The Transcendental Argument against Homosexuality

The Transcendental Argument against Homosexuality

In this article I will try and present the transcendental argument against homosexuality. When it comes to defining what is a correct way for humans to act, and what is considered as being a normal human relationship. What is the standard that we use to determine this question. Is it a matter of personal choice, what gender or creature we chose to have a sexual relationship with? Do our feelings and instincts determine what is right for us or is there a correct way for humans to function.

When one rejects God’s existence they end up having to admit that there is no fixed interpretation to reality as a whole. That there is no true meaning or interpretation to how things are to function in this world. If there is no meaning for our existence then man is left to interpret his own actions and feelings in an impersonal universe.

The Philosopher Plato once asked the old-age question “How do you know what a things function is”. Is it what works or what fits or what fulfils. Is this what we base our morality on today?

Without God, man is unable to define or decide what “is” or “should be” when it comes down to moral claims. As for the atheist there is no fixed standard or interpretation to judge ones choices against. Man is stuck in the void of an irrational world trying to understand his experiences. To judge one’s action as wrong is to judge it against a fix standard of what is objectively right. To claim that one’s sexual preference is right when there is no interpretation to reality and no correct deigned way for humans to act is to make a irrational claim. One is just throwing out an empty statement into an irrational world. Each individual in the end becomes his own interpreter on what is right.

For instance, If God is the creator and designer of all things then he has created things to function according to his plan and rules. But if we reject God’s existence, we are in fact saying that there is no correct function to follow.
For if there is no absolute meaning to this world or a designed correct way to function, then we are only left with adopting human conventions and agreed upon tastes.
For the homosexual what standard does he use to judge his feelings by? His own? and if that is the case then who can condemn those who like having sex with young kids or animals. Some might respond that there is a difference that being that most kids are not consenting in the acts and the adults are preying on kids and that is wrong. But where do they get this absolute objective standard. Isn’t the child molester just acting according to his feelings and choices. I mean if there is no fixed interpretation to reality, on what is a correct way to function. Then who are we to tell then they are wrong. If homosexuals chose their morality, why can’t the child molester. For what is the difference between some one who chooses his morality and some one who has no morality. The answer is they both do what ever they like. Both are based on subjective feelings.

Without God’s eternal interoperation of all things there can not be a universal absolute moral law on what is right and wrong. The word “good’ just becomes an empty word with no meaning. For in a Godless universe what is morality based on, convention, votes, personal preferences, intuition, subjective feelings, or what ever works!

The unbelievers standard for morality, defining what is “good” comes in the response from two main outlooks; Good is either what evokes approval or it is that which achieves certain ends independent of God. What is “good” is defined either by society or by the individual, which can continually change over time. These two standards can soon be refuted.
One only has to look at history to see what society has believed in to justify what is good by simply holding to what the majority thinks is good. If good is society-determined, then we may not condemn such practices as genocide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, pederasty, widow immolation, or community suicides. Entire societies have gone along with oppressing the Jews, giving rise to what we know as anti-Semitism in general and the German holocaust in particular. If societies determine morality, then one society could not condemn another as one would not be better than the other, just different. Pederasty, child molestation, having sex with young kids, was an accepted practice in ancient Greece and Rome, and also the Celts, Persians, Japan, Mexico, and china. Would we accept this practice today? The problem for the homosexual is not that they are out to hurt people or children, but how do they define what is “Good”? Remembering that there worldview has no interpretation for reality as a whole. For them there is no deigned correct way to function, no objective right or wrong. The word “good” just becomes a meaningless, empty statement.

For what do they base their morality on,

Subjectivism; the subjectivity of goodness and badness.
Emotivism; the reduction of goodness and badness to emotion.
Positivism; the idea that man posits values with his will, invents goodness and badness.
Cultural relativism, or conventionalism, the relativity of goodness and badness.
Historicism; the relativity of goodness and badness to time.
Utilitarianism; the reduction of goodness to utility, or efficiency.
Instinctualism; the reduction of goodness to biological instinct.
Hedonism; the reduction of goodness to pleasure.
Egotism; the reduction of goodness to enlightened selfishness.
Pragmatism; the weakness of goodness and the power of badness.
Intuitionalsim; based on ones gut feelings.
Rationalism; reduction to reasoning upon ones own reasons for his desires.

Without God the homosexual is left without an interpretation to his feelings, other than his own, which he/she can not make sense of in an irrational universe. Without God the homosexual cannot say that his experience (desires) is right as he has no fix standard to judge his claims by. To say that it is right for “him” means nothing more than I do what I want. If humans have not been created in the image of God to function according to a correct way, then humanity is left with what ever works or fits when it comes down to sexual preferences. In this world, nothing is wrong or right it just is, they can be no judging or condemning or even understanding ones ways or action. Humanity just does what is wise in their own eyes.

The Christian God can be proven by the impossibility of the contrary. That is, reject the Christian God and no sense can be made out of moral obligation, moral indignation. The existence of moral obligation and moral indignation cannot be made intelligible alienated from the existence of the Christian God. An objective morality presupposes God as the founder of that law of good. In the Christian worldview, the moral law is an idea within the divine reason of the eternal God, an idea that behavior that best affects the happiness of being is morally obligatory. This moral law, summed up in love, is the standard by which God voluntarily governs Himself and impresses as obligatory upon the minds of those sentient beings He has created. If God exists then there is an objective absolute moral law that we are obligated to follow and hold up.
Man was to reinterpret God’s interpretation of his creation, not invent his own. God loves the human heart, and if we change our ways and follow our maker’s rules, we will find full meaning in this world. God condemns homosexuality as it is against his eternal standard of correct function and goodness.