Who knows the truth? Can anyone know it? Perhaps this is the avenue of my discontent. It seems in this day that the loudest person, or group, speaking is right, and all should listen. People believe that a larger number of people gathering together signifies rightness. If we examine the lack of analytical thought concerning these two current philosophies, we see how absurd the validity of the existence of these thoughts are. To some, appearances are everything.
The homosexual community is an example of a group that has yelled the loudest for a seemingly long period of time. The group has joined together in agreement and has proved that their talking points to the right ears have been heard, hence, they have been getting their way for some years now. The political construct has listened. Hollywood, in both TV and movie creation, has listened and complied with the appearance that homosexuality is a commonplace way of life for a considerable number of Americans. The group has been able to come to America and demand that the definition of marriage be re-written. The power of this group is possessive to all and overwhelming to some.
The reflexive attributes within this group include the idea that if someone, or, some entity, does practically anything against their belief system, then that person or entity is presumed to 'hate' the group, or, someone in the group. Another attribute, positive in nature, is agreement. They are agreed that anyone in disagreement with them, hates them and doesn't have the right to speak against them. They are agreed with the idea that they are 'born' homosexual.
I believe in the Word of God. The Word says that man was created in the image of God. The agreed belief of being 'born this way' would imply that God is homosexual, or could be. He is not, nor could he be. In Leviticus 18, the laws written were laws on sexual morality, who the people of God could not 'lie with' in a sexual way. There are 30 verses in that chapter with the majority of them being very specific with common sense in nature that you don't 'lie with' your uncle, cousin, aunt, mother-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, nor anyone of any kin. You don't 'lie with' animals. Verse 22 is explicit, 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.' (NKJV). God is faithful to Himself, God cannot lie as men do.
If men are created in the image of God, they are created to be men and women are created to be women. The mere writing of this statement is comical to have to write it, but this is where we find the reflexive domain of the homosexual. The 'truths' of this domain were created by themselves for themselves to perpetuate themselves onto the populace. They believe what they say about themselves including the word 'homosexual'. Who coined that term? Someone in the past coined a term to fit a belief system of ideas and behaviors and then perpetuated the belief that it was real and true. If I believe I am something that someone else has told me that I am, does that make it so? Is it the truth? If I believe I am something that I have told myself that I am, does that make it so? Is it the truth?
If I say that homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle, it is behavioral and nothing more, that is what I believe. Homosexuals believe that 'so called' protected rights of civility are claimed as theirs because a Divine Creator made them the way they are. However, anyone making a claim to be a homosexual, whether male, or female, has made a series of moral choices to behave in such a manner. This brings us to one of today's prevalent philosophies, 'Blame someone else for your decisions'. You cannot blame God if you fornicate and have sex with someone outside of marriage. You cannot blame God if you commit adultery by having sex with someone outside of the marriage bed if you are already married, or the partner is. You cannot blame God if you eat too much ice cream and fried chicken and have a heart attack, it was your choice to do so.
This leads me to the point of having to acknowledge that for me to say that homosexuals are a part of the homosexual community would be errant. There is no such person who 'is' a homosexual. It is a lifestyle choice, not a sense of being. I am married. Jesus said that if I look at a woman with lust in my heart, I have committed adultery with her, even though we did not touch. (Matthew 5:28). If adulterers gathered together and called themselves a group, common sense tells us what is in order and what is, and is not, natural. The rationale that if we can get the marriage definition re-defined from one man to one woman to a man with a man, or, a woman with a woman, then we can legitimately not be committing adultery and start having our tax benefits and insurance benefits kick in for our partners. Is this about truth, or, about the dollar and saving me money from additional taxes, or, paying additional insurance premiums. Here is where the area of equality is presumed by my re-defined definitions. The reflexivity attribute of mandatory re-defining of terms is obviously conclusive. If I live within a false domain, I have to have a world of 're-terming' created for me in order to live comfortably within my own order.
This is merely an example of the fallacy of a person labeling another person and they believe they 'are'. WORDS ARE IMPORTANT. What we say to others about them is heard in the atmosphere and demonstrated in the flesh. Reflexivity thrives on this principle. One person believes something to be true and they tell another and get agreement. Agreement is power, it is a principle unto itself. Reflexive domains grow by the power of agreement, not loudness, largeness, or, rightness.
The foundation of created philosophies and systems are based on complicated thought and continuance. Someone speaks a word, a phrase, a sentence, and, behold, creation takes place. Thoughts becoming words becoming belief systems are indeed systemic to all mankind, throughout all of time. Humanity prides itself in its thinkers. If that is the case, who thought up that a man sexually aroused by another man must 'be' a homosexual, therefore he 'is' a homosexual. This is to imply to our children that they can think as they choose, because they 'are'. It also implies that the children's thoughts are 'right in their own eyes'. In the order of nature, we know that this is not true. The truth of the matter is that if a man is sexually aroused by another man, he is thinking a thought that is antithetical to Biblical purity, is immoral, and is simply thinking towards exhibiting a lifestyle behavior that is a choice, a matter of freewill. The man is still a man who has chosen a particular way to live and nothing more. Someone told him he could do that.