This is a serious argument?

The intent of this post is not intended to mock those who have the cross of same-sex attraction (SSA), but to mock one of the latest arguments in favor of homosexual acts.

I saw a tweet the other day that was referencing what somebody else had said.

Brilliant! “How Many Gays Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?”

Brilliant was not the first thought that came to my mind. Apparently State Rep. Steve Simon recently offered up this line at a Minnesota Civil Law committee in regards to a Constitutional Amendment “Marriage recognized as only a union between one man and one woman.” Since then a YouTube video of this has gone viral to some extent along with being quoted extensively in tens of thousands of sources.

Unsurprisingly many of the sources passing on this phrase run to the secular and those who normally have no room for God in anything else.

As an argument I did LOL upon hearing it mainly because it was such a bad argument.

First off using this logic:

• God loves gays more than lesbians because he “created” more gays than lesbians.
• God loves heterosexual more than gays and lesbians because he “created” only a small percentage of gays and lesbians.

Or since alcoholism seems to have a genetic disposition does that mean God wants alcoholics around and that we must do nothing to impede their alcoholism.  The above argument would say so since there are more alcoholics that the number of people who have SSA.  Plus of course the argument can be seen a rediculous with simple substitutions such as “How Many Adulteress Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?”

Than there is the idea of God “creating gays”.  Scientific research so far has not identified any genetic disposition towards same-sex attraction.  So the idea of God creating persons with same-sex attraction is problematic on multiple levels including a scientific one.  If there is no genetic predisposition to SSA than in what sense did God create “gays”?  Does God decide when he ensouls life to give one a “gay soul”, another a “lesbian soul”, “bisexual soul”, or mainly a “heterosexual soul?  Perhaps they mean that since God does directly give each person life and that some people go on to have SSA that this means SSA is totally acceptable.  Though that argument would not differentiate between God’s ordained and permissive will.

Of course really the main thing is that this is an emotional rhetorical argument and not one that is suppose to be analyzed.

Now as for God wanting “gays” around, God loves each and everyone one of us regardless of whatever labels are placed on us.  He created each and every one of us by first creating the world and then on an individual level giving us a soul.  SSA is a cross I can’t imagine having to carry, but we are all called to carry a cross not to say our crosses are socially acceptable so that we don’t have anything to repent of.  Those that support homosexuality should be embarrassed that such a lame argument is being used to advance their cause.

I decided to write on this subject since I got an email from SNAP which is promoting what the legislator said.  You wouldn’t think this would be part of SNAP’s agenda at first blush, but I guess they must do all they can to downplay certain aspects of the 2004 John Jay report on priestly abuse.