God's Design Behind Our Sexuality
© Seth Kniep, 2008. All rights reserved.
Tags:
God's design behind our sexuality versus natural selection is both reasonably and necessarily true.
If there is no divine design behind our sexuality, what gives someone the right to say that sex with children is wrong? On what basis or what authority can someone make that argument? What gives someone the right to say that sex with animals is inappropriate? On what basis or authority is that judgment made?
But if an all wise and loving Creator created sex with a specific design, we have a basis for defining marriage and the purpose of our sexuality.
But if you and I entertain the idea that maybe sex is the random result of natural selection, so that what I feel like today or what impulses you have tomorrow is the result of naturalistic survival of the fittest, then we have no basis or lasting explanation for outlawing child pornography, pedophilia, masochism, bestiality and a multitude of other evils.
Let me put it another way: if marriage cannot be defined as the union of one man and one woman covenanting to faithful oneness, then how do you define marriage? And if it’s okay for same sex couples to be married, why not for people to marry animals? Why not for children to marry children, children to marry adults—where do you stop?
Someone might object: "But marriage is a choice, just like abortion. People have the right to do with their bodies what they want."
Let's test this approach. One day a man feels like kiling his neighbor. Or a politician feels like pilfering money. Or a 50 year old man feels like raping a six year old girl. Since they have the right to do with their body what they want, who has the right to stop them from murder, theivery, and child rape?
I don’t think we have to establish a case that humans desire to do bad things. You see it as early as infanthood. No one has to teach a child to steal candy, hit somebody, or disobey his parents. And if the Bible is correct that we are born with sinful inclinations, then defining proper sexual activity by what people want is a dangerous, dangerous game to play.
If there is no divine design behind our sexuality, what gives someone the right to say that sex with children is wrong? On what basis or what authority can someone make that argument? What gives someone the right to say that sex with animals is inappropriate? On what basis or authority is that judgment made?
But if an all wise and loving Creator created sex with a specific design, we have a basis for defining marriage and the purpose of our sexuality.
But if you and I entertain the idea that maybe sex is the random result of natural selection, so that what I feel like today or what impulses you have tomorrow is the result of naturalistic survival of the fittest, then we have no basis or lasting explanation for outlawing child pornography, pedophilia, masochism, bestiality and a multitude of other evils.
Let me put it another way: if marriage cannot be defined as the union of one man and one woman covenanting to faithful oneness, then how do you define marriage? And if it’s okay for same sex couples to be married, why not for people to marry animals? Why not for children to marry children, children to marry adults—where do you stop?
Someone might object: "But marriage is a choice, just like abortion. People have the right to do with their bodies what they want."
Let's test this approach. One day a man feels like kiling his neighbor. Or a politician feels like pilfering money. Or a 50 year old man feels like raping a six year old girl. Since they have the right to do with their body what they want, who has the right to stop them from murder, theivery, and child rape?
I don’t think we have to establish a case that humans desire to do bad things. You see it as early as infanthood. No one has to teach a child to steal candy, hit somebody, or disobey his parents. And if the Bible is correct that we are born with sinful inclinations, then defining proper sexual activity by what people want is a dangerous, dangerous game to play.