon.
CC: Here is what Peter Singe, who teaches at Princeton, has said: “In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities” (at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Bestiality) As Tammy Bruce has said in her very readable and excellent book mentioned above, Peter Singer has made Princeton unsafe both for your child and your beagle.
CC: Then there is Judith Levine, highly respected in academia, who wrote Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex? Pedophilia is already here, dear sir, at least in academia.
OB: Then you said: “I wont touch that last paragraph since I try to be respectful of other peoples religion… even when they try to use it to shove their own personal beliefs down other peoples throats.” Of course, your statement is caustic, so you were not respectful, but I really don’t mind. You’re saying exactly what the Lord Jesus said you would say in John 15:18-22. Everyone, including you, tries “to shove their own personal beliefs down other peoples’ throats.” Every law enacted is someone’s morality or immorality enacted. It can’t be otherwise.
CC: In your next to last paragraph, you said once again that “you cant change your mind to match your body you can only change your body to match your mind.” How do you explain those converted to Christ, who come to Him confessing their sins, and the one I mentioned in my last paragraph or my original post, who indeed did change his mind?
CC: You keep saying that I have religious reasons for my thoughts, but implying that you have reasoned ones. I think it is just the opposite. Your faith in your world view cannot be supported by reason, but ours can. Thus, we have faith based on evidence but you do not. You have so much pie in the sky and wishful thinking. Here is another book I recommend: Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. If you’re up for a challenge, read it. And by the way, I often read books by atheists and agnostics, which are very encouraging as they have little to offer but death and circular reasoning. I even write an occasional treatise on such.
CC: You are the one, dear sir, who is caught up in an irrational religion. You are disgusted that I rely on religion, while you do the same by virtue of your world view that determines how you evaluate me and other Christians. You have compartments to your thinking, not a unified whole, of which “religion” is one of those compartments, how do you justify such diversity? What holds them together? My world view is the sovereign Creator, the Triune God, and there is nothing that is not subject to His immediate jurisdiction, whether that be logic, science, religion, morality, sexual issues, and so on. Too complex to go much further in this post.
CC: I would encourage you also to research, especially from sources that state the opposite of what you think the research is. I’ve given you one book by a Christian psychologist, and another by a Christian philosopher and a Christian theologian, and two by atheists. Read them and tell me what you think.