Sunday, February 26, 2017


Over the years of writing this blog, I’ve spent my fair share of time being critical of Christianity. As a Christian, this type of introspection is usually kept for those closest in relationship, or just in the quiet of prayer. It is usually not voiced out into the air for those not of the same belief structure to hear. After all, Christians want non-Christians to become Christians. It’s part of the credo. Anything that even remotely smells like hypocrisy is supposed to be hidden or ignored.

What I want to know is how do those on the opposite end of the belief spectrum deal with apparent hypocrisy. What am I talking about? Let me explain.

Recently President Trump repealed the Obama administration’s school bathroom mandate, and that caused quite a stir on social media. Many people who claim to care for transgender folks were either blasting the “hatred” of President Trump and his administration, or pouring out words of overwhelming support for those affected by this mandate. Most of these folks do not claim to be Christians. Because, you know, Christians are hateful, narrow minded anti-truthers (a.k.a. “anti-science”).

As far as whether or not a person is non-heterosexual (by the way, it is just easier to use “non-heterosexual” than to have to remember ALL of the other terms used for those who claim to not be heterosexual), I really don’t care one way or the other. I will neither praise you for your “bravery”, nor condemn you for being a “bane” upon society. So I’m not coming at this with bias for or against. I am coming at this rather confused.

What I’m finding is that the same people who are so pro-non-heterosexual lifestyles, are the same people who claim to be very pro-science. Remember the age old war of religion versus science? Should a Christian school be forced to teach evolution? Should a non-religious school be forced to teach creationism? You know, evolution is the truth because it is supposed to be based in science, whereas creationism (and the idea of a God) is mythological whimsy.

What I want to know is, how do those who fully believe that evolution (and science) is truth can embrace non-heterosexual lifestyles?

Recently, Tucker Carlson had an interview with DNC advisor Zac Petkanas, where he asked if gender identity was really all someone needs to determine gender? In other words, what a person SAYS they are, they are. This is a common viewpoint: if Tommy says he is really Tammy, than to say Tommy isn’t is discriminatory. Tommy’s personal viewpoint of Tommy’s gender is all that really matters. Tucker Carlson argued that SCIENCE (biology), and not psychology should determine gender. According to science humans reproduce sexually with two genders: male and female.

How does someone who is a Darwinist, believing in biological evolution and disregarding anything that does not fit that viewpoint (creationism), accept that gender identity trumps science?

If you believe in evolution, you HAVE to accept the survival of the species premise. Non-heterosexuals do NOT fit in that premise.

If you took heterosexuals and isolated them on an island, they would reproduce and the species would survive. If you took non-heterosexuals and isolated them on an island (an island of homosexual men or an island of homosexual women), what would happen? And if you answer that honestly and scientifically, you HAVE to come to the realization that non-heterosexual lifestyles are NOT in line with evolution.

Non-heterosexuality does NOT benefit society, as it does not follow the basic, biological premise of evolution.

So, I ask those of you who claim that science is the ultimate truth, how do you reconcile this?

I’m not hating. I’m questioning. I’d really like to know.

©Emittravel 2017


  1. I won't rant (too much) here, but I *am* frustrated that it's demanded of me to accept man-made global warming as 'settled science' at the same time I'm expected to accept a man as a woman and all the while I'm looked down upon for my belief in God. I think the hive mind is developing dementia.

    Great post, JP.

  2. As someone who considers himself to be"non-heterosexual," I would like to give a simple rebuttal. Your logic is flawed. You present your argument in such a way that the premise you presented must be confirmed. Viewing reality in such a binary way obfuscates the truth of things (however ephemeral it is). I could reproduce with a woman. I find myself attracted to them even. I am also attracted to men. This does not preclude the possibility of me reproducing. Another way you could look at it is that "non-heterosexuality" is a form of population control. The bottom line is this: if science means pulling down someone's pants to prove someone's gender, then your understanding of gender is flawed. You fail to consider hermaphroditic folks and all kinds of other situations.

    1. First off, thanks for commenting. This post was "designed" to encourage conversation.

      Unlike yourself, there ARE those that would find reproducing in the heterosexual manner offensive or distasteful, so THEY fit the criteria. Thus my use of "non-heterosexual" - too many alternatives to list.

      The point I was trying to make was that those who consider themselves as scientifically minded and consider biological evolution to be the absolute truth, seem to fall into a conflict of thought when it comes to the normalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles, especially where reproduction doesn't occur (outside of adoption, artificial insemination, etc.).

      As for me, I don't have a dog in this fight. As a Christian I believe that non-heterosexual lifestyles are not going to keep anyone out of Heaven. There is only one criteria - who Jesus is to you - that matters. Unfortunately, too many Christians have a social agenda that is more of a detriment to Christianity than a benefit.

      There is NOTHING like being in love. And since love IS of God, WHO you love doesn't matter as much as LOVING.

      Again, I'm glad you commented. And I'm glad that you did it in a very concise, coherent, and non-offensive manner.