Society must choose: Homosexuality or Judeo-Christian tradition..

Search

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
So you don't believe in public sex education? Because if you believe in public sex education, then you have to work in gay sex (and 'transgendered' sex and probably dog sex in a short decade or two as soon as someone convinces themselves they were born with a sexual attraction to animals and want to make a political issue out of it) into the curriculum. It's all about 'discrimination' -- the holy liberal value of making us all walk on our tippy-toes never dare 'offending' anyone.

I honestly don't feel that sex education is needed in school to be honest. Just as i do feel that going to school for 9 months out of the year isnt enough either. Just as a i feel that we should pay teachers much more then they are paid, thus forcing more competitive positions, thus weeding out the weaker teachers (and No child left behind is NOT the answer). There is much i think is wasted in public education, but that doesnt mean we should abandon it. And for the sake of understanding and debate, Im not real firm on these beliefs and if someone had a different position, i would like to understand what it is.

And do you think this is happening? (Not a rhetorical question, btw.)

No actually. I feel the education system has been completely dumbed down and the biggest problem is the lack of critical thinking, if you ask me. I heard somewhere that the average high school student only has about 1200 hours of schooling under their belt, that is like 30% less then places like Japan i reckon. not to mention in bigger cities the dropout rate is like 50%, these are things that needs to change. The kids today have the ability to be so much smarter then ever before (i guess you could say that about every progressive generation) and to me, it just feels like there is too many distractions and not enough learning.


Whew! That's a fine line. Do you mean no more Gay Pride parades in SF? Or do you mean Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell?"

All of it. "ask but dont tell" is fine with me. I could care less if i was serving next to a gay man, but then again, i have never served, so ill leave that to the veterans to decide. As long as he isnt fucking you in your sleep or sexually harassing you who cares. The Gay Pride parades are dumb IMO, but then again that could be just perseverance after being persecuted for so long, i dont know. But i dont want someones sexuality thrown im my face whenever it strikes them.

Given the size of the porn industry and our liberal sex-crazed culture, I disagree and would say the above statement is inaccurate.

This country is sexually oppressed, hence you have all the porn. Believe it or not, most people aren't getting laid, im sure you know this all to well.:lol:
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Failing to teach about human reproduction would be the height of irresponsibiity in any general youth education curriculum.

It would seem clear that leaving that topic "only in the homes" contributes to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

There are other strong influences on unwanted pregnancies - notably a lack of females who place their desire to please a male (via not saying "no" to sexual advances) above their common sense knowledge about biology.

There's not many screws that are worth either a 20+ year commitment to child raising or the physical and emotional challenges which can accompany having an abortion.

Surveys of pregnant females, especially those under age 20, indicate a remarkable level of ignorance about how pregnancies occur and/or what can be done to prevent them.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
One advantage to being homosexual is that your odds of needing to have or participate in an abortion are dramatically reduced.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Brings to mind one of talk show host Phil Hendrie's better interviews.

Pastor William Rennick of The Joyful Union Congregation came on to promote his new class at church for teenage girls.

The class teaches how to have safe and more comfortable anal sex because "Everyone knows that you can't get pregnant when you use the back door. And we really want to reduce the need for our teenage women to have abortions since Jesus taught that abortion is wrong, Phil."
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Failing to teach about human reproduction would be the height of irresponsibiity in any general youth education curriculum.

It would seem clear that leaving that topic "only in the homes" contributes to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

There are other strong influences on unwanted pregnancies - notably a lack of females who place their desire to please a male (via not saying "no" to sexual advances) above their common sense knowledge about biology.

There's not many screws that are worth either a 20+ year commitment to child raising or the physical and emotional challenges which can accompany having an abortion.

Surveys of pregnant females, especially those under age 20, indicate a remarkable level of ignorance about how pregnancies occur and/or what can be done to prevent them.

Good point. But should it be something that is mandatory? Or just an elective? I dont honestly remember having Sex Ed and turned out fine. Obviously, im just one person and if studies says that ignorance is something that contributes to teen Pregnancy and abortions (witch makes sense) then we have to do what it takes to get that across. However, i wonder how much learning would get done in a class with girls/boys regarding sex....most of them would be unwilling to participate i assume.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
F: But should it be something that is mandatory?

SH: Depends on where you would rank it in comparison to reading, communication and general math skills.

I'd put at least equal given the consequences that can follow ignorance in any of those topics.

F: Or just an elective?

SH: Probably not unreasonable to make it two tier. First tier would be mandatory and introduced at about age 10-11. Using that age because it's not uncommon for female puberty to hit at age 11-13 and we want to be ahead of that curve because like it or not, the female MUST be smarter sooner than the males.

The second tier could be elective and would be the one that can be introduced at age 14 because 9th grade is where we start seeing the sharp upcurve of real one on one relationships between girls and boys. Though it would be equally available to all high school grades and be dependent on a key distinction.

That distinction is between those teens who have firmly (for whatever reasons) decided they are NOT going to participate in sex at this time (age 14 - ??). We'll call them "Group A".

We know for a fact that at least half of high schoolers, on an ascending curve by age, WILL choose to participate in sex with opposite gender. We'll call them "Group B".

Group A quite simply doesn't need "Tier 2" for the time being and may not need it at all. They are the Group most likely to be receiving accurate sex education from home so their time is better spent at school focusing on other subjects. Why waste their time talking about how to prevent and/or reduce pregnancies if they are committed to NOT having sex?

Group B DOES need Tier 2, though it could be elective since many of them too may also be getting accurate sex education via home or other general education (reading...trusted and knowledgeable older teens or adults).

We benefit as a community almost any way we can legitimately and honestly reduce unwanted pregnancies. As a taxpaying member of the community, I'm cool with a portion of my taxes going to advance such education.


F: I dont honestly remember having Sex Ed and turned out fine.

SH: Somebody taught you and/or you learned it via reading and/or testimony of trusted peers or adults. Perhaps you were in Group A, or if in Group B, you received the information somewhere - presuming you have not yet been involved in an unwanted pregnancy.

F: Obviously, im just one person and if studies says that ignorance is something that contributes to teen Pregnancy and abortions (witch makes sense) then we have to do what it takes to get that across.

SH: I can't cite any "studies". I confess it's more common sense to presume that deliberately planned education will outweigh just hoping needed lessons are learned outside the 12 year classroom. That would apply to sex, reading, math and most any topic.

F: However, i wonder how much learning would get done in a class with girls/boys regarding sex....most of them would be unwilling to participate i assume.

SH: Not sure if it's still a segregated topic in public schools. Back in my day (harumph)...we first had those classes in 6th grade in classes segregated by gender. That was 1973

I agree with you Fletch that it would certainly seem more productive to have such topics taught in that manner. To do otherwise invites way too much distraction from the topic and the educational value would be reduced.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Thanks for the rebuttal Barman, you raise some very valid points - and i think i can see this topic in a different light then before. Amazing it is with a little give and take and not someone jamming their narrow minded views down your throat.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
We benefit as a community almost any way we can legitimately and honestly reduce unwanted pregnancies. As a taxpaying member of the community, I'm cool with a portion of my taxes going to advance such education.

Great point. Not only will it save people form many hardships, its also a rgeat investment, considering how much it costs to help a broken family out for many years to come. Looking at it from an economic point of view, it would save much money to make things as clear as possible. Also off topic...they should also have a class where they teach kids the dangers f credit Cards. nobody told me anything about them, and i learned (like many here im sure) the hard way. But, the debt machine is how this pig runs, i doubt you will see that anytime soon. College kids make Credit card company's MAD flow.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Thanks for the rebuttal Barman, you raise some very valid points - and i think i can see this topic in a different light then before. Amazing it is with a little give and take and not someone jamming their narrow minded views down your throat.

Friendly note that I didn't intend to "rebut", but rather to respond to your sensibly posed questions.

You'll likely face those questions a bit more personally than will I in the coming years if you elect to have kids who would later encounter such education via a school system. Mine are adults now and fortunately they do talk to me about Hows, Whys and Whens of relationships but there's little need for biology class. They all know that well.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,363
Tokens
I wonder if thats for the same kinda reasons that pig got banned by the muzzies.

You can get pretty ill with seafood, as with pork.

According to the Bible some seafood is ok to eat. Shrimp and the like are bottom feeders and pigs eat garbage. So people who made rules thousands of years ago thought that the animal was no good to eat. You can get sick eating beef as well. But cows eat mostly grain.

So here we have the typical rules against something that inevitable lead to shaming of someone partaking in the activity that is outlawed. Nevermind the fact that these animals are perfectly ok to eat if prepared correctly. It's a case of ignorance being perpetuated for thousands of years.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
homosexuality is a choice, it is for the weak minded, just as porn is for the weak minded.

I disagree. I am heterosexual. I don't believe that I could ever choose to be homosexual. Not a chance. Never.

Given that, I can only assume that homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexuality.

That, and with most gay people it is plainly obvious. They are gay. Period. Not because they "chose" it. It's just who they are. I suppose anyone could live a lie and be miserable and act like someone they're not. But I wouldn't really call that a "choice". As I said, I don't really believe I could "choose" to be homosexual.

And really, any straight guy that thinks homosexuality is a choice may have something they're not really telling us.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
28,799
Tokens
homosexuality is a choice, it is for the weak minded, just as porn is for the weak minded.
I hope you're being sarcastic, because you strike me as a much smarter person than this.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is genetic..NO DOUBT. I have a brother who is gay..He is and always has been. There's nobody that knows more about this subject than a person who has lived close to it as I have...Somebody who isn't attracted to a beautiful woman is wired much different than you and I. Both in mind and in body. A person doesn't choose to take this direction..We both grew up in a totally normal household..The only difference was I was interested in sports and my brother wasn't. He's 5 years older than i am, and ever since I've been on this earth he's been the same..There was nothing that happened in his life to suddenly change him into a homosexual. The Judeo-Christian religious zealots would like us to think some terrible event happened in each and every one of these lives to make them that way....Sorry

And something many may not know, homosexuality is not only genetic, it is inherited, and runs through families..Chances are if you know somebody who is gay, there is somebody in their family tree who also is gay. I just found out recently from my mother that my grandfather's brother was gay..Back in the early 1900's gays were simply called sissys. And my grandfather's brother stayed out back in a house behind the main house where my grandfather and his family lived..He was a frail man, and the kids from the neighborhood used to make fun of him and dress him up in a dress and parade him around the yard..It was hard for my mother to watch..And they talked and understood very little about it in those days..I can't imagine what it would have been like for these people back then..Aside from my great uncle, I also had an uncle that was a gay and a cousin. All on my mother's side. If it runs in your family tree count yourself grateful that you were never born with this gene..I wouldn't wish it on anybody. As for my brother, he's never been a flaming homosexual..In fact he's just the opposite..Nowadays he's a weightlifter and bodybuilder who standing next to him would probably make us all look gay.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
GS, Railbird was most certainly not being sarcastic. That blast was totally consistent with his other occasional Rapture-Christian style postings.

But regardless, your own personal followup testimony adds a nice rebuttal to the essay which leads off this Topic Thread.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
649
Tokens
There are four gays that I know of where I work and there is no way they made the choice to be that way. Utterly naive way of looking at it. Those of you who think it's a choice should really come out of the closet. We will still accept you here at the RX. Well at least us commie bastards will.
:lol:
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Scientists can't agree whether it's biological or not - so how can we.

I know that there are some homomaniacs out there who've done everything they can to "prove" that it's in the genes and not a choice - but their arguments tend to be built on water.

Meanwhile, whether it's natural or not, homosexuality is a deviance from the norm - any person who is sexualy attracted to the same sex is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
By the way, just as there are some dogs out there who eat shit when they get sexually excited, there are guys who'd literally fukk a knot hole when they're horny - Just because some guy gets caught up in a testesterone high and would screw a goat doesn't make them bisexual or any other kind of sexual - excepting sexually excited.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
28,799
Tokens
Scientists can't agree whether it's biological or not - so how can we.

I know that there are some homomaniacs out there who've done everything they can to "prove" that it's in the genes and not a choice - but their arguments tend to be built on water.

Meanwhile, whether it's natural or not, homosexuality is a deviance from the norm - any person who is sexualy attracted to the same sex is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe not normal in a sexual way..But there are also many heterosexuals out there that stray far from the norm when it comes to their sexual tastes. But you can't judge a person on just one aspect of their lives..My brother is gay, but he has lived a completely normal life. He's active in society. He was a very successful businessman. And don't ask don't tell, but he is also an Air Force veteran.

His only problem was that it took him years to finally find a church that would accept him...It's very tough to be accepted religiously as a gay when you live in the Bible Belt..I suspect this will be the last part of the country that will change. But let there be no doubt about it, it will..Fifty years from now people will laugh at how ignorant this generation was about this subject..Of course it doesn't help when you have somebody from the political side like Oklahoma state representative and neo-con fundamentalist christian Sally Kern making remarks like saying homosexuality is a worse problem than terrorism.

This shows just how stupid people still are about this subject..They still believe a line from a book written 5000 years ago by no telling what kind of middle eastern self-proclaimed prophet with a vivid imagination over somebody that's standing right before their eyes...Amazing
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,837
Tokens
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/february/206GayWar.asp

Gay Activists War Against Christianity

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] BY ED VITAGLIANO | AFA Journal News Editor[/FONT] "All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary," declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
"Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant — which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record — claimed that the entire piece was a "cruel fantasy" that explained "how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."
The "dream" was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d’etat: "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. … [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men. … The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished. … All churches who condemn us will be closed."
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swift’s sentiments, such as the following: "We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Identifying the opponent[/FONT]
Whether or not the ravings of this "gay revolutionary" were intended as satire, what is striking is the remarkable success of the plan found within the article. Who can doubt that the legal system — especially following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) striking down sodomy laws — has been brought to heel by gay activists? Or that Hollywood has freely committed its tremendous resources to the fight for homosexual legitimacy? Or that the family unit will virtually cease to exist in any traditional sense should gay adoption and same-sex marriage become legal everywhere?
While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality, marriage and family.
This is not an overexaggeration. Paula Ettelbrick is former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ettelbrick stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goal … of radically reordering society’s views of reality."
That is a pretty comprehensive goal, and activists face a daunting task if they hope to accomplish it. They must change the views of a culture that still remains somewhat anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which considers homosexuality unnatural and sinful. For Ettelbrick and her ilk to convince the American people to change their mind on this issue, the foundation of our culture must be shifted to a new way of perceiving reality that rejects the Judeo-Christian view.
However, that leaves one major institution standing in the way: the church. Christians who still hold to the Judeo-Christian views of human sexuality, marriage and family are called by religious faithfulness to resist the homosexual movement.
That makes Christians the enemy. In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled "Warning to the Homophobes," Warren spoke of "the mean-spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality."
Even in 1987, Warren felt that the homosexual movement could not be stopped. And as activists continued to find success, he promised that "we are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality."
Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. "Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others," he said, "eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Battle tactics[/FONT]
So a homosexual utopia awaits these activists, if only they can deal with those pesky Christians. But if removing the obstacle of the church is the strategy, what are the tactics through which this victory might be achieved?
That question was answered as far back as 1985, when in their article for Christopher Street, a gay magazine, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to "persuade straight America" to accept homosexuality. Their article was expanded into a book on the subject, the national number one best seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.
Kirk and Madsen focused the heart of their strategy on using the media as a propaganda tool in persuading the majority of Americans that gay is OK. But they also addressed the question of what to do with the hardened opposition — that is, at least in institutional terms, those following the "religious authority" of the church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led opposition.
First, to "confound" what Kirk and Madsen called "the homophobia of true believers," they suggested that gays "muddy the moral waters." This would be accomplished in part by "publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches" and "raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings."
This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations have so clouded the issues regarding the Biblical view of homosexuality as to threaten each with schism and ruin.
For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They suggested that gays "undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times. …"
It should come as no surprise, therefore, when Christians see themselves portrayed on countless television shows as self-righteous bigots or hate-filled lunatics who simply refuse to accept the fact that things have changed in America.
Nevertheless, Kirk and Madsen knew that the religious authority of Christian denominations in the U.S. would be difficult to dispel; churches would therefore continue to act as a powerful braking mechanism on any momentum for the acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Kirk and Madsen understood, for example, that simply poking fun of "bigoted Southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred" would not be enough.
Instead, they said, "Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed ‘secular humanism’). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion."
Thus Christians involved in this theater of the culture war have become accustomed to defending the Judeo-Christian view on sexuality against claims that science has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic. The same is true of the claim that all major mental health and medical professional groups have declared that being gay or lesbian is as natural as being left-handed. Such "scientific" claims have no doubt been instrumental in the dramatic shifts of American public opinion on this topic.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]End game[/FONT]
But beyond these tactics, Kirk and Madsen said plans must also be drawn up to deal with "the entrenched enemy," which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary schemes. They said: "At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified."
Again, astute Christians who are paying attention to what is happening in our culture can already see this occurring. On high school and college campuses, for example, believers who dare to speak up against the homosexual agenda are being ridiculed and smeared. In corporations where they work, some Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the reigning pro-gay environment are reprimanded or fired.
Nor does it require prophetic insight to understand that churches will not be immune from coercion, either. In fact, gay and lesbian activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights made this demand: "Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax exempt status."
Is it conceivable that in the near future, churches could be threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refuse to hire a homosexual employee?
Some might scoff at such a threat, relying on the Constitutional protection of religion in the U.S. as a shield. But some homosexual activists seem to view religious liberty as an obstacle to be overcome. For example, lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay predicted that "the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."
If sexual orientation is ever enshrined as a protected status in federal and state laws, which right will win that showdown?
For the time being, activists can simply attempt to suppress religious free speech whenever the mood hits them.
For example, when a church in Boston hosted a 2005 conference with a message that Jesus can free gays and lesbians from that lifestyle, they were harassed and terrorized by hundreds of homosexual activists and sympathizers outside — while Boston police stood by and did nothing. (See AFA Journal, 1/06.)
Finally, if activists ever achieve their goal of having sexual orientation included in federal hate crime statutes, many pro-family groups fear such a moment will be a beachhead on the way to criminalizing "anti-gay" speech and thought.
In his article, Warren’s final warning should cause wise Christians to accurately discern the times in which we live: "We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,837
Tokens
http://www.equip.org/DH055-1.htm

STATEMENT DH-055-1
HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction

(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)

by Joseph P. Gudel

<hr>
Summary
If homosexuality is neither a normal nor a healthy lifestyle — as I believe this article demonstrates — then the most loving thing we can do is to help homosexuals realize this and offer them our help and encouragement. But millions of people in our society believe that homosexuality is a healthy and acceptable alternative lifestyle. This debate over the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture is one that has been clouded with many misrepresentations and inaccuracies. These misrepresentations include the assertion that ten percent of all Americans are gay (the figure is actually closer to one or two percent), that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists believe homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle (the majority do not), that homosexuals are born that way (most therapists disagree) and cannot change their sexual preference (disproven by numerous accounts where gays have converted to heterosexuality). It is the Christian's task to point out that while homosexuality is a sin, we are all sinners and there is forgiveness and deliverance for all who turn to Jesus Christ.
<hr> "People should live and let live!"
"To each his own, let them live as they wish."
"Let the gays have their freedom."
"Whatever makes you happy, live with it."<sup>1</sup>
Comments like these are commonly heard when the topic of homosexuality comes up for discussion. The debate over homosexuality and homosexual rights has steadily grown over the past two decades and will only continue to do so.
In the course of this debate, however, numerous inaccuracies, half-truths, fallacies, and overt propaganda have been disseminated to the public as uncontested truth. It is the purpose of this article to examine these claims and separate fact from fiction. Before anyone can give intelligent and compassionate answers, the questions must be clarified and brought into focus. I believe that when this is done the impartial reader will be able to agree with the analogy made by Dr. James D. Mallory, a psychiatrist and the director of the Atlanta Counseling Center: "A physician would be guilty of malpractice if he didn't warn a diabetic of his condition because he didn't want to hurt his feelings. Simply letting the person continue eating excessive carbohydrates without proper treatment condemns him to a worsening physical condition. The most loving act one can do is point out that an abnormality exists, and offer help. This needs to be done — but not in a spirit of condemnation — with homosexuality."<sup>2</sup>
HOMOPHOBIA?
Homophobia is defined in The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex as the "fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals."<sup>3</sup> The Greek word phobia denotes an "irrational fear." The word homo literally means "same," but the word is frequently used as a shortened form of homosexual — one who is sexually attracted to his or her own sex. Thus, strictly speaking, homophobia denotes an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. However, the gay rights movement (and, by-and-large, the media) places this label on anyone who opposes any of the movement's goals and objectives; specifically, anyone opposing the full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as healthy and "normal."
While indeed there are many people who hate or irrationally fear homosexuals, to say that anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle or disagrees with the gay rights political agenda is a homophobe is simply not true. This tactic is clearly intended to divert attention from the argument and onto the person. As we will see below, there are many who oppose homosexuality on psychological, sociological, medical, and moral grounds.
TEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION?
Perhaps the most fascinating statistic cited (constantly and confidently) in research of homosexuality is that ten percent of the United States population is homosexual. The implication is that this is probably just as true in most other societies as well. I say this is fascinating because virtually nobody knows (or at least cites) where this statistic comes from.
The Family Research Institute asks, "How many homosexuals are there? USA Today said '25 million gay men and lesbians' (11/13/91) [i.e., about 10% of the US population]. The Washington Times said '10 percent of American men are homosexual and 5 percent of women are lesbian' (11/19/91). The American Psychological Association assures us that homosexuality is 'an orientation found consistently in about ten percent of the male population and approximately five percent of the female population' (2/6/89)."<sup>4</sup>
Just this week, as I was preparing to put this article together, I watched "Teen Connection," a public broadcast program.<sup>5</sup> Its topic was "Sexual Orientation" with a panel consisting of a homosexual teenage boy, the boy's mother, a young lady who is a lesbian, and an adult homosexual "counselor." Within the course of an hour the ten percent figure was cited three times, being adduced as evidence of just how many people out there need our encouragement and understanding. They had a panel of phones for those who had questions or needed counseling themselves. I called in and asked them where the ten percent figure came from. The lady I spoke with did not know, and neither did another phone counselor she asked.
The truth is that this ten percent statistic comes from a report published more than 40 years ago — the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey.<sup>6</sup> The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population.<sup>7</sup>
Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, "who by the nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison.<sup>8</sup> This was hardly a representative sample of the American population.
But there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. This alone would make a major difference in his findings.<sup>9</sup>
In addition there was clearly a "volunteer bias." In attempting to select a representative group to work with, one does not merely run an ad and accept anyone who responds. Research has shown that those responding to a study as intimate as the one Kinsey was doing would not be representative of the general population. In fact, the widely renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow pointed this out to Kinsey before his findings were published, but he refused to listen.<sup>10</sup>
To make matters worse, the people who refer back to this old and flawed study do not quote it accurately. Kinsey did not say that 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was homosexual. Rather, he affirmed that ten percent of white American males were "more or less" exclusively homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 65. The statistic for females was five percent. The actual percentage of those thought to be exclusively homosexual for their entire lives was only four percent of men and two or three percent of women, all based on his allegedly representative sample of the population.<sup>11</sup>
What are the real figures as far as we can tell today? One recent study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England), found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had homosexual intercourse.<sup>12</sup> An even more recent study, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1989 and reported at the 1990 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, resulted in a figure "less than 1% exclusively homosexual."<sup>13</sup>
Are these results significant? Well, they are significant in at least setting the record straight as to the actual scope or parameters of the debate. There is quite a difference between one or two percent of the population being homosexual as opposed to ten percent of the population. Obviously, the higher the percentage cited as being homosexual, the more influence those in the gay rights movement can wield.
IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?
An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior. Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as "normal" as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people."<sup>14</sup>
Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.
Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?
I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.15 Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.
In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."<sup>16</sup>
These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.
Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides — who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years — described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."<sup>17</sup> Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."<sup>18</sup>
Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."<sup>19</sup>
But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."<sup>20</sup>
One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition. Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.
BORN GAY?
Perhaps the most dangerous myth disseminated today by the pro-homosexuality movement is that modern science has proven that homosexuality is innate and immutable. That is, homosexuals are born gay, much like being born left-handed or with blue eyes. The inference, of course, is that if they are born that way, then homosexuality cannot be considered immoral or unnatural; the homosexual is just following his or her genes. However, as Congressman William Dennemeyer put it, "if homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural, then homosexuals must look at their own conduct in an entirely different light and explain it in less satisfying terms."<sup>21</sup>
It is well beyond the scope of this article to summarize all the findings concerning the genesis of homosexuality. However, the scientific evidences for its origins are usually classified in terms of either biological causes (i.e., genetic/hormonal) or environmental factors (e.g., psychological causes, volitional, and so forth).
(1) Biological Causes. The most recent research suggesting that homosexuality may be caused by biological factors came out in 1991 with the publication of some preliminary findings of Dr. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. His research consisted of studying the brains of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. He found that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<sup>22</sup>
This study was seized upon by many as "irrefutable evidence" that homosexuals are born gay, something the homosexual community has been proclaiming for many years. However, "instead of resolving the debate," a Newsweek article suggests, "the studies may well have intensified it. Some scientists profess not to be surprised at all by LeVay's finding of brain differences. 'Of course it [sexual orientation] is in the brain,' says Johns Hopkins University psychologist John Money, sometimes called the dean of American sexologists. 'The real question is, when did it get there? Was it prenatal, neonatal, during childhood, puberty? That we do not know.'"<sup>23</sup>
Other problems with his findings include: (1) all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences; (2) there was no way to know the sexual history of the "heterosexual" men; (3) there is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexuality; and (4) Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, admitted that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor.<sup>24</sup>
(2) Environmental Factors. There are probably just as many, if not more, psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality arises from various environmental factors. The majority of these say that homosexuality's root causes are psychological, not biological. But these people are not cited nearly as often by the media as the others — perhaps a pro-homosexual bias by the media? And they are virtually never even acknowledged by the homosexual community, because most homosexuals want to believe that they were born that way and had no choice (conscious or subliminal) in the matter.
In any case, some of the most noteworthy and respected researchers and therapists in the world deny that homosexuality is determined by biological factors. For example, therapists helping homosexuals who are unhappy with their condition can cite one case history after another showing that negative early childhood experiences are the one common factor found in almost all their patients. The vital factor here is that these people were raised in a very unloving home environment, never knowing love or acceptance from their mother or their father, or in some cases both. According to these studies, the child's reaction to this rejection and lack of nurturing is formulated at a very early age, usually before five years old. The following references illustrate these findings.
William H. Masters (codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute), Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."<sup>25</sup>
Robert Kronemeyer, in his work Overcoming Homosexuality, writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'"<sup>26</sup>
John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality, expressed the same view in a 1989 USA Today article: "'The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,' says John DeCecco... Homosexuality, he says, is 'a behavior, not a condition,' and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<sup>27</sup>
One thing is clear: it is hardly an established scientific fact accepted by the entire medical field that homosexuality is solely or even primarily caused by biological factors. This brings us to the question just raised above: Can those who are homosexual change?
IS CHANGE IMPOSSIBLE?
The question of whether or not one should want to change his or her sexual preference will be addressed shortly. But before looking at the desirability of changing, we need to ascertain whether change is even possible. I say that this is important to investigate because a host of individuals concerned with homosexual issues deny that this is a possibility.
Those in the gay rights movement, as well as numerous researchers, psychotherapists, and so forth, decry any attempt to change the homosexual's sexual orientation or preference. Rick Notch, a homosexual man who at one time claimed to have become an ex-gay, stated on The Geraldo Show: "The only choice we have is to learn to accept ourselves and to find a way to live a responsible, moral life."28 Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist who heads the APA's committee on gay issues, likewise asserted: "The core orientation in a gay man cannot be changed."<sup>29</sup>
But even a perfunctory examination of the available testimonies and case studies shows that this simply is not true. First of all, do all of the other psychiatrists and psychologists agree with the assertion that change is not possible? By no means! In fact, most believe that change is possible. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, hardly homophobes, write in their work Homosexuality in Perspective: "Providing therapeutic support for the homosexually oriented man or woman who wishes to convert or revert to heterosexuality has been an integral part of the practice of psychotherapy for decades."<sup>30</sup>
Likewise, in the Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex (1990) we find the statement that "sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not readily changed by any type of intervention" (emphasis added).31 Thus, while it is not easy, changing one's sexual orientation is nonetheless possible — which could not be the case if homosexuality was innate and immutable.
This was confirmed on a recent segment of ABC's 20/20, which had a story dealing with a Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi is a psychologist and psychotherapist who has been helping homosexual men convert to heterosexuality for a number of years now. <sup>32</sup>
I already referred above to the work of Dr. Robert Kronemeyer. If the interested reader pursues this work, he or she will find eight case histories cited — true accounts of people who sought relief from their lives of homosexual bondage (their own description of their lifestyles) and were converted to heterosexuality <sup>33</sup>
Another area where we see the fruit of changed lives is in the numerous Christian ministries reaching out to homosexuals desiring help. Space limitations will not allow me to go into great detail. Those interested can find the references in the endnotes.
Are there really changed lives? There is Darlene Bogle, a woman who "struggled with lesbianism" for 17 years.<sup>34</sup> She was raised in an environment where she was sexually abused by different men and boys, the first at the age of three. Her parents divorced when she was only five. Her new stepfather frequently abused her, both verbally and physically. In her own words she was raised in "a home that lacked nurturing, that was void of positive role models and void of love."<sup>35</sup> Today, through the grace and mercy of God, she has been completely free for 15 years from her former lifestyle and is currently a counselor at Paraklete Ministries in Hayward, California.
There is Frank Worthen, a practicing homosexual for 25 years. In 1973 he turned back to Jesus Christ, who delivered him from that lifestyle. Since then he has remained free, without once falling back into his old secular behavior. Today he and his wife Anita are missionaries in the Philippines with Exodus International.<sup>36</sup>
There is Andrew Comiskey, a former homosexual who is now the director of Desert Stream Ministries.37 There is Joanne Highley, a lesbian from the ages of 13 to 23, who has now been freed from that lifestyle for the past 35 years. She has been married to the same man during those 35 years, is a mother and grandmother, and with her husband is codirector of L.I.F.E. ministries in New York City.<sup>38</sup>
Are there really changed lives, people who were exclusively homosexual and became heterosexual? Yes. Have there not been those who have fallen back into their old lifestyles? Again, the answer is yes, which is to be expected. Just like in Alcoholics Anonymous, the road is rarely easy and involves a tremendous commitment by the individual seeking recovery and healing. Sometimes individuals stumble and never get back up again. Sometimes they stumble, get back up, and continue on in the process of recovery. And occasionally, individuals are healed instantly and never turn back again. But the fact remains that there are many former homosexuals, ex-gays, who have been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.
A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE?
As noted above, those in the gay rights movement constantly assert that they are both normal and healthy individuals. We have already discussed the "normality" of homosexuality. The question of whether or not it is a healthy lifestyle can be addressed in two areas: promiscuity and actual sexual practices.
(1) Promiscuity. If one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practiced must be termed extremely unhealthy. Homosexualities, an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous." Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.<sup>39</sup>
Just a few years after the publication of this report, Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months."<sup>40</sup> In contrast with this, "the average heterosexual male has — throughout his life — from five to nine sex partners."<sup>41</sup>
What about lesbian relationships? Are homosexual women less promiscuous than homosexual men? While less research has been done on lesbians, the data shows that they are much more monogamous than homosexual men. However, their relationships are still not very secure. Yvonne Zipter, a lesbian writing in Chicago's gay journal Windy City Times, in an article entitled "The Disposable Lesbian Relationship," notes that the "lasting lesbian relationship" is a "mythic entity."<sup>42</sup>
(2) Sexual Practices. A second item that cannot be avoided in a discussion of the health aspects of homosexuality is the actual sexual practices of homosexuals. Are these healthy? Once again, the vast preponderance of medical evidence is resoundingly negative.
Many different medical sources document the physical aberrancy of homosexual sexual practices. The following information comes from an article entitled "Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue." It was written by Dr. Bernard J. Klamecki, a proctologist (rectal specialist) for more than 30 years.
Dr. Klamecki states in this article that when he began his medical practice in 1960, only one percent of his patients were homosexuals. By 1988 this number had grown to 25 percent of his patients, the majority being referred by a local gay free clinic. The following material comes from one who is known and respected by the homosexual community, a medical professional who has care and compassion for all his patients and who donates a good deal of his time to their service.
I know well the medical and surgical pathology directly related to the sexual practices typical of active homosexuals, particularly anal intercourse (sodomy) and oral intercourse (fellatio)....
Sexual practices typical of homosexuals can affect the oral cavities, lungs, penis, prostate, bladder, anus, perianal areas outside of the rectum, rectum, colon, vagina, uterus, pelvic area, brain, skin, blood, immune system, and other body systems.... While none of the following practices is unique to homosexuals, they are nonetheless typical....
Most common is anal intercourse (sodomy)....Foreign objects are often used in order to produce a different erotic sensation or to instigate a more violent sexual activity (sadomasochism). Objects that I have removed from the rectum and lower bowel include corn cobs, light bulbs, vibrators, soda bottles, and varied wooden sticks.
"Fisting" is when a fisted hand is inserted into the rectum, sometimes as far as the elbow, which produces varied sexually exciting sensations, strongly linking eroticism with pain....
Oral intercourse (fellatio) is when the tongue is used to lick or tickle the outlet of the rectum for sexual excitement, arousing, or foreplay. Needless to say, bacteria may contaminate and infect the mouth. One other sexual practice is "Water Sports," in which urinating into the mouth or rectum is used as a sexual stimulant.
Physical damage to the rectum may occur because of some of these practices....There is an antinatural activity being performed when the rectum is the recipient of a penis or foreign object. Because of this activity, cracking of the tissue (fissuring), open sores (ulcers), boils (abscesses), and other infections can occur in the skin of the surrounding tissues....
Persistent anal-rectal sexual activity can lead to various pre-cancerous lesions such as Bowen's disease and Kaposi's sarcoma. Whenever tissues are traumatized, cracked, or abraded, they are vulnerable to bacterial infection.<sup>43</sup>
Dr. Klamecki then continues, discussing the various bacterial diseases and viral diseases he regularly encounters with his homosexual patients — the most prominent being AIDS (the current figure is that 70 percent of Americans with AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals). In addition, he asserts that up to 86 percent of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation.<sup>44</sup>
Is the homosexual lifestyle a healthy one? The information presented above just scratches the surface showing the pathological nature of these sexual practices. Much more could be shared (e.g., the homosexual is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual; a recent study shows the life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS being about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual; and so forth),<sup>45</sup> but space will not permit it. I believe that any unbiased reader would have to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one.
In the next issue of the JOURNAL I will deal briefly with the gay rights movement's political agenda. I will also examine their considerably successful attempts to change the outlooks of both Christians and Jews towards homosexuality.
THE CHRISTIAN'S TASK
Before closing I need to clarify that while I believe that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant, psychologically deviant, and morally bankrupt, it is also just as true that we are all sinners. The Bible states that we have all turned our backs on God and gone our own way. As Martin Luther once put it, we each "sin often and daily."
Except for the grace and mercy of God, each one of us would be left in our own little world of sin, alone and helpless. The good news, though, is that God has reached out to us, coming down to become one with us in our humanity, dying and rising again — that we may be free from the bondage of sin.
For anyone struggling with the bondage of homosexuality, or the bondage of any other sin, there is freedom available at the cross of Calvary. Our task as Christians is to lovingly reach out to all people with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For Help or Further Information:
Exodus International
P.O. Box 77652
Seattle, WA 98177
(206) 784-7799 or
Toll Free: (888) 264-0877
<hr> NOTES <sup>1</sup> The quotations are from members of the studio audience on The Geraldo Show, "Can Gays and Lesbians Go Straight?" 11 June 1991.
<sup>2</sup> James D. Mallory, "Homosexuality: Part III A Psychiatrist's View," Christian Life, October 1977, 28.
<sup>3</sup> June M. Reinisch, dir., The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), 147.
<sup>4</sup> Family Research Report (Family Research Institute, Washington, D.C.), 1.
<sup>5</sup> Teen Connection, "Sexual Orientation" (Wisconsin Public Television), 19 May 1992.
<sup>6</sup> Alfred C. Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: Saunders Company, 1948).
<sup>7</sup> See Abraham Maslow and James M. Sakoda, "Volunteer Error in the Kinsey Study," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47 (April 1952), 259-62.
<sup>8</sup> "The Ten Percent Solution, Part II," Peninsula 3:2 (October/November 1991), 7. Also see Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichol, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1990), 23.
<sup>9</sup> Kinsey, et. al., 216.
<sup>10</sup> Maslow and Sakoda, 259-62.
<sup>11</sup> Reinisch, 140.
<sup>12</sup> Reisman and Eichol, 194.
<sup>13</sup> lbid., 195.
<sup>14</sup> Nightline, ABC News, 30 August 1991.
<sup>15</sup> For those interested in the history leading up to the APA's 1973 removal of homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, see Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 101-54; William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 24-39.
<sup>16</sup> Bayer, 105-6.
<sup>17</sup> Charles W. Socarides, Beyond Sexual Freedom (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1977), 87. Prior to the 1973 vote Dr. Socarides led the APA's task force studying homosexuality, which issued a report unanimously declaring homosexuality to be a disorder of psychosexual development. This report, considered to be too politically inflammatory, was shelved, only later being published as a "study group" report in 1974.
<sup>18</sup> Charles W. Socarides in Robert Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980), 5.
<sup>19</sup> "Sick Again? Psychiatrists Vote on Gays," Time, 20 February 1978, 102.
<sup>20</sup> Stanton L. Jones, "Homosexuality According to Science," in J. Isamu Yamamoto, ed., The Crisis of Homosexuality (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 107.
<sup>21</sup> Dannemeyer, 40-41.
<sup>22</sup> Charlene Crabb, "Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?" U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, 58.
<sup>23</sup> David Gelman, et al., "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, 48.
<sup>24</sup> Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, "Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?" 3 January 1992.
<sup>25</sup> William H. Masters, Virginia E. Brown, and Robert Kolodny, Human Sexuality (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1982), 319.
<sup>26</sup> Kronemeyer, 7.
<sup>27</sup> Kim Painter, "A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference," USA Today, 1 January 1989, 4D. Also, see Alan P. Bell, et al., Sexual Preference (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1981), 221. While not believing that biology determines sexual preference, neither do they believe that the parents somehow caused it. Instead, they believe there is a causal relationship in children having early "gender identity" problems and their becoming homosexual.
<sup>28</sup> Rick Notch, The Geraldo Show, 11 June 1991.
<sup>29</sup> Richard Isay, quoted on 20/20, ABC News, 24 April 1992.
<sup>30</sup> William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979), 333. Also, after a ten-year study of homosexuality they found that those desiring "conversion" to heterosexuality had only a 21 percent failure rate (p. 396). However, after making certain adjustments the conversion failure rate could be as high as 45 percent.
<sup>31</sup> Reinisch, 143.
<sup>32</sup> 20/20, ABC News, 24 April 1992.
<sup>33</sup> Kronemeyer, 141-67.
<sup>34</sup> Darlene Bogle, "Healing from Lesbianism," in Yamamoto, 15.
<sup>35</sup> lbid., 17.
<sup>36</sup> Bob Davies, "The Exodus Story: The Growth of Ex-gay Ministry," in Yamamoto, 47-59. Also, see Kent Philpott, The Gay Theology (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1977), 20-37.
<sup>37</sup> Andrew Comiskey, Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the Homosexual (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1989).
<sup>38</sup> Joanne Highley, L.I.F.E. Ministries, P.O. Box 353, New York, NY 10185.
<sup>39</sup> Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308.
<sup>40</sup> Walter Isaacson, "Hunting for the Hidden Killers ," Time, 4 July 1983, 51.
<sup>41</sup> Kronemeyer, 32.
<sup>42</sup> Yvonne Zipter, "The Disposable Lesbian Relationship," Windy City Times (Chicago), 25 December 1986, 18.
<sup>43</sup> Bernard J. Klamecki, "Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue," in Yamamoto, 116-17.
<sup>44</sup> lbid., 123, 119.
<sup>45</sup> Paul Cameron, William L. Playfair, and Stephen Wellum, "The Homosexual Lifespan." Family Research Institute, 14 February 1992.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,837
Tokens
http://www.equip.org/DH055-2

STATEMENT DH-055-2
THAT WHICH IS UNNATURAL:

Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture

(Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)

by Joseph P. Gudel

<hr>
Summary
The gay rights movement does not just want the right to privacy and to be left alone. Attempting to promote their cause as a civil rights instead of as a moral issue, they want special legal protection for, and cultural acceptance of, their lifestyle. Even many Christian churches have condoned or are sympathetic to homosexuality, ignoring the Bible's teachings concerning our sexuality. In the Old Testament we find heterosexuality to be proclaimed as God's natural order of creation, a teaching Jesus upheld in the New Testament. Biblically, homosexuality is described as both an "abomination" and "unnatural." God calls us to reject sin, but to love and value all people.​
<hr> How can anyone dare to speak out against another person's lifestyle? Especially within the church, are not Christians called to be loving and inclusive? Does not the Bible itself tell us that we are to reach out to people instead of being judgmental and self-righteous?
Questions like these come up whenever the Christian or the church takes a stand on a moral issue, especially homosexuality. I realize that it is not "politically correct" to speak critically concerning any person or group. Nonetheless, true Christian love does not ignore immorality and the lives ruined by it, but speaks out in the hope of helping those individuals.
This is particularly true when militant pro-homosexual groups, both within society and the church, have attacked the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of this important issue. Thus this article is written, not as an attack on homosexuals, but in defense of the biblical teaching on this topic and to help those ensnared in this lifestyle.
THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT'S POLITICAL AGENDA
In Part One of this series (Summer 1992) I went into some detail showing that even from a secular perspective the unbiased reader is forced to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy nor a natural lifestyle. However, over the past 20 years or so there has been a growing gay rights movement within America. This movement has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority."
Concerning the demands of the gay rights movement, gay spokesperson Jeff Levi in a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington stated: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right as heterosexual Americans already have to see government and society affirm our lives."<sup>1</sup>
As far back as 1975, in an article entitled "Gays on the March," Time magazine quotes gay activist Barbara Gittings: "What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality."<sup>2</sup> In response to this, Time wisely reflected: "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive" (emphasis added).<sup>3</sup>
In view of their stated goals, it is extremely significant that today there is legislation pending in the United States Congress which proposes to do just what the gay rights movement has demanded: fully legitimize homosexuality as an acceptable and sanctioned alternative lifestyle. The Senate version, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, is bill S. B. 574. The House version, sponsored by Representative Barney Frank (an openly avowed homosexual), is measure H. R. 1430.
For most Americans it is shocking simply to have a bill like this being considered in the halls of Congress.<sup>4</sup> What is even more amazing is that already it has approximately 140 congressional sponsors, as well as the full support of President Bill Clinton.<sup>5</sup>
If passed this bill would make it illegal for any organization, including Christian businesses and churches, to refuse employment to practicing homosexuals. It would legalize same-sex "marriages," something not now recognized in any U.S. jurisdiction. Homosexual "couples" would have the right to adopt children. And every school system would have to include homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle in any sex education course offered.
Concerning the radical gay rights agenda now being advanced, Fr. John F. Harvey a nationally known professor of moral theology at De Sales School of Theology and someone actively involved in counseling homosexual persons for over thirty years writes:
Homosexual activists...are not requesting merely the right to live their lifestyle in private, to be left alone; to use their own words, they want to convince all elements of society even children that "gay is as acceptable as straight."....I think that gay-rights legislation would harm children at an impressionable, malleable, and gullible age. There is plenty of evidence for the position that homosexual propaganda can sway young people into homosexual activity and, perhaps, permanent orientation in that direction.<sup>6</sup>
As evidence that influencing children at a very early age is part of the gay rights agenda one need look no further than New York City's public school curriculum. Included in the curriculum materials are four pro-homosexual books aimed at very young children.
One, Heather Has Two Mommies, is a children's book about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Daddy's Roommate, describes a boy with divorced parents who visits his father and his father's new male roommate (obviously his lover). In a third book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, part of the text reads: "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."<sup>7</sup>
The rationale for these books is found on page 145 of the city's "Children of the Rainbow" first-grade curriculum which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household."<sup>8</sup>
In an article describing this, John Leo writes in U.S. News and World Report: "A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life)."<sup>9</sup>
It is clear that the gay community wants much more than simply the right to privacy. But what about their civil rights? Are new laws really essential to protect those in the gay community? In answer to this Roger J. Magnuson, a nationally renowned trial lawyer, states: "Homosexuals have all of the same rights heterosexuals do. They are protected by the Bill of Rights, by federal and state statutes, and by common-law decisions. They have the same status before the law as do other citizens....The issue is not whether rights have been infringed. The issue is whether new rights, not previously recognized, should be created."<sup>10</sup>
There is no question about the homosexual's right to practice whatever deviations he or she wants to in the privacy of his or her own home. There are many questions, however, about their attempt to codify their behavior as acceptable and good, to force their lifestyle on the rest of society, and to influence those too young to understand the moral implications of this issue.
It is simply an emotional ploy to attempt to portray this issue as involving civil rights for an oppressed minority. No one would ever say it is a sin to be black or Hispanic, just as no one would say it is a sin to be female or to be physically handicapped. But God's Word does say it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, as we shall see below.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH
Very few churches today come right out and affirm homosexuality as official church teaching. There are a few, though, which do. Foremost among these is the Metropolitan Community Church, founded by Troy Perry in 1968, largely for practicing homosexuals.
The only mainline denomination that has actually called for affirming and fully accepting homosexuals is the United Church of Christ (UCC). As far back as 1975 they voted to end any "discrimination" based on sexual preference and left it to individual UCC congregations to decide for themselves what they believed on this matter. In 1983 the UCC General Synod passed a resolution stating that "a person's sexual orientation is not a moral issue."<sup>11</sup> Finally, in 1991 the UCC General Synod approved the call for its congregations to "boldly affirm, celebrate, and embrace the gifts for ministry of lesbians, gays, and bisexual persons."<sup>12</sup>
Many other denominations are close to this view. Some, such as the Episcopal Church, have openly practicing homosexual clergy, with the full knowledge of their church's governing bodies. Others, such as the United Methodist Church (UMC), have officially rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with the Christian faith. However, at least 44 UMC congregations "have formally opened their doors to homosexuals" and called on their bishops to bless "same-sex union ceremonies."<sup>13</sup> Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's 1991 study guide on sexuality affirms that "no absolutistic judgments can be drawn" concerning homosexuality.<sup>14</sup> However, the guide then goes on to promote "committed" homosexual relationships.<sup>15</sup> A new gay magazine which describes itself as a "journal for gay and lesbian Christians" has a 10-page listing of "Christian" churches and organizations that "welcome gays and lesbians into full membership and participation."<sup>16</sup>
Very few Christian denominations today have remained faithful to the Bible's clear affirmation that homosexuality is a sin. Among these would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Greek Orthodox Church.


THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Authority of Scripture
It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God. Of the above mentioned denominations which have accepted homosexuality or are sympathetic to it, none of them believe that we have God's inerrant Word in the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject or even ridicule the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
Three different lines of attack on Scripture are found in the various pro-homosexual literature. The first is simply to ignore the biblical writers on the grounds that they were men who oftentimes made mistakes, and thus to reject what Scripture says as being morally authoritative. Thus John Barton states that "the Bible is not a code at all; it is a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike."<sup>17</sup> And elsewhere, in John Boswell's widely cited work, we find: "In considering the supposed influence of certain biblical passages...one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative."<sup>18</sup>
A second attack relates to the first that is, the biblical writers were ignorant about homosexuality. They did not know all that we do today, it is argued, and so we must judge and interpret the Bible with our modern understanding of biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. "With the quantum leaps that have been achieved in biology, psychology, and sociology, minds in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries must subject traditional religious arguments about nature to more thorough and critical analyses."<sup>19</sup>
It is not within the purview of this article to give a detailed defense of the inspiration and reliability of the Bible.<sup>20</sup> However, the simple response to these attacks is that both Judaism and Christianity have always held to the full authority of Scripture, as did Jesus Himself. In speaking of the Old Testament, for example, our Lord succinctly declared: "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Parts of Scripture cannot be accepted while other parts are rejected. And in speaking of the guidance His apostles would receive, including guidance on their future writings (i.e., the New Testament), Jesus told them: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).
It is ludicrous to believe that the Creator of the universe, in guiding the biblical authors, was ignorant concerning the things we now know about homosexuality through modern biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. To deny scriptural statements about homosexuality on these grounds is to completely deny God's superintendence in the authorship of Scripture.
A third type of attack is to state that it really does not matter what heterosexuals think the Bible says about homosexuality, because homosexuals must interpret Scripture in view of their own experiences. Hence, in the book Building Bridges we find the statement that "the scriptures contain some insights that can be made known to the Christian community only through the testimony of lesbian and gay people." Thus homosexuals must "interpret the scriptures in the light of their own experiences."<sup>21</sup>
The problem with this is that a person could justify any type of behavior by saying that Scriptures pertaining to a particular behavior can only be understood by those who engage in such behavior (e.g., incest, adultery, fornication, and even bestiality). Those who believe this should remember the words of our Lord: "Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness" (Luke 11:35).
Human Sexuality
Genesis 1-2
For those who believe that statements of the Bible are normative for our daily lives, the most important question to consider regarding homosexuality is: What was God's purpose in creating human sexuality? The answer to this question is more important than any other area of discussion.
From the very beginning of His revelation to humankind, God has revealed His order of creation, especially as it relates to sexuality. In Genesis 1 we are told that one purpose in creating the two sexes was procreative through the sexual union of male and female we could reproduce the race: "Male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:27b-28).
More detail is provided in Genesis 2, however, where we are told that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship: "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'" (Gen. 2:18). Then, after God created Eve and presented her to Adam, Adam rejoiced in his God-given companion. The chapter concludes: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24-25).
In this second chapter several items emerge. First, man has need for companionship: "It is not good that man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18); second, God makes provision to meet this need: the creation of woman (2:19-23). Concerning this, Samuel Dresner, Visiting Professor at Jewish Theological Seminary, states: "Woman is formed and becomes his partner. In her, man finds completion."<sup>22</sup> And third, God ordains the institution of marriage. We are told that the man would (1) "leave his father and mother," (2) "cleave to his wife," and (3) "they shall become one flesh." Thus we find that heterosexuality is proclaimed to be God's natural order of creation.
In the New Testament, whenever the subject of sexuality comes up, the heterosexual norm of marriage is always upheld. For example, Jesus, in answer to a question, quoted Genesis 1 and 2: "Have you not read, that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:4-6).
In addition, the apostle Paul reaffirms the norm of heterosexuality in several of his letters, also quoting the Genesis passages (e.g., Eph. 5:25-33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:2-3, 10-16; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). And while some protest that we cannot take Genesis 1 and 2 as modern scientific treatises,<sup>23</sup> these chapters nonetheless teach us spiritual truths concerning God's intended order for His creation.
It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive. However, pro-homosexual writers argue that while homosexual activity in and of itself cannot be procreative it can still fulfill the unitive role of Genesis 2. In response to this Harvey writes:
Consider the three common forms of sexual activity between homosexual persons. Mutual masturbation in no way constitutes a physical union.... Among female homosexuals some form of genital massage is used to bring the partner to orgasm, but this is not a physical union. In anal or oral intercourse between males the intromission of the penis in an opening of the body not meant to be used for the genital expression of sexuality cannot be called a true physical union....By way of contrast, the heterosexual union aptly symbolizes the psychological and spiritual union that ought to exist between a man and a woman.<sup>24</sup>
One does not need a Ph.D. to realize that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant; that is, there is a created biological order intended in our sexuality. As an editorialist at Harvard's Peninsula journal writes: "How can (homosexual) people be happy when they're persistently deceiving themselves, believing that it is just as natural for sperm to swim into feces as it is to swim into eggs?"<sup>25</sup>
"The true religious goal of human sexuality can be seen, not as satisfaction, but as completeness."<sup>26</sup> This fulfillment is unattainable in homosexuality.
Now that we have considered God's positive purpose in creating human sexuality, we are ready to look at biblical texts which explicitly address homosexuality. Space precludes a detailed response to pro-homosexual interpretations of these passages. The interested reader can check the resources listed in the endnotes for further reading.
Leviticus 18 and 20
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13)
Although these prohibitions explicitly condemn homosexuality as an abomination before God, we are told that they are not relevant today. Why? First, the pro-homosexual interpretation is that since these condemnations are contained in the "Holiness Code" of Israel, they were only applicable to ancient Israelites, to keep them separate from the pagan practices of their neighboring tribes.<sup>27</sup>
Second, parts of this code are not kept today. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott assert that "consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."<sup>28</sup>
Much effort need not be expended answering these objections. First, God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).
Other prohibitions listed in Leviticus include incest and adultery (Lev. 18:6ff; 20:10). Were these too only condemned because of the Canaanites? To argue in this fashion is dishonest and denies that there are eternal moral absolutes.
What of the fact that other parts of the Holiness Code in Leviticus are not kept today? Again, the answer is simple. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.
Romans 1:18-27
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Rom. 1:26-27)
If there were no other passage than this which condemns homosexuality, those engaged in this lifestyle would still be, in Paul's own words, "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Paul's intent in Romans 1 - 3 is to show that all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike, and turned from God. It is not an accident that the apostle begins his argument with a reference to the Creator and His creation (1:16-20). His Jewish/Christian audience would immediately have connected this with Genesis 1 - 2, which, as we have seen, tells us not only about God's created order, but also about the complementary design of male and female within that order.
In his catalogue of sins (Rom. 1:18-32) Paul lists homosexuality and lesbianism first after idolatry
not because they are the most serious sins, but because they are warning signs that a violation of reason and nature has occurred. Men have inverted God's order by worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and as a signal of this error, like the blinking red light on the dashboard of a car which is functioning improperly, God has given them up to "dishonorable desires" in the inversion of their sexual roles.<sup>29</sup>
Two main arguments are raised against the historic understanding of this passage. The first is that Paul was not referring to true homosexuality here because he stated that they exchanged "the natural function for that which is unnatural." It is argued that for those with a true homosexual orientation, that is their "natural" sexual expression. Hence he could only mean heterosexuals who were leaving their heterosexual relations for what was against their natures.<sup>30</sup>
This argument involves an amazing anachronism. That is, those saying this are attempting to place a very recent twentieth century understanding of homosexuality back into the first century mindset of Paul. People in the first century did not think in terms of "sexual orientation." It is inconceivable for Paul to have even attempted to make a psychological differentiation such as this. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."<sup>31</sup>
The second attempt to refute Paul's clear condemnation of homosexuality argues that his words "unnatural" or "against nature" do not refer to a certain created order, but rather use "nature" in the sense of "current convention" or "current custom."<sup>32</sup> While "nature" is sometimes used in this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:14), the context of Paul's argument in Romans 1 clearly is that of creation and the natural order established by the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:20, 25). Thus Paul is asserting that homosexuality is a gross violation of God's natural design for His creation. In addition, it should be noted that the phrase "against nature" was used in connection with homosexual intercourse by both Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul.<sup>33</sup>
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders... (1 Cor. 6:9, NIV)
In both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 the apostle Paul states that those guilty of sexual immorality will not inherit the kingdom of God. At the time Paul wrote his letters there was no word in classical, biblical, or patristic Greek which corresponded with our English term "homosexual." Instead, homosexual behavior was described (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27). The words Paul uses here malakoi ("male prostitute") and arsenokoitai ("homosexual offenders") have been translated in different ways. Because of this those condoning homosexuality have tried to lessen the impact of these verses, saying that all Paul was condemning was either homosexual prostitution or pederasty (i.e., men having sexual relations with boys).<sup>34</sup>
Virtually every Greek lexicon, however, including all of the standard English ones, has understood these words (especially arsenokoitai) to be referring to homosexuality.<sup>35</sup> Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon says malakoi refers to persons who are "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."<sup>36</sup> Likewise, arsenokoites means "a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite."<sup>37</sup>
We also find these terms in classical Greek literature (e.g., Lucian and Aristotle) "sometimes applied to obviously gay persons."<sup>38</sup> As well, if Paul were only condemning certain types of homosexuality he would certainly have specified this. Instead, he used a term directly based on the Greek Septuagint translation of the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus:
meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten
gynaikos
(Lev. 18:22)
koimethe meta arsenos koiten
gynaikos
(Lev. 20:13)<sup>39</sup>
Paul, a rabbi thoroughly trained in the Torah, was certainly mindful of these Levitical condemnations and the Septuagint translation of them when he chose his wording in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.
Law and Gospel
Is homosexuality natural and healthy, as the gay rights movement wants us to believe? The answer from Scripture is no, and as Christians we must not be involved in homosexuality nor be among those who, as Paul warns, "approve of those" who are engaged in it (Rom. 1:32). The Roman Catholic church is correct in stating that homosexuality is "an intrinsic moral evil."<sup>40</sup>
At the same time, though, we must reach out to all people with the love of Jesus Christ and His gospel, which alone has the power to change lives. And we must speak out against hatred and violence directed toward any group, remembering that we are all sinners, worthy only of God's judgment. We all have sin in our lives, and we are all tempted in different ways (whether it be toward homosexuality, adultery, incest, greed, violence, pridefulness, or whatever else).
Paul used the Law to show us, his readers, our sin and the fearful judgment awaiting us. But then, to those who truly desired to follow after God, he announced the good news of the Gospel: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).
For all who accept this gift, including homosexuals, there is reconciliation to God, regeneration as His children, and "grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).
Joseph P. Gudel is a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor and a long-time JOURNAL contributor.
<hr> NOTES
<sup>1</sup> Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.
<sup>2</sup> "Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43.
<sup>3</sup> Ibid.
<sup>4</sup> In a 1991 Gallup Poll 61% of Americans believed that "tolerance of the gay lifestyle has been bad for society." Nightline, ABC News, 8 September 1992.
<sup>5</sup> Gregory Bray, "Where Are Dems on Family Values?" The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), printed in the Oshkosh Northwestern, 22 Aug. 1992, 6.
<sup>6</sup> John F. Harvey, The Homosexual Person (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 114-15.
<sup>7</sup> Nightline.
<sup>8</sup> John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.
<sup>9</sup> Ibid.
<sup>10</sup> Roger J. Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right? updated edition (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1990), 78.
<sup>11</sup> "UCC Admits Gay Church," The Christian Century, 30 May-6 June 1990, 563.
<sup>12</sup> "Bar Homosexual Clergy, Conservative Disciples Say," Religious News Service, in The Christian News, 30 Sept. 1991, 11.
<sup>13</sup> "UMC and Gay Unions," The Christian Century, 27 June-4 July 1990, 626.
<sup>14</sup> Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith (Minneapolis: ELCA, 1991), 44.
<sup>15</sup> Ibid., 41-46.
<sup>16</sup> Christus Omnibus, premier issue, front cover and 18.
<sup>17</sup> John Barton, "The Place of the Bible in Moral Debate," Theology 88 (May 1985), 206.
<sup>18</sup> John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92.
<sup>19</sup> Jeannine Gramick, "What Is Natural?" in Building Bridges, ed. Robert Nugent and Jeannine Gramick (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1992), 46. Cf. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1978), 71.
<sup>20</sup> See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968).
<sup>21</sup> Jeanine Gramick, "Lesbian/Gay Theology and Spirituality," Building Bridges, 190-91.
<sup>22</sup> Samuel H. Dresner, "Homosexuality and the Order of Creation," Judaism 40: 3 (Summer 1991), 309; cf. Richard F. Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1978), 102 ff.
<sup>23</sup> Ralph Blair, Homosexualities (New York: Ralph Blair, 1991), 13.
<sup>24</sup> Harvey, 101.
<sup>25</sup> R. Wasinger, "If You're Gonna Call Me Names..., " Peninsula 3:2 (October/November 1991), 25.
<sup>26</sup> R. T. Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (New York: Seabury Press, 1977), in Natalie Shainess, "Homosexuality Today," Judaism 32: 4 (Fall 1983), 414.
<sup>27</sup> Boswell. 100-106.
<sup>28</sup> Scanzoni and Mollenkott, 60-61.
<sup>29</sup> Lovelace, 92.
<sup>30</sup> Boswell, 109ff.
<sup>31</sup> Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans l," The Journal of Religious Ethics 14:1 (Spring 1986), 200; cf. David F. Wright, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," Evangelical Quarterly 61:4 (1989), 291-300.
<sup>32</sup> Boswell, 110ff.
<sup>33</sup> Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.39; Josephus, Against Apion, 2.273.
<sup>34</sup> Boswell, 106-7.
<sup>35</sup> Ibid., 341-42.
<sup>36</sup> Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt, trans. F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 489.
<sup>37</sup> Ibid., 109.
<sup>38</sup> P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140: 560 (Oct.-Dec. 1983), 351.
<sup>39</sup> Wright, 297ff.
<sup>40</sup> Joseph Ratzinger, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1986), 2.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,109,633
Messages
13,461,314
Members
99,485
Latest member
w88mp
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com