Can it Get More Ridiculous?

Recently, a U.S. Supreme Court nominee could not give a definition for the word woman because she was not a biologist. As ridiculously silly as that was, it is getting even worse. At least with her answer, it was in the context of merely trying to keep from undermining an ideological bias. But ideologies actually do have real world expressions, and the expressions that are coming out of this one are getting increasingly silly.

For instance, we were told that men can get pregnant. Of course, men can’t really get pregnant, but women identifying as men don’t like the idea of being accused of being a woman, so it has become politically correct to pretend that a woman is a man. And since the woman who is a man is actually still a woman, of course she can get pregnant. It works the other way, too. Men who identify as a woman can get a woman pregnant, (as has been documented numerous times where women were getting pregnant in women’s only prisons by men who identify as women).

For another example, social media companies are now playing along with this game. Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and others have now introduced pregnant man emojis. So now, women who are pretending to be men and are pregnant can have their own social media pretend emoji.

Well, England has done them one better. Recently, a 66 year old man who has given 125 pints of blood over the past five decades was turned away because he refused to answer a question as to whether he was expecting a child or had been pregnant in the past six months. Seriously, I’m not making this up.

It seems that the blood bank recently added this question to their standard donor form in order to “promote inclusiveness,” and because pregnancy is not always visually clear. According to the man, he had no problem filling out a form. They always ask about medical conditions or diseases before allowing someone to give blood in order to keep the blood supply safe. However, in this case, the donor was so incensed by the stupid question that he simply refused to answer. And because of his refusal, the blood bank turned him away.

Now what in Sam Hill is going on? Why are people wanting to live in this kind of fantasy land? And even more importantly, why are they seemingly willing to die on this hill?

Actually, the answer to these questions is clear. These people want to be able to have no constraints on their sexual activity. In fact, they don’t even want the morality of their choices to be questioned. As people who hold a naturalistic worldview, they don’t even acknowledge the existence of God. So if there is no God, there can be no such thing as objective moral beliefs. They get to make up their sexual morality on their own – without there being any negative consequences whatsoever.

However, this point of view simply does not reflect reality. God does exist and he created the natural universe to operate in a particular way. There are two sexes – male and female. Each sex has its own particular biological makeup, and can only participate in sexual activity based on its maleness or femaleness. One’s biological sex is determined at conception and cannot be changed once a child is conceived – its DNA will never change.

God has also revealed an objectively real moral order that is associated with human sexuality. That moral order is based on the notion that sexual relations are reserved for marriage between one man and one woman – and the marriage should last “as long as they both shall live.”

All of the ridiculousness now going on related to sexuality exists because there are people who don’t like the way reality is structured. As such, they deny actual reality is real, then try to live life “as if” their fantasy beliefs are true. They can make a choice to do that, but it will not change reality. And ultimately you can’t break God’s moral law … you can only break yourself on it.