The Truth About Homosexuality
By J.R. Ensey
John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
• TRUTH IS IMPORTANT! Especially in our society today.
• It is important to God, and it should be important to us as well.
• Regardless of whether we are talking about morals, religion, or everyday life, truth is important.
• Truth is not relative.
• What is true is true for everyone.
• Truth by its very nature cannot change. God’s laws will never change.
Prov 23:23 "Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding."
• An alarming article in Charisma Magazine. The article entitled, “Truth Crisis Threatens Churches’ Future; Report Warns Believers reject moral absolutes for ’what feels right’,” paints a real picture of the betrayal of truth and moral absolutes by “Christians.”
• “It’s not only the world that no longer believes in right and wrong - acceptance of absolute truth is fast disappearing in the church, too.
• Almost as many Christians are likely to base their moral decisions on what they feel rather than what the Word teaches, according to a new survey.”
• Christian researcher George Barna has warned of a growing crisis if churches fail to address the drift.
• ”When a majority of Christian adults...as well as three out of four born again teens proudly cast their vote for moral relativism, the Church is in trouble," he said.
• Well, why do people reject the notion of absolute truth?
• Let’s look at three reasons:
1. Some may feel that absolute truth is too hard, if not impossible to find.
o That’s easy to understand, especially when just about everybody is claiming to have “the truth,” and some people’s truth is different from other people’s truth, and so on.
2. Too many charlatans, people who exploit people’s desire for truth, luring them to spend their money for phony cure-alls for their spiritual need.
3. It’s easier to believe in relativism, because there is no accountability to a standard.
o If my lifestyle fits my personal definition of truth, then it’s okay for me, even if you think it’s wrong.
• Let’s start with the implications of relativism.
• If truth is relative, then… All spiritual truth is valid.
• This means that all religions and philosophies carry the same weight.
• This is totally unacceptable in the light of Scripture.
Jude 3 (KJV)
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
• There are people that have infiltrated the ranks of believers for the purpose of leading gullible saints into compromising truths concerning godliness and the identity of God.
1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
• In a U. S. News & World Report article by Jon Leo titled Professors Who See No Evil, a Zogby poll of college seniors revealed that 97% believed their college studies had prepared them to behave ethically.
• However, 73% said, when it came to ethical issues, the message they were taught was uniform standards of right and wrong don’t exist (what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity.”)
• In other words, moral relativism rules.
• One professor reported that some of his students would not call what Hitler did wrong.
• They didn’t like it, but who were they to say it was wrong. After all, no individual can challenge the moral worldview of another.
• Truth is whatever the tribe in power says it is.
• If all beliefs are equally valid, there is nothing to debate.
• In this setting, even horrendous acts like “honor killings” where a girl can be killed by a family member for perceived flirting cannot be wrong.
• However, it must be stated, many of this mindset are quick to judge Christians as wrong.
• Who determines right and wrong? How do we determine what is true and what is a lie?
• There has to be a voice of authority or there will be anarchy and chaos.
• A frightening example of what happens when there is no voice of authority is found in the book of Judges.
6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
• Notice what happens between these two verses.
1. The family practice of idolatry
(17:113): Micah’s family helps initiate idolatry in Dan. Micah hires a Levite traveling from Bethlehem to become his personal priest.
2. The formal practice of idolatry
(18:131): The tribe of Dan decides to take Micah’s idols. They also persuade the priest to become the priest for their tribe, despite Micah’s objections.
3. Immorality in Benjamin
(19:130): The concubine of a Levite living in Ephraim becomes the victim of sexual perverts.
4. The Levite and the tribes of Israel
(19:2930): The Levite carries his concubine’s body back to Ephraim and cuts it into 12 pieces. He sends one piece to each of Israel’s tribes, arousing the nation to punish such sexual perverts living in the land of Benjamin.
5. Indignation from Israel
(20:121:25): The tribes of Israel respond with great anger over the terrible treatment of the Levite’s concubine. The tribe of Benjamin loses 25,000 men, leaving only 600 alive after the third battle! In order to find wives for the severely diminished tribe, Israel’s leaders agree to give them all the virgins taken from Jabesh-gilead. This town had refused to appear at Mizpah when the issue of war with Benjamin was discussed. After raiding the town, they find only 400 virgins. The other 200 men of Benjamin are given permission to kidnap all the young virgins who participate in a festival at Shiloh.
• If every man does what is right in his own eyes then no one is safe.
• If there is no absolute authority, then marriage could be whatever you want to define it to be.
• It could be two men, two women, or one man and ten women.
• It could be an adult and a child.
• It doesn’t even have to be a man with another human -- it could be a human and an animal.
• Without an absolute authority, every aspect of society is subject to that which the culture, as a whole, allows.
• Today, 57 percent of the American public believes homosexuality should be sanctioned as an acceptable alternative lifestyle the highest the Gallup Poll has recorded since 1982. Also indicating higher tolerance, 59 percent of Americans believe homosexual relations should be legal.
• On the question of morality, Americans were found to be nearly evenly divided. Since 2001, the percentage of those who say homosexual relations are morally acceptable has increased from 40 percent to 47 percent.
• And for the first time in the 21st century, less than the majority of Americans say homosexual relations are morally wrong (49 percent).
• Last year, 51 percent said such relations are morally wrong.
• At the same time, the majority of Americans say sex between an unmarried man and woman (59 percent), divorce (65 percent), and having a baby outside or marriage (54 percent) is morally acceptable.
• As debates continue over the origin or cause of homosexuality, the Gallup Poll found that an increasing percentage of Americans believe homosexuality is something a person is born with.
• The poll showed 42 percent express such a view compared to 13 percent in 1977.
• And the percentage of Americans who believe homosexuality is due to factors such as upbringing and environment fell from 56 percent in 1977 to 35 percent today.
• Among those who believe homosexuals are born that way, 78 percent say homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle.
• In contrast, among those who believe homosexuality is caused by upbringing or environmental factors, only 30 percent say it should be acceptable.
• A recent Pew survey found 58 percent of 18-25-year-olds say homosexuality should be accepted.
• While a Gallup Poll found younger Americans aged 18-34 years old (75 percent) say homosexuality should be accepted.
• Older Americans aged 55 years and older (45 percent) say homosexuality should be accepted.
• Women (61 percent) say homosexuality should be accepted.
• Men (53 percent) say homosexuality should be an acceptable alternative lifestyle, the poll further found.
• And highly religious Americans who attend church weekly (33 percent) are less likely to say it's an acceptable lifestyle.
• Those who seldom or never attend church (74 percent).
Results from the Gallup Poll are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007.
• We must understand the number of people who agrees or disagrees has no bearing on Biblical truth.
• Biblical truth is never decided by popular vote.
• The voice of authority we are looking for is the Bible, God’s word.
• It is the only voice that can direct men’s lives in such a way that will result in blessing rather than a curse.
• The Bible teaches that out of every 100 people, 100 are sinners (Romans 3:23). Does this mean sin is acceptable?
• Homosexual sinners and heterosexual sinners must be treated the same.
• If you treat homosexual sinners any different than heterosexual sinners, then you are in the wrong because you are biased.
• Some homosexuals justify their actions by declaring they are attracted to someone of the same sex and they are simply acting on their sexual attraction.
• Attraction is not the issue. This does not decide right or wrong.
• Not all heterosexual attraction is right either.
• It is part of God’s plan for marriage for a man to be sexually attracted to his own wife; it is wrong to be sexually attracted to his neighbor’s wife and covet her.
• Homosexual behaviors probably have existed in all societies, but our current perception of homosexuality has its roots in the late nineteenth century.
• That is when people began to consider certain sexual behaviors to be the identifying characteristic of those who practiced them.
• Homosexuality stopped being what people did and became who they were.
• As Michael Foucault writes in his History of Sexuality, until that time "the sodomite had been a temporary anomaly; the homosexual was now a species".’
• Despite claims, no gene causing homosexuality has yet been shown to unambiguously exist, nor has any clear evidence of a biological basis yet been located.
• In the words of LeVay: “Although efforts have been made to establish the biological basis of sexual orientation, for example, by the application of cytogenetic, endocrinological, or neuroanatomical methods, these efforts have largely failed to establish any consistent differences between homosexual and heterosexual individuals.”
• Of the many scores of studies that have searched for biological factors which could cause homosexuality, the only ones so far located that indicate a possible biological cause are abnormal hypothalamus development and hormonal imbalance.
• Of course, it is not only the type of behavior that they indulge in which puts them at a much higher risk, but also their high level of promiscuity—one survey indicated that homosexual males have an average of over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime.
• Another study found that 28% had more than 1,000 partners, 15% had 500 to 1,000, 32% from 100 to 500, and only 25% had less than 100 partners in their lifetime.
• While surveys in this area vary, depending upon the sampling population, sample size and specific questions asked, all reveal that an enormous amount of promiscuity is a normal part of the gay lifestyle.
• The level of the problem can be debated, but there is no question that the problem is serious, with AIDS being the most publicized example.
• When the Supreme Court explained why there was no such constitutional protection for this dangerous and Biblically forbidden behavior Chief Justice Warren Burger said, “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards…[Sir William] Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of ‘deeper malignity’ than rape, a heinous act ‘the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named.’ To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”
• Decisions have been brushed aside in an effort to silence the voices that try to oppose the normalization of this deviant lifestyle.
• First, the homosexual community asked for tolerance.
• Then, they expected acceptance.
• Next, they demanded approval (public endorsement).
• Now they demand the silencing of opposing voices.
• Canadian provinces have legalized homosexual marriages, the US Supreme Court has overturned Texas’ anti-sodomy laws and the Episcopalian Church has embraced an openly homosexual bishop.
• Dean Paul Zahl of the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, AL [Episcopal], recognizes that the recent election of the Episcopal church's first openly homosexual bishop has profound theological implications. He says the action "demolishes the Good News of salvation . . . It demolishes salvation because it asserts that what Scripture calls sin is not sin. When there is no sin, there is no judgment. Without judgment, there can be no repentance. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness. The Convention decision fashions a god who is oblivious to sin. It thus denies the redemption of the world to a whole category of persons."
• Western Society is being deluged with the whole gay issue, to the point that many will simply become dangerously desensitized and apathetic to the subject.
• The media has flooded its audience with "homosexuality" for years.
• Movies and television have consistently and increasingly portrayed homosexuality in a positive light, and the news constantly presents homosexual issues favorably.
• There is a concerted effort to make homosexuality look normal and non-threatening.
• So, Western society has grown increasingly comfortable with homosexuality and willing to accept it as just another sexual union, even to the point of legalizing same sex marriages and offering homosexuals places of high spiritual leadership.
• Amid the cries of "equal rights" and "tolerance" and "diversity", few seem to recognize that the homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous one.
• According to the American Medical Association, 70% of new HIV infections are occurring among men, of which 60% are in gay and bisexual men. This is an incredibly high statistic considering that only 2-5% of the population is homosexual.
• Studies reveal that homosexual behavior produces a rate of venereal disease 22 times higher than the national average.
• The life expectancy for gay men is about 20 years shorter than for married heterosexual men. Both the public in general and homosexuals in particular are constantly told that gay people are "born that way" and discouraged from the idea that sexual orientation can be reversed.
• Despite this insistence, homosexuals can and have changed. Thousands can testify to the power and love of God in their lives, which has enabled them to leave their gay/lesbian life-styles, and which has healed their relationships, their marriages, their sexual identities and the underlying issues in their lives that caused the homosexual feelings and thoughts in the first place.
• While homosexual activist groups cry "hate" every time somebody disagrees with their agenda and claims, true love would desire to free homosexuals rather than allow them to self-destruct.
• The six-point agenda they laid out in 1989 was explicit:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." That's why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause." That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.
4. "Make gays look good." That's what they've done through media campaigns, through television programs, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.
5. "Make the victimizers look bad." They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to "muddy the moral waters" by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.
6. "Get funds from corporate America." In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It's based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.
• They admit that the use of lies is perfectly fine in their struggle. Their main thing is to get people to believe them. That is all that is important.
• The charade of gay marriage.
• Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don't want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage.
• Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept "monogamy without fidelity."
• In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, "I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together."
• One homosexual activist said, "We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose."
• Another activist said: "We need to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits. Once granted, (we need to) redefine the institution of marriage completely (and) debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action that gay men and lesbians can undertake, is to transform the notion of family entirely."
• They don't just want marriage. They want to destroy marriage — and the family — as we know it and the Bible teaches it.
• They are after your children and grandchildren.
• Homosexual activists know — and have publicly stated — that to change a culture, they have to get to the children.
• They've made statements, for example, (that they want) to get children to reject the beliefs of their parents.
• For example, homosexual activists at a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) conference said: "The fear of the 'religious right' is that the schools will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they are right. If we do our jobs right, we are going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the claims of the 'religious right' (with regard to homosexual behavior)."
• George Barna has documented, kids are most receptive to the Gospel when they are in their childhood years.
• And homosexual activists know that. That is why they are trying so hard — with the help of the ACLU — to keep the Gospel out of the schools, and get homosexual indoctrination in.
• And in places like Massachusetts and California — where the gay lobby is the strongest — it starts as early as pre-school.
• They say things like, — "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual." Or — "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian."
• This is totally ridiculous and illogical.
• At that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
• They're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex.
• As we're seeing in Canada, we now have situations where Christians who share biblical verses on homosexual behavior are now facing criminal penalties.
• In Sweden, you can receive up to two years in prison (for saying) anything negative against homosexual behavior.
• That's where we'll be headed in America if the gay agenda advances.
• We’re fast approaching a situation where, as a Christian, you cannot make a moral decision without facing the wrath of the state.
• Focus on the Family has to change its broadcasts for Canada when those programs deal with the issue of homosexuality, or it faces heavy fines from the CRTC — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
You can lose a job for standing in favor of Christian principles.
• It happened to Rolf Szabo, a 23-year veteran of the Eastman Kodak Company.
• World Net Daily reported that Szabo, who worked at Kodak's headquarters in Rochester, New York, was fired after he asked his boss to stop sending him e-mails promoting a homosexual "Coming Out Day." The e-mail offered employees tips on how to help co-workers "come out" (i.e., reveal their homosexuality) to co-workers, including:
_ Be supportive of the individual who wishes to share this information.
_ Acknowledge his/her courage to publicly share this personal information.
_ Support employee in displaying appropriate personal photos in the work setting.
_ Act quickly and responsibly if any anti-gay humor or negative comments are made in the workplace.
Szabo responded to his supervisor in an e-mail:
"Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive.
Thank you,Rolf Szabo
"Szabo then received another e-mail back, saying his behavior was "not acceptable." He was then told to sign a statement apologizing for calling homosexual propaganda "offensive." When he refused, he was fired.
"By their actions, this company has shown that respecting diversity does not necessarily include Christian beliefs,"
California State Congress Denounces Boy Scouts
• August 25, 2003
The California State Assembly voted 43-2 and the California State Senate voted 22-15 to denounce the Boy Scouts of America for not accepting gays and atheists as members.
• The next day, on August 26, a memorial in Sacramento’s Capitol Park was unveiled as California’s first landmark to honor gay and lesbian soldiers who died in battle.
• The landmark reads, “In Honor of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Veterans Killed in Action.
• The United Way of Miami-Dade’s Board of Directors has voted unanimously to discontinue its funding for the Boy Scouts. The Board claimed that the decision was reached because the local affiliate of the Scouts “failed to abide by an agreement requiring it to help youths cope with their sexuality.”
• Similar steps have already been taken by United Way affiliates in Broward County, Orlando, Seattle, and San Francisco, to name a few.
• It's very frightening that in the space of ten years, we've seen a 180-degree turn in society — where Christians have been stigmatized, intimidated and silenced for publicly opposing homosexuality.
• In 1973, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer was one of the major forces in removing homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) list of mental disorders.
• On May 9, 2001, Spitzer presented a study to the APA which proves that those struggling with homosexuality can, in fact, leave the lifestyle behind.
• A psychiatrist at Columbia University in New York, Spitzer interviewed 153 men and 47 women who reported that they had left homosexuality behind, after undergoing counseling and had maintained the change for at least five years.
• Spitzer concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had arrived at what he called "good heterosexual functioning."
• He also told the Associated Press that his research "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that." Spitzer is also enduring the wrath of homosexual activists.
• "Dr. Spitzer is clearly biased on this issue," said Wayne Bessen of the pro-homosexual lobbying group Human Rights Campaign, “He's a cultural conservative on these issues."
• But Spitzer, who describes himself as an "atheistic Jew," denies this. He told the Washington Times that he appeared on the Geraldo Rivera show in 1995 representing the APA position that sexual orientation is unchangeable.
• The reception he has gotten shows how biased the APA has become, according to Joseph Nicolosi, director of NARTH.
• "The assumption that people can't change is a political conclusion rather than a scientific conclusion," he told the Times. "It points to the influential gay lobbyists within the [psychiatric] profession, of which there are many." Nicolosi told how last year, when his organization issued a study showing that more than 800 people had changed, the APA "pushed [it] to the side."
• "Dr. Spitzer has proven through a clinical study what we who have left homosexuality have known for years: homosexuality is a changeable behavior," said Evette Schneider, a former lesbian. "Those who are currently involved in homosexuality have the right to know that they too can change."
• She added that Spitzer "is likely to come under immense pressure from 'gays' to retract his study. This will reveal that many in the gay community are really not interested in objective scientific truth."
1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM IN THE UNITED STATES
(adopted by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations meeting in Chicago, Illinois, February 13, 1972)
1. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference, lifestyle, and as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.
2. Federal funding of aid projects for social and political activities of gay women’s and men’s organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.
3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
4. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. [legalize pedophilia] .
5. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits of marriage to all persons who cohabit, regardless of sex or numbers.”
• As the homosexual agenda grows increasingly hostile toward mainstream traditional values, it becomes imperative that we understand why homosexuality should not be encouraged or validated by the public policies of America.
The Homosexual Lifestyle Brings Greater Rates of STDs
FACT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that the number of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses rose 11 percent among gay and bisexual men between 2000 and 2003. Reuters News Service echoed these concerns: "Since the late 1990s... the disease has shown signs of a comeback, particularly among gay and bisexual men."
FACT: According to the Journal of Clinical Pathology, homosexuals are 3.7 times more likely to be infected with gonorrhea than are heterosexuals. According to their findings, 15.2% of homosexuals suffer pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea.
FACT: According to the Archives of Internal Medicine, homosexuals acquire syphilis at a rate ten times greater than heterosexuals.
FACT: In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control reported, “Among young men aged 13-24 years, 49% of all AIDS cases reported in 2000 were among men who have sex with men (MSM); 10% were among injection drug users (IDUs); and 9% were among young men infected heterosexually.
Source: “Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS Among America's Youth,”
FACT: The Centers for Disease Control reports that men who have sex with men are at a dramatically increased risk to contract Hepatitis B.
Source: “Viral Hepatitis B: Frequently Asked Questions,” National Center for Infectious Diseases,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 29, 2000.
FACT: According to Dr. Andrew Grulich at the National Institutes of Health, 90 percent of HIV positive gay men are infected with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV or genital warts), and 65% of HIV negative gay men are infected with HPV, an incurable sexually transmitted disease.
Source: “Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men,” Cancer News, August 17, 2000.
FACT: The Advocate magazine reported, "Syphilis cases rose in 2003 for the third consecutive year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gay men made up 60% of syphilis cases, compared with 5% in 1999. HIV diagnoses increased 17% among gay and bisexual men in 29 states between 1999 and 2002."
Source: Todd Henneman, "Scared of Sex," The Advocate, August 17, 2004.
FACT: A study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, followed 1,007 individuals from birth. The scientific survey found that those classifying themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual faced a significantly higher likelihood of suicide.
FACT: In December 2003, a study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry revealing the mental differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Surveying a total of 1,161 men (656 self-identified homosexuals, 505 self-identified heterosexuals) and 1,018 women (430 self-identified lesbians, 588 self-identified heterosexuals), the researchers claimed, “Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health.”
Source: M. King, E. McKeown, J. Warner, A. Ramsay, K. Johnson, C. Cort, L. Wright, R. Blizard, and O. Davidson, “Mental Health and Quality of Life of Gay Men and Lesbians in England and Wales,” British Journal of Psychiatry (December 2003), pp. 183, 552-558.
FACT: According to a study published in the December 2003 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, homosexual men were significantly more likely to suffer from mental disorders than heterosexual men, they were less likely to be involved in a steady relationship with one partner, they were more likely to have used drugs within the preceding 30 days, they were far more likely to abuse their partner, and they were more likely to inflict harm upon themselves. The same was true for the comparisons between heterosexual women and lesbians.
Source: M. King, E. McKeown, J. Warner, A. Ramsay, K. Johnson, C. Cort, L. Wright, R. Blizard, and O. Davidson, “Mental Health and Quality of Life of Gay Men and Lesbians in England and Wales,” British Journal of Psychiatry (December 2003), pp. 183, 552-558.
FACT: The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology conducted a national survey of 2,000 lesbian women. The results revealed that 75% of these women had pursued psychological counseling at one point. Eighteen percent of these women had previously attempted suicide.
Source: “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology #62, 1994, p. 239.
FACT: Lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths are more often associated with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide.
Source: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 62(2), pp. 261-269.
FACT: According to a 1998 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, there was “a greater-than-seven-fold increase” of suicide attempts among gay and bisexual males.
Source: "The Relationship Between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study,” American Journal of Public Health, 1998.
FACT: A 1996 study conducted through the University of Calgary “found gay and bisexual males were 13.9 times more at risk of making a serious suicide attempt.”
FACT: A study conducted by the Coastal AIDS Network (CAN) revealed that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) youth are at a higher risk for dropping out of school, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, depression, homelessness, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Source: “Teen Identity Group Forms,” The Newport News Times, June 9, 2004.
The Homosexual Lifestyle Increases Drug and Alcohol Abuse
FACT: The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reported that “lesbian” women face higher rates of alcohol abuse.
A whopping 19.4% of lesbian women engaged in “binge drinking” (compared with 11.7% of heterosexual women). Seven percent of lesbians were considered “heavy drinkers” as opposed to only 2.7% of heterosexual women.
Source: “Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians,” The Washington Blade, January 12, 2001, p. 21.
FACT: A study published by Nursing Research found that lesbian women are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer addictions to other chemical substances.
Source: “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, July 2000.
FACT: A study conducted by Family Planning Perspective magazine found, “Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”
Source: Karen Paige Erickson and Karen F. Trocki, “Sex, Alcohol, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A National Survey,” Family Planning Perspectives #26, December 1994.
The Homosexual Lifestyle Provides Hostile Environments
FACT: In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.
In their findings, they report, “Slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.”
Source: Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research, 1991.
FACT: In their book, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, David Island and Patrick Letellier report, “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”
Source: David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, New York: Hayworth Press, 1991, p. 14.
The Homosexual Lifestyle is Deadly
FACT: A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology revealed that 20-year-old gay and bisexual men in a Canadian metropolis face a life expectancy that is 8-20 years less than the life expectancy of a heterosexual man in the same environment. The report concluded that gay and bisexual men now face a life expectancy rate that is similar to rates experienced by all Canadian men in the year 1871.
Source: “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology #26, 1997.
The homosexual lifestyle is sexual suicide.
FACT: Recent studies reveal that the HIV virus is again running rampant among homosexual men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of cases of gay men infected with the HIV virus has grown 17.7 percent since 1999. The study also revealed that the growth rate of HIV-positive gay men is growing more than three times as fast as the national average. Harold Jaffe, the director of the Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention told reporters, “The AIDS epidemic in the United States is far from over.”
Source: “HIV Cases Climb Among Gay, Bisexual Men,” CNN News, July 28, 2003.
FACT: According to the Centers for Disease Control, 65 percent of all AIDS cases reported since 1981 involve men, who have engaged in sexual relations with other men.
Source: “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report,” The Centers for Disease Control, Volume 9, No. 2, May 1998.
FACT: The Centers for Disease Control reports that homosexual men currently comprise the largest demographic of AIDS patients in the United States. As of December 1999, more than 600,000 homosexual men were infected with AIDS.
Source: “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report,” The Centers for Disease Control, Volume 9, No. 2, May 1998.
FACT: Donald R. Hoover and his associates constructed a model to predict the spread of AIDS among homosexual men. Reporting in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Hoover said that a 20-year-old homosexual man, by the time he reaches age 55, has a 50% chance of becoming infected with HIV.
FACT: The Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes reported in June that 15% of homosexual males ages 18-29 in South Beach, Florida, were already infected with HIV.
Source: "Sexual Suicide: The Rebellion of Homosexuality Causes Untold Suffering,” Agape Press, September 29, 2003.
• The well-guarded secret of the homosexual movement is that, regardless of how one understands the causes of homosexuality; the nature of it is, at its core, sexual rebellion.
• "Gays" and lesbians are driven to challenge and destroy every conception of what is considered to be sexual normalcy.
• Gays" and lesbians reject not only the biology which underlies human sexuality, but also the traditional male-female model of relationships.
• Goldstein said that within the homosexual is "the impulse to shatter the parameters of male or female identity."
• However, if concepts of natural sexuality are undermined, and then the male-female construction of relationships is crushed, what remains?
• For homosexuals, it is merely a sexual ethic that excludes norms. It is open defiance of social conventions regarding sex.
• It is sexual anarchy.
• Pat Califia, a well-known lesbian author who underwent the transition to becoming a "man," said that American culture has not sufficiently normalized homosexuality because it refuses to recognize the totality of human sexual experimentation, such as sadomasochism, transgenderism, public sex, and even "cross-generational" sex -- meaning adult-child copulation.
• This rebellion against normal sexuality is the defining characteristic of the homosexual community.
• Its members have no common language, religion, music, or other typical unifying norm.
• What homosexuals have in common is the one thing that makes them different from the rest of the culture -- their sexual preference.
• Some homosexuals insist, however, that they are not what they do in bed.
• Homosexual columnist Dan Savage disagrees. "We are sex. That fact makes some gay men and lesbians uncomfortable," he said. "Sex is what makes us not straight people, after all."
• "Gay liberation means sexual freedom. And sexual freedom means more sex, better sex, sex in the bushes, in the toilets, in the baths, sex without love, sex without harassment, sex at home and sex in the streets," said one activist.
• Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, and published in 1978 by the Kinsey Institute under the title, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women. Incredibly, the study found that 28% of homosexual males had had 1,000 or more sexual partners, while 43% of white male homosexuals estimated they had had sex with 500 or more partners. Kramer admits, "Nature always extracts a price for sexual promiscuity."
• Rotello, one of the few homosexual activists to honestly admit this fact, said, "The appearance of a multitude of epidemic diseases almost immediately after gay men had carved out zones of sexual freedom has opened up the grim, almost unthinkable possibility that for gay men, sexual freedom leads inexorably to disease."
Homosexuality is not genetic; people have a choice!
FACT: Christian ministries have been enormously successful in helping people abandon the gay lifestyle. Exodus International, an interdenominational Christian organization, has 135 ministries in 17 different countries. This ministry reports, “Real change is indeed possible.
Source: Exodus International, "What's your 'success rate' in changing gays into straights?", 2004.
FACT: Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, conducted a study based on interviews with 143 men and 57 women who had abandoned the gay lifestyle. Each of these people, through religious involvement or psychiatric counseling, was able to successfully abandon the gay lifestyle.
Dr. Spitzer, largely responsible for having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, now believes that a person’s perceived sexual orientation is clinically treatable.
Source: “From Gay to Straight? Study: Sexual Orientation Can Be Changed,” ABC News, May 9, 2001.
FACT: This is not a new development. The Bible testifies to this Truth. When Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth nearly 2,000 years ago, he addressed the fact that some within the Church had, indeed, abandoned the homosexual lifestyle:
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
FACT: Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality were a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then one twin's sexual orientation would always mirror the sexual orientation of his identical twin. Yet, a 1995 study revealed that the opposite is true in the vast majority of cases.
Source: N.M. Bailey, R.C. Pillard, “Genetics of Human Sexual Orientation,” Annual Review of Sex Research 6, 126-150, 1995.
FACT: In 2000, scientists conducted a similar study of more than 5,000 sets of identical twins in Australia. In the overwhelming majority of instances when one of the twins was considered homosexual, the corresponding "identical" twin was heterosexual.
Source: "Origin of Homosexuality Unresolved Despite Study," The Washington Times, November 28, 2004.
FACT: A child’s genetics are comprised of contributions from his/her mother and father. If homosexuality is a genetic trait, then which of the heterosexual parents passed the trait on to the child?
Source: Common Sense
• Some label those that warn against acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as having “homophobic intolerance” or they accuse them of “gay bashing.”
• The fact is most of those that warn against participation in the homosexual lifestyle have a genuine love and concern for those they are warning.
• There are many reasons a family member, friend or minister should warn against one taking part in the homosexual lifestyle.
• It is a lifestyle that is socially, physically, mentally, and spiritually perilous.
• The homosexual lifestyle results in an increase of sexually transmitted diseases.
• GSLEN has already established gay-straight alliance (GSA) groups in more than 4,000 U.S. schools!
• And in San Francisco, for example, in June 2003, middle and high school student members marched in the "Gay Pride" parade, mingling with nude men, topless women and sadomasochistic proponents. Simulated sex acts were performed along the parade route,
• The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah mentioned in the Bible were exceedingly wicked (Gen. 13:13) because the men of these cities were given over to sexual practices that were contrary to nature (Gen. 19:5; Jude 7; Rom. 1:27).
12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. 13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
• The words “sodomy” and “sodomize” are synonyms for these homosexual practices.
• The men did not try to hide their sin (Isa. 3:9).
• Nor would they repent (Jer. 23:14).
• The sudden destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is used in Scripture as an example of God’s righteous judgment on sinners (Isa. 1:9; 3:9; Lam. 4:6; Zeph. 2:9; 2 Peter 2:6ff), and Jesus used it as a warning for people in the end times (Luke 17:2832).
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
• God gave them over to shameful lusts (lit., “passions of disgrace”).
• This involved, as the text states, both sexes engaging in homosexual instead of heterosexual relationships.
• Women deliberately exchanged natural relations (with men in marriage) for unnatural ones (with other women).
• This is the second “exchange” the unregenerate made (cf. v. 25). Men . . . were inflamed with lust (orexei, “sexual lust,” used only here in the NT and differing from the more common word for lust in v. 26).
• The words translated women and men in these verses are the sexual words “females” and “males.”
• Contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person’s natural preference.
• This is bad interpretation unsupported by the Bible.
• It is a bold attempt to twist Scripture to condone a deviant lifestyle.
• The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage.
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
• All homosexual relations constitute sexual perversion and are subject to God’s judgment.
• Respected theologian J. F. Walvoord points out that transvestism is seen as a contributor to the acceptance of sexual perversion in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:5.
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• “The adoption of clothing of the opposite sex was forbidden because it obscured the distinction of the sexes and thus violated an essential part of the created order of life (Gen. 1:27).
• It was also perhaps associated with or promoted homosexuality.
• The same Hebrew word translated detests (tô‘__âh, lit., ”a detestable thing“; KJV, ”an abomination“) is used to describe God’s view of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
• Also some evidence exists that transvestism may have been connected with the worship of pagan deities.
• Since this law was related to the divine order of Creation and since God detests anyone who does this, believers today also ought to heed this command.”
• Paul identified homosexuals as belonging to a group of sinners that will not go to Heaven.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10KJV
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
733 ____________ [arsenokoites /ar·sen·ok·oy·tace/] n m. From 730 and 2845; GK 780; Two occurrences; AV translates as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.
3120 _______ [malakos /mal·ak·os/] adj. Of uncertain affinity; GK 3434; Four occurrences; AV translates as “soft” three times, and “effeminate” once. 1 soft, soft to the touch. 2 metaph. in a bad sense. 2a effeminate. 2a1 of a catamite. 2a2 of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. 2a3 of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness. 2a4 of a male prostitute.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10NIV
9 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 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
• The culture the new Christians had been delivered from treated sex as an appetite to be satisfied and not as a gift to be cherished and used carefully.
• Homosexuality and male prostitution, for example, were especially characteristic of Greco-Roman society.
• Plato lauded homosexual love in The Symposium (181B).
• Nero, emperor at the time Paul wrote this letter, was about to marry the boy Sporus (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 6. 28),
• 14 of the first 15 Roman emperors were homosexual or bisexual.
• Paul quotes from their own cultural philosophy to expose its lie.
1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (KJV)
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
The Body Is for God, Not for Immorality
• Biblical law forbade sex between people who were not married; the penalty for having sex with one person and then marrying another was the same as the penalty for adultery while married—death.
• Although this penalty was no longer strictly enforced by Paul’s day, it was intended to underline the seriousness of the offense; premarital sexual immorality was adultery against one’s future spouse
• “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food” was a typical Greek way of arguing by analogy that the body was for sex and sex for the body. Paul responds to this Greek position with the Biblical perspective that the body is for God.
• Christians uniting themselves with prostitutes would defile the sanctity of their relationship with God.
• They were ready to say, even in the case of fornication, All things are lawful for me.
• The Christian is told how to deal with sexual immorality. "Flee fornication (v. 18), avoid it, and keep out of the reach of temptations to it.
• Other temptations may be conquered in fight, this only by flight.
• No sin has so much external vileness in it, especially in a Christian.
• He sins against his own body; he defiles it, he degrades it.
• The next argument against this sin is that the bodies of Christians are the temples of the Holy Ghost which is in them, and which they have of God, v. 19.
• He that is joined to Christ is one spirit. He is yielded up to him, is consecrated thereby, and set apart for his use, and is hereupon possessed, and occupied, and inhabited, by his Holy Spirit.
• “Can I not use my body as I please?” (vv. 1520)
• Of course not! To begin with, it is no longer your body; it belongs to Christ. He purchased you with His own blood.
• Back in Paul’s day, a slave could set himself free by saving his money and depositing it with the priest at the local heathen temple.
• When he had enough money to purchase his freedom, he would take his master to the temple and the priest would give the master the money and declare that the slave now belonged to that particular god.
• Christ paid the price to set us free from sin, and we must use our bodies to please Him.
1 Corinthians 7:2KJV
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
• There are many that are trying to change the very foundation of our society by changing the basis of what is right and wrong.
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
• William R. Johnson, became the first openly self-avowed homosexual to be ordained by a major denomination: the United Church of Christ. He was ordained in a suburban San Francisco church by the UCC’s Golden Gate Association. Meanwhile, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Netherlands accepted a report which holds that homosexuality should not be a barrier to a person’s becoming a pastor.
How to help the homosexual.
• Our goal is not simply to prove that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.
• Our goal is to help the repentant homosexual overcome the grip that this sin has had on their life.
• The method is not any different from any other sinful lifestyle change.
• Break Behavior Patterns different friends, different activities, etc
• Correct False Beliefs meditate on Scripture.
• Prayer, Bible study and church attendance are essential for building a new life.
Keep in mind:
1. Homosexual orientation and behavior is a complex, painful problem. Success rates are not good. This will likely be a wrenching, difficult, and long process.
2. Unless the homosexual wants to change, little you do will help. Let them take the initiative for contacting you and making appointments, and keep them retaining responsibility for their behavior, as much as possible.
3. Few homosexuals consider their preference chosen. Whatever the inception of homosexuality, they experience it as something they are rather than something they choose.
4. Homosexuals have learned to expect revulsion, fear, and rejection from the heterosexual population. They need to experience genuine love more than they need condemnation or browbeating.
Things to do or say:
1. Listen, empathize, draw out, show concern.
2. Give them hope in Jesus Christ. God does not want them to be deceived, and he can make them whole and free.
3. Value them as people and build their good points, even when you cannot agree with their life choices.
4. Bring to bear all the written and human resources you can muster. Ask for seasoned saints that have a passion for souls to work with you.
Things not to do or say:
1. Do not “rescue” them from all the consequences of their behaviors. They may need to feel the drastic sting of crisis to be pushed to a point of change.
2. Do not condemn them or heap scorn on them. They already dislike themselves and are trying to cope with low self-image.
3. Do not waver about the sinfulness of homosexual practices. You do them no favor by encouraging them to continue in sin, even when the alternatives appear full of difficulty and heartache.
4. Do not promise confidentiality you cannot keep. Others may need to know about the homosexuality or be protected from its path.
5. Do not reveal someone’s homosexuality without compelling reasons, and then only to those who must know.
6. Never make light of the homosexual’s plight through jokes or ill-chosen words.
Notes for Further Discussion
The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah has traditionally been taken to be homosexuality. In fact, another name for homosexuality is “sodomy.” The grossness of this sin was thought to be seen in the character of the judgment that God brought on these cities.
The traditional interpretation of this passage has been challenged in at least two ways by homosexuals. First, some have argued that if the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual, it was not simply homosexuality but homosexual rape. Lot’s pleas to the townspeople were not to rape the visitors (gang rape at that). If this is so, then condemning homosexuality because of homosexual rape is no more justified than condemning heterosexuality because of instances of heterosexual rape. Anyway, the sinfulness of any rape lies not in the fact that it is homosexual or heterosexual in character, but in the fact that it victimizes a nonconsenting partner.
A second reinterpretation of Genesis 19 is even bolder, for it claims the passage is not about homosexuality at all. Rather, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah related to a gross violation of the hospitality code. Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked cities. God determined to find out the truth about their reputation, so he sent two angels to investigate. They came to the city one evening and were met at the gate by Lot who invited them to his home for hospitality. Before the visitors retired for the night, the inhabitants of the city demanded to meet and get acquainted with the visitors. This demand to meet the angelic visitors grew out of Lot’s serious breach of hospitality rules. Lot was a resident alien, a sojourner. In return for the protection and toleration of the city, he had certain obligations, some of which pertained to visitors. This incident arose in regard to those obligations. Lot, either ignorantly or intentionally, exceeded the rights of an alien resident in receiving and entertaining two “foreigners.” The visitors might have hostile intentions, so it was not unreasonable to require that their credentials be examined. The visitors should have been received first by the Sodomites. Moreover, the men of Sodom’s suspicion of these visitors may have been heightened because Lot does not seem to have been a man of pleasing character, for Genesis says that though he was a sojourner, he acted as a judge among them.
This interpretation is supported by three lines of argument. First, the Hebrew word y_da’ is found 943 times in the OT. It is used only ten times without qualification (excluding this text and its derivative, Judg 19:22) to refer to sexual relations, and always of heterosexual relations. Had homosexual relations been in view, then the Hebrew word sh_kab would be expected. Sh_kab is used some fifty times in the OT for sexual intercourse, relations between men and women, men and men, and even humans and animals. Thus, y_da’ must be taken in its common meaning of “to know” or “to get acquainted with.” The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were simply interested in getting to know the angelic visitors.
The offer of Lot’s daughters is understood in two quite different ways. Some think there is no sexual overtone to it. Lot’s daughters are offered to the men of the city simply as the most convenient bribe to get them to be hospitable in their actions.__ Others are less convinced about the non-sexual nature of the verb “to know” when used of Lot’s daughters. However, in their opinion this does not prevent the hospitality interpretation of Sodom’s sin.
The hospitality breach interpretation is also supported by the way other biblical texts refer to Sodom and Gomorrah. That is, it is argued, the interpretation of Sodom’s sin as homosexuality is not supported by intrabiblical exegesis. Examine Isa 1:10, Jer 23:14, Ezek 16:48, 49, Matt 10:14, 15, and Luke 10:1012. These passages use Sodom and Gomorrah as symbols of utter destruction, and their sin is said to be so great that it deserves exemplary punishment. These passages, however, make no mention of sexual sin. They either mention the arrogance of the cities or their lack of hospitality.
Finally, proponents of this interpretation say the understanding of Genesis 19 as referring to homosexuality arose in the intertestamental period primarily as the result of the books of Jubilees and Josephus. There are even some who try to connect this story with other ancient myths about hospitality. 2 Peter and Jude are a reflection of this apocryphal attitude.
Careful examination of this interpretation leaves us unconvinced. For one thing, we disagree that y_da’ simply means “to know” or “to get acquainted with.” Statistics alone can never determine the meaning of a word, but even here statistics suggest something other than what Bailey claims. Of the fifty or so uses of y_da’ in Genesis, five uncontestedly are sexual in nature (Gen 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26). In addition, there are two other passages in Genesis where sexual connotation is contested (Gen 19:5 and 19:8, the passage about Lot and Sodom). Bailey says there are only ten uncontested uses of y_da’ with a sexual meaning in the whole OT (if Gen 19:5, 8 are added, that would make twelve instances of sexual connotation). Now, even if we rule out the two verses in Genesis 19, that still means that half of the ten sexual uses in the whole OT appear in Genesis. That seems rather overwhelming evidence that Moses did use the term with sexual connotation, and it seems clear that the way the writer in question (Moses) uses the term is more significant than the way other writers (the rest of the OT) use it. Moreover, both sides in this debate agree that Judg 19:22 is a clear parallel use of the verb and that no sense but the sexual sense makes sense there.
Despite these considerations, statistics alone can never determine the meaning of a word in a specific passage. Context must decide which meaning of several is to be preferred. The sexual understanding of y_da’ in Gen 19:5 is supported by its use in the immediate context of the Sodom story (v. 8). In verse 8 the same verb has to mean “to have sexual relations with,” for it makes no sense to say Lot’s daughters were not acquainted with any men. If nothing else, they knew Lot, and he was surely a man! Even Bailey’s claim that Lot’s offer of his daughters was just the most attractive bribe available does not avoid the sexual use of the verb. He was offering his daughters for sexual use to the men of the city. The verb in verse 8 clearly has a sexual meaning, and it is very unlikely that the same verb in a single narrative (19:111) should have two different meanings without some indication in the text, particularly when the uses of the verb occur so close together. Finally, if all the men of Sodom wanted was to investigate the visitors’credentials, Lot’s offer of daughters for sexual pleasure makes no sense. Why did not Lot just introduce his guests and demonstrate their good intentions?
As to the way other Scriptures refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, it is true that not every reference to them condemns their sexual sins. But neither do those texts exclude homosexuality as at least part of the cause of divine judgment. The two cities were exceedingly wicked, and their utter destruction is graphic evidence of that. Even those who defend a non-sexual interpretation of the text recognize that Sodom was so wicked that she was destroyed for many reasons. Furthermore, the sins mentioned in the texts cited are quite in keeping with the kinds of sins Romans 1 describes, of which sexual sins are only a part.
We are also unconvinced by Mollenkott and Scanzoni’s suggestion that the men of Sodom were not constitutional homosexuals but bisexuals. That is why Lot offered his daughters to them, and their bisexuality is why they were judged. In response, we note that the text says all the men of Sodom wanted to have homosexual relations with the angels. Though we doubt there is such a person as a constitutional homosexual, if there is, there should have been some among all the men of Sodom. Hence, to say the judgment fell on them because they were all bisexuals is highly unlikely. What Scripture portrays instead is a culture that was so desirous of pleasure that it rejected any sexual restraints.
In addition, those who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture will be unpersuaded by the attempt to deny the genuineness of the 2 Peter and Jude passages. Jude gives a striking commentary on the sin of Sodom. It is called “going after strange or different flesh” (sarkos heteras), which is a way of describing unnatural sex acts. Jude uses the verb porneu_ with the preposition ek, which means they gave themselves up to sexual immorality completely and utterly! This is an extremely strong statement. These kinds of sin make the complete destruction of the two cities understandable. We realize that arrogance and inhospitality are terrible sins, but they cannot explain the judgment of God in the destruction of two entire cities.
Finally, we reject the breach of hospitality interpretation because it seems unjust. If the problem at Sodom was that the hospitality code was broken, it was Lot who broke it, not the inhabitants of Sodom. But then, Lot should have been the one judged. Instead, Lot and his family are the only ones who escape while Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. That is clearly unjust!
For all these reasons, we find this interpretation of Genesis 19 unacceptable. It is a novel interpretation, but not one that squares with the text or with other passages of Scripture that condemn homosexuality.
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13
The next major statement in the OT about homosexuality is found in the Holiness Code, Lev 18:22 and 20:13. This Code contains God’s demands for ordering the life of his covenant people, Israel. This order had as its goal the setting apart of Israel from the immoral and idolatrous practices of her neighbors so that she might be acceptable to worship the true and living God (cf. Lev 18:3). In this Code are what appear to be two definite and direct prohibitions against homosexual acts. Lev 18:22 stands amidst legislation against all impermissible and unnatural sexual relationships. Lev 20:13 restates 18:22, and adds the death penalty for the practice. Both call the homosexual act an abomination (t_’_b_h, in Hebrew). These commands expand the Seventh Commandment. Their purpose is not exhaustive regulation of sexual activity, but prohibition of the grossest offenses.
Homosexuals have advanced a number of explanations for these texts. These explanations are sometimes offered by themselves and sometimes in combination. We present the most common ones.
D. S. Bailey thinks the prohibitions against homosexuality in the OT simply reflect the attitudes of the peoples of Canaan and Egypt. However, he thinks there is very little available information about these nations’attitudes, most likely because homosexuality was not as common among them as often thought. Most likely the Egyptians regarded homosexual practices with a degree of contempt, but such practices were not common among them.
Bailey thinks the Assyrian and Babylonian views on the matter are no clearer. While the Code of Hammurabi seems to show that homosexuality was practiced in Assyria, no extant portion of the Code expressly mentions that fact, and in Bailey’s judgment, nothing can be construed as implying a reference to it. Two Middle Assyrian Laws which go back to the fifteenth century B.C. make homosexual acts indictable. If convicted, the man’s penalty was castration and submission to the very act he had performed on others. There is no indication, however, how common such practices were.
The Hittites, whose culture is now thought to have had significant influence on the Hebrews, have a reference that calls homosexuality an abomination. However, it is Bailey’s view that we are not able to tell from this the attitude of the people to such practices or how common they were. This leads him to conclude that it goes beyond the evidence to suppose that the homosexual practices of Israel’s neighbors endangered her morals. He says: “We can only judge from these two laws that the Hebrew attitude to homosexual practices differed but little from that of the Egyptians and Assyrians.…”
Bailey’s views do not reflect the majority opinion on this issue and seem quite clearly to be false. The compelling reason is that homosexual practices were often associated with the rites of pagan religion, a topic to which we now turn.
A second understanding of the Holiness Code laws says homosexuality is condemned not because it is inherently wrong, but because it was practiced in the OT world in connection with idolatrous, pagan rites. This view is expressed by almost every pro-homosexual writer. Homosexuality, it is argued, is associated in the Jewish mind with idolatry, as can be seen in a passage such as Deut 23:17. This grows out of the fact that Israel’s neighbors practiced fertility rites in their temple worship. God was understood as sexual, so worship included overt sexual acts. It is in this context that whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the OT, the writer has in mind the use that male worshipers made of male prostitutes.
Support for this position is found in the word “abomination” (t_’_b_h), which, on this view, does not signify something that is inherently evil such as rape or theft, but something that is ritually unclean like the eating of pork or engaging in sexual intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in this context. Temple prostitution is called an abomination and is condemned in 1 Kgs 16:3, while prostitution in general is called “wickedness” (zimm_h) and is prohibited in Lev 19:29. Sometimes the word “abomination” refers to an idol, as in Isa 44:19, Jer 16:18 and Ezek 7:20. Specifically, it is claimed that Leviticus 18 has the purpose of distinguishing Israel from her pagan neighbors (18:3), and the prohibition of homosexuality follows directly after the condemnation of idolatrous sexuality (18:21). The same is true of chapter 20, which begins with a prohibition of sexual practice in connection with idolatry.
Unquestionably, pagan religious rites included sexual activities among which was male homosexuality. Participation in the idolatrous worship of the pagans was certainly forbidden and punished by God. His people Israel were not to be like their neighbors. However, that does not end the matter. Nothing in Leviticus explicitly states why the prohibited practices are condemned. The Leviticus texts just naturally assume the practices are condemned because they are inherently wrong, not because they were part of the idolatrous worship of the Egyptians and Canaanites. In the Leviticus Code incest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality, spiritism and the cursing of one’s parents are all prohibited. Only one act condemned in the Code has cultic or symbolic significance—child sacrifice, and it is condemned whether associated with religious worship or not. Child sacrifice was practiced in pagan religious rites, but it was wrong on two counts—in itself and because of its association with idolatry. As a matter of fact, that the surrounding nations practiced both child sacrifice and the other prohibited acts only serves to confirm the corruption of these cultures in the mind of the Israelite. Moreover, homosexuality is condemned in the context of adultery, bestiality, and incest. Clearly, those practices were not prohibited simply because of their association with idolatry or Egyptian and Canaanite cultures.
A third handling of the Leviticus Holiness Code claims that the Mosaic Law or at least parts of it are irrelevant for the Christian today. In its most extreme form, this view argues that the Mosaic Law has no relevance for us today. All of it reflects folk ways of an ancient culture. We live in the enlightened twentieth century. Others say that since Christ is the end of the law for the Christian (Rom 10:4), even the Ten Commandments are no longer binding (2 Cor 3:711). The Law has been superseded (Heb 7:11).
A weaker version of this position is used far more commonly. It distinguishes between the moral and ceremonial elements within the law. The former are still binding, but the latter have ended. Just as we need not feel obligated to follow the prohibitions in the law against eating rabbit (Lev 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp and lobster (Lev 11:10ff.) or rare steaks (Lev 17:10), there is no need to adhere to prohibitions against homosexuality, since they, too, are a part of the ceremonial element of the law and so are not binding today.
This position in some forms contains an element of truth, but as argued in our chapter on moral decision-making, OT law does not become irrelevant even for those holding a discontinuity position on the relation of the testaments. In fact, we believe this is a classic example of a case where the OT prohibition is clearly relevant, since the NT repeats the same command.
As to the matter of the ceremonial versus the moral elements of the law, we can again agree that there are differences. The problem is that the distinction is irrelevant to the question of homosexuality. While there are ceremonial elements in the law that we may safely disregard today, most Christians as well as Jews have always recognized that there are commands within the law that are of continuing ethical significance. Exodus 2040 and Leviticus contain much of that material. Even Boswell admits that these prohibitions are in chapters that seem to stem from moral absolutes, not ceremonial concerns.
A fourth approach to these texts claims that the prohibitions against homosexuality are related to male dignity and the sacred character of the semen or “seed” of life. The Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, had no accurate knowledge of the biology of conception. They did not know that women produce eggs which in turn are fertilized by male sperm. They thought the seed for new life comes solely from the man. It was “sowed” in a woman and grew into a new being in the same way that a plant sprouts and grows when sown in the ground. Moreover, they did not know that matings between certain species were infertile. Thus, men ought not to sow their seed where it would be unproductive (as would happen in homosexual relations) or in animals where it might result in “confusion” as in a centaur. This ignorance also explains why women are prohibited from receiving seed from an animal, but are free to do among themselves what they please. That is, the OT does not prohibit lesbianism.
Moreover, in the patriarchal society of the Hebrews the position of the male was inviolable. It was not uncommon for the victors in war to rape conquered kings or soldiers as a mark of utter contempt and submission. In a male-dominated society it is not unreasonable to think that homosexuality could be associated with effeminacy. At least one of the partners in male homosexual acts had to assume the position normally taken by a woman. All of these things, then, would undermine the status and dignity of the male. Therefore, it is not that homosexuality is morally wrong in itself, but that it is prohibited because of an ignorance about conception and a desire to maintain the dominance of the male in a patriarchal society.
This proposal is as unsatisfactory as the preceding. The texts give no indication that these are the reasons for the prohibition, so the view is purely speculative at best. Moreover, we cannot be sure that ancient peoples were as ignorant as suggested. Certainly, they did not know what we know today, but one can fairly question whether they were totally ignorant of the biology of conception. Finally, this argument totally ignores the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divine source of these commands. These commands are not the result of human speculation and superstition, but are from God and are inscripturated in the Bible.
When we turn to the NT, we find that it too condemns homosexuality. A passage that immediately comes to mind is Rom 1:2627, as it seems to be the strongest condemnation of such actions. Rom 1:26 deals with lesbianism (homosexual relationships between women), while 1:27 treats male homosexuality. This is the only text in Scripture that mentions female homosexuality. This passage teaches that homosexual practices are evidences of God’s judgment on those who reject his revelation.
As we might expect, this interpretation of Paul’s teaching has been challenged. A variety of alternative interpretations have been suggested. An initial one says homosexuality per se is not condemned, but only such acts in connection with idolatry. Paul knew of the pagan rites associated with Roman religion, and he took this opportunity to warn the Romans against them. That these verses are found in the context of condemning superstitious beliefs adds credence to this view. Moreover, this theory has possible echoes of OT attitudes on this matter, so it is argued.
Much of what has already been said about the connection of homosexual practice with idolatry applies here. As a matter of fact, it is even rejected by the pro-homosexual writer Boswell for the following reasons. He thinks the temple rites of the Romans included heterosexual as well as homosexual practices. Thus, if Paul was referring to such rites, there is no reason to think he would not have condemned both. It is also clear that the sexual practices themselves are objectionable, not simply their associations. More importantly, Paul is not condemning dispassionate acts done in the worship of a god, but those that grow out of lust or passion.
By far the most common reinterpretation of the passage is that Paul is condemning unnatural homosexual actions. This view was first argued by Bailey,__ but has been accepted widely by others. The argument is sometimes called the “abuse argument” and is as follows. Paul is condemning certain homosexual acts, not homosexuality, or the homosexual, or the responsible practice of homosexual behavior. Whether he knew it or not, we now know that some people constitutionally prefer members of the same sex. They experience no attraction to members of the opposite sex. Therefore, we must distinguish between the invert and the pervert, between inversion and perversion. Perverts are not genuinely homosexual. They engage in homosexual practices although they are heterosexuals, or they commit heterosexual acts though homosexuals. Inverts, on the other hand, are constitutionally gay. Their sexual orientation is the inverse of heterosexuals, and for them, engaging in homosexual acts is normal. In Romans 1 Paul condemns perversion, not inversion.
Support for this view is adduced from Paul’s claim that those he discusses changed or left the natural use of their sexuality for that which was unnatural or against nature. Thus, Paul only condemns homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. This, so it is claimed, is in keeping with the point of Romans 1, which has as its purpose the stigmatization of those who reject their calling.
For those who reject this view and appeal to Paul’s claim that homosexuality goes “against nature,” Barnett disagrees. He says that “against nature” is difficult to interpret, but it must mean a variation from what is usual or normal. The homosexual is not desirous that everyone should be like him or her in sexual preference. Homosexuality is a variation from what is normal, i.e., heterosexuality. It is not, however, a sin or disorder. Nature is full of variations from its overall design. Some people are midgets, others are albinos, still others are left-handed. These, like homosexuals, are and always will be minority variations from the majority. These differences are not unique to our culture and time. They have always existed and will continue to do so. They evidence neither sin nor the fallen condition of humanity, but merely the lack of uniformity in nature. Rather than condemn them, he argues, we should affirm them and rejoice that they exist.
Despite these claims, careful exegesis of the text does not support this view. As already argued, there is no proof that there is a constitutional homosexual for whom homosexual acts follow from a genetic condition, but this interpretation clearly requires that. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that even if such a condition exists, Paul knew of it and refers to it here. Even Boswell admits this,__ but then, why conclude Paul is teaching what this interpretation asserts?
Furthermore, it is most unlikely that when Paul says they gave up the natural use of their sexuality and did that which was against nature (para phusin), he is referring to homosexual acts by heterosexuals or heterosexual acts by homosexuals, acts that would be against their natural inclinations. Nor is it likely that Paul asserts, as Barnett claims, that some people are just different from the norm, but there is no penalty for such variation. Instead, these verses teach that homosexual acts are against the order of sexuality established in nature (an order clearly revealed in Genesis 1 and 2) and are an evidence that God has judicially given over those who practice these acts to their own lusts.
Barnett’s final judgment is that even if Paul does condemn homosexuality per se, he is simply stating his own opinions. At other places in Paul’s writings, he offers his opinions about marriage, bodily pleasure, the status of women, slavery, and civil authority. Since all of these are his views, not God’s, we are free to reject them. However, Paul never claims that these words about homosexuality are his private opinions, and the OT passages already discussed show they are God’s views as well.
A third main line of interpretation of this passage claims that it does not condemn homosexuality per se, but only homosexual acts growing out of lust which is a wrong motive. Paul’s comment in 1:27 that they burned in their lust for one another is the key to understanding what he condemns. Lust is wrong. Any sexual activity produced by lust is immoral, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. The only moral sexual activity is that which grows out of love and devotion. Therefore, if homosexual acts are motivated by a sense of love, devotion and commitment, they are part of God’s design for human sexuality.
The problem with this interpretation is twofold. First, in view of what we noted about how many partners male homosexuals typically have, promiscuity seems to be a usual part of male homosexuality. And it is highly dubious that those who are sexually promiscuous with hundreds of partners (as the figures show) act out of love, devotion and commitment to all of them! Second, the text does not say lustful homosexual acts are condemned by God. It says that because of homosexual acts God has given them over to this lust for one another. The lustful desire is a consequence of their sinful homosexual acts.
A final approach to Rom 1:2627 says that it really condemns false righteousness, not homosexuality. Hence, Paul’s mention of homosexuality in Romans 1 is quite incidental to the real object of his attack—false religion (Romans 2). His real concern is those Jews who thought they were keeping the law and were thereby righteous. In Romans 1 he simply adopts a common catalog of vices from extrabiblical sources without endorsing its judgments in order to portray the sins of the Gentiles. But this list is incidental to his main attack on the religious complacency of pharisaism.
On the contrary, however, this interpretation overlooks the fact that the argument of Romans 1 and 2 leads to a ringing condemnation of both Gentiles and Jews in chapter 3 that takes quite seriously the sins of both Gentiles and Jews. Moreover, if Paul’s actual attack is on Jewish self-righteousness, Romans 1 adds nothing to that topic. What function does it serve in the book?
From this analysis of alternate interpretations, we conclude that the traditional understanding of the passage is correct. Homosexuality and lesbianism are condemned. Moreover, Paul states very clearly that homosexuality is God’s judgment (v. 26), a judgment that punishes those who reject the truth of God’s revelation about himself (vv. 2526). In essence, Paul is saying that homosexuals are made, not born!
strong>1 CORINTHIANS 6:911 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:810
These two passages from Paul complete our study of the major biblical texts on this subject. We group 1 Cor 6:911 and 1 Tim 1:810 together because they both contain vice lists which include a similar word that bears on our present discussion. In 1 Cor 6:911 Paul talks about who will inherit the kingdom of God. He gives a list of vices and says that anyone who persists in these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Tim 1:810 the law is the subject, and Paul says it is good if used wisely. It is not for the righteous man but for the ungodly and sinners. He then describes in a vice list sins that the ungodly and sinners commit.
In the 1 Corinthians passage Paul includes in his list the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The 1 Timothy list also includes arsenokoitai. These Greek words have been translated variously in English versions of the Bible. The KJV renders them “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” The NASB retains “effeminate” but prefers “homosexual” for the second word, while the NIV uses “male prostitute” and “homosexual offender.” As we shall see, there is some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the these Greek terms. But the majority opinion has been that the first term refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship and the second to the active member.
The first response to these verses by pro-homosexual interpreters is that these actions are not singled out in these lists as being especially wicked, and if we were to take vice lists seriously, no one would enter into the kingdom of God, since we are all covetous. Interpretations of this sort are really unsatisfactory. To say that a sin in a long list does not draw special condemnation does not mean Scripture approves the action. A vice list is still a vice list. Moreover, there is a failure to make a biblical distinction between a repentant sinner who seeks with God’s help to be free of some sin but who may at some time fail and an unrepentant sinner who follows a planned and uninterrupted course of disobedience. The vice lists refer to the latter, not the former. There is grace and forgiveness for the former, but not for the latter.
A more serious objection to the majority opinion on these texts stresses that the meaning of the two Greek words is uncertain and concludes that it is unwise, therefore, to use them in a blanket condemnation of homosexuality and homosexuals. There are some typical arguments offered in support of this approach. Proponents claim there is no Greek word that perfectly corresponds to the English word “homosexual.” Most likely this is because homosexuals in ancient Greek culture were married and therefore bisexual. There are, however, a number of Greek terms that refer to people who engage in homosexual intercourse: paiderastia, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomanos and paidophthoros. Thus, if Paul wanted to refer to these people, he most likely would have used one of these words. Instead, he used two terms whose precise meaning is a matter of debate. The word malakoi is the plural of a root that means “soft” (see, e. g., Matt 11:8; Luke 7:25). In moral contexts it is used of those who are loose, weak or lacking in self-control. Moreover, 1 Cor 6:911 and 1 Tim 1:810 are never used by patristic Greek writers as a reason for condemning homosexuals or homosexual behavior. On the contrary, they are used of generally dissolute behavior and occasionally of specific sexual acts such as masturbation.
The meaning of arsenokoitai is even more uncertain. It is a compound of koitai, which means “those who engage in sexual intercourse,” and arsen, which means “male” or “masculine.” Thus, it may mean that the male is the subject or object of the intercourse. If he is the subject, then the word refers to male prostitutes. If the object, it means those who have had sexual intercourse with males. For this reason many modern lexicons understand the term to refer to those who are the active partners in anal intercourse with males. Yet if either of these meanings is correct, it is surprising, so it is argued, that early Greek fathers such as John Chrysostom did not interpret the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages as referring to homosexual behavior.
In evaluating this position it is only fair to note that there is some difference of opinion about the meaning of these terms, but their meaning is not nearly as unclear as pro-homosexual writers want us to believe. In classical Greek, malakos is used of boys and men who allow themselves to be used homosexually and of those who play the part of the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. In Roman Antiquities, written about 7 B.C. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristodemus of Cumae is called malakos because he had been “effeminate” (thludrias) as a child, having undergone things associated with women. Thus, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover, this view is further supported by its use with arsenokoitai, a term for the active member in such acts. Aristotle in Problems has a lengthy discussion on the origins of homosexual passivity, and he uses the word malakos.__
The second of these terms, arsenokoitai, is used by Paul in both 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. Boswell claims it has only tangential relationship to homosexuality. His point seems to be that it is found in a list of sexual sins, sexual immorality (pornos), adultery (which is referred to in the passage by referring to adulterers, moichoi), and effeminacy (malakos). However, rather than strengthening Boswell’s position, his point seems to weaken it. Arsenokoit_s is related to sexual sin. It is among sexual sins in Paul’s list, and as Ukleja says, “It could have easily become a euphemism for homosexuality.” Further, Boswell’s case is weakened by the fact that both malakos and arsenokoit_s follow pornos in Paul’s vice lists. Pornos is a general term for sexual sin and is often, as in the texts under consideration, followed by specific examples. Finally, much of Boswell’s evidence for his views on these terms is based upon post-first century A.D. usage, but what we need to know is how the terms were used when Paul wrote, not several centuries later.
In summing up our discussion of biblical teaching on homosexuality, we note that Scripture does not say a lot about homosexuality. Possibly this is because it was not widespread in Jewish culture. However, we cannot escape the clear conviction that when Scripture does speak of it, it prohibits and condemns it. Thus, we must conclude that pro-homosexual writers seem to escape the text’s meaning, not explain it.
What is morality?
If man’s duty is not spelled out anywhere, morality is relative, if morality is relative, the door is open for man to set his own standard of right and wrong. If man is an impersonal group of cells that came together by chance, there is no moral distinction between killing a housefly and destroying a human being. According to evolution, the only difference between man and a fly, a worm or the malaria germ is time and complexity. In other words, man is more complex biologically and has arrived on the scene much later than the more “simple” forms of life. If a human being is essentially no different from an insect, then his future is no different. Existence for a man is as meaningless as existence for a bug. Man’s value is zero. The end result is meaninglessness and despair.
Without absolutes, morality takes on a whole new meaning, and the door to death and degradation swings open wide. It is quite easy to see the diabolical nature of such a philosophy, if it is not murder to kill a fly or a pesky mosquito which are products of evolution, then why is it wrong to kill a man, especially one who is a pest or one who is extremely handicapped? Words with moral connotations lose their meanings when one gives up Christianity—words such as exploitation, war, racial prejudice, evil, manipulation.
War is supported by Darwin’s theory of natural selection. According to evolution natural selection simply involves the survival of the fittest. Natural selection weeds out the weak and selects the strong in order to produce a strong and healthy organism that can survive and reproduce itself.
Today, aborted babies are big business opportunities. They are used in cosmetics, and even for paper weights for the fool who has everything. Today the number of abortions in the U.S. Is staggering: 1.6 million annually, or well over 22 million since the legalization in 1973—three times as many Jews killed by Hitler.
Famous for his research in the area of DNA, secular prophet, Francis Crick, stated: “… No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment, and if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”
Dr. Ruth Tussel, in 1972 said, “Surely it is time to ask why thousands of dying, incurable, and senile persons are being kept alive….”
Nazi genocide “started with the acceptance of the attitude that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.” The Nazis argued that their victims were being sacrificed for the high end of the general good of society.
The slaveholders had a similar theory; they religiously expounded that slavery was really for the good of the black man.
Proverbs 30:14 warns about “those whose teeth are swords and whose jaws are set with knives to devour the poor from the earth, the needy from among mankind” (NIV).
If one has no sound, moral basis from which to order life, he will have no problem with legalized abortion, euthanasia (mercy killings), infanticide (killing deformed, handicapped babies), homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. If any part of the universe (be it trees, insects, animals or humans) becomes a problem (economically or otherwise) to society or to an individual, if one adheres to atheistic evolution, there is no moral absolute that would disallow the destruction of that problem by the state or any other authority.
The German philosopher Nietzsche understood this concept perfectly when he stated, “When one gives up Christian beliefs, one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. Christianity is … a consistently thought out and complete view of things, if we break out of it, the fundamental idea, the belief in God, one thereby breaks the whole thing to pieces. Christian morality is a command. It possesses truth only if God is truth …. I deny morality …. I also deny immorality.” Nietzsche understood the consequences of rejecting biblical absolutes yet fails to provide a meaningful alternative. He chose to reject Christian morality.
Hitler, in order to break the mentality of the German people regarding absolutes, used a very moving legal case about a doctor who killed his wife in the name of love. A doctor was charged with murder and was taken to court to be tried. When asked why he killed his wife, he responded he did so because he loved her so much, he didn’t want to see her suffer. She had suffered with a terminal disease which left her in extreme pain month after month. Medical help and drugs provided almost no relief, in time, she became unconscious and lingered in pain while the medical machines continued to keep her body alive. Finally, her doctor husband injected her with a lethal drug to put her out of her physical anguish. He said he did it because she was going to die eventually anyway, and she wanted to die. Besides, the medical costs were exceedingly high. The doctor was declared innocent by the judge.
Hitler used this tragic story to put questions in the minds of the German people as to whether the sixth commandment was an absolute. He stated there are times and situations that arise which are exceptions to the absolute. If this is true, then one can no longer accept any of the biblical commandments as absolutes. Hitler claimed the Jews were the cause of Germany’s serious economical difficulties; the country was in a state of moral collapse and economical bankruptcy. He maintained that it was in the best interest of Germany to rid the nation of the Jews, who were “sucking the very life out of the country.” He had them removed to the gas chambers.
A sin condemned both in the Old Testament and the New Testament; in that it involves sexual desire and activity directed toward a member of the same sex, it violates God’s pattern given in creation for love and sexual activity in marriage between male and female; Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:2627.
In our day speaking negatively of homosexuality is often declared to be evil. Several factors have led to this. First, postmodern society believes that all personal options are equally good. Thus one should take pride in one’s ethnic background or religion or sexual preference. None is better than another and no one should judge another. This postmodern view may express a truth about our relative human judgments, but does it give God’s view? What if God really does exist and has a view by which he will judge the world in the end? Furthermore, there are limits to our tolerance of cultural diversity, for we are not very accepting of Nazi culture, for example.
Second, genital sexual expression is viewed as a right and even as a necessity for emotional health. This is a new view, which ignores the fact that many who cannot function sexually (such as impotent males) can and do live full and meaningful lives. Unlike food and water and shelter, sexual expression is not a need. Nor is it a right. Many people, whatever their sexual inclinations, are deprived of opportunities for full sexual expression (think of those heterosexuals who want to be married but cannot find an appropriate spouse) and, while it may not be a desirable situation for them, it is not that they are being wronged.
Third, homosexuality has found increasing acceptance in our society. However, acceptance does not make something right. Nor does the evidence that homosexuality may be inborn make it right. Some types of personality are apparently inborn, and we think of these varieties of personality types as equally good, but alcoholism, schizophrenia and a tendency to violence may also be linked to genes, and we look at these as genetic defects. We view them as bad and try to control their expression.
Fourth, there have been attempts to label any rejection of homosexuality as “homophobic” and thus make a rejection of this lifestyle appear wrong. Such labeling begs the question. Is one “kleptophobic” if he or she calls theft wrong? It is not always an issue of fear (phobia) at all, but one of sober judgment about what is right and wrong based on a given standard. For Christians the standard has been the Bible.
The Answer to AIDS.
How much additional money should we encourage our government to spend on medical research to find the cure for AIDS? Is the Christian being merciless if he says, “No more”? What happens if the child of a Christian becomes infected with AIDS while having a blood transfusion?
The truth of the matter is, the answer to the prevention of AIDS has already been found. The problem is, homosexuals and those who are “sexually active” outside of marriage don’t like it. The solution is found in Scripture, which says we are not to commit homosexual acts, nor fornicate, nor commit adultery (I Cor. 6:9,10). Sex is for marriage alone. The key to ridding society of AIDS is abstinence (Rom. 1:2432).
Sexual immorality accounts for the majority of new AIDS victims. Using contaminated needles to inject illegal drugs accounts for a part of the problem as well. These are the two primary methods for contracting the disease. If people would abstain from such behavior, the AIDS problem would take care of itself within a few short years. It has been said that prevention is the best cure. Accept the cure, and the plague will come to a halt.
Some gay theological writers claim that Paul argues against homosexual behavior only because at that time it was normally associated with idolatry; thus they suggest that Paul would not oppose homosexual behavior today. With no disrespect intended for these writers, the problem in this case is that the cultural background these writers give is wrong: homosexual behavior was widespread among the Greeks and was practiced by some Romans, and it was by no means specifically linked with idolatry.
Premarital sex, homosexual intercourse and idolatry were typically Gentile sins from which nearly all Jews abstained. By contrast, pagans were raised this way; many Greek boys were ushered into “manhood” by an older man’s molestation.
It’s important for us to grasp the implications of the unchangeable nature of God’s Word. Conferences and councils may meet and announce changes in doctrine and practice. Those who claim to represent the church may announce that homosexuality is now acceptable, but that will not change the fact that God condemns that lifestyle. Some who claim to represent the church can announce that as we evangelize, we must respect the good in other religions, and never suggest that their traditional faith might not lead to God. But God says that life can be found only in Jesus.
Beware of organizations like GLSEN affecting our children.
GLSEN which is the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network. This organization’s agenda is to indoctrinate our school children into exploring the gay life style at much younger ages. This group is comprised of educators whose sole role in life is to brainwash our children to accept the homosexual agenda.
The Traditional Values Coalition proposes GLSEN gets into schools by claiming that “homosexual” and “transgender” students need to feel safe and encouraged; and that so-called “homosexual/transgender” teens have high rates of suicide and need a support group. When this tactic fails, GLSEN then threatens legal action against school districts that refuse to allow these recruitment clubs on campus. The American Civil Liberties Union has volunteered to serve as the enforcement arm of GLSEN to impose a homosexual agenda on the nation’s public schools. They sponsor the Day of Silence.
The following information is from the American Family Association:
What's Wrong with the Day of Silence?
Frequently Asked Questions about the 'Day of Silence' and our protest....
Q. Why should parents be concerned about the so-called Day of Silence?
A. This event was started a decade ago by an adult homosexual advocacy group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), with the goal of promoting homosexuality to all students in a given school. It has grown enormously, unfortunately, as the support for the 'gay' agenda has been embraced by thousands of schools and impressionable students nationwide.
The Day of Silence postures every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser as a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and discrimination (being 'silenced'). While some incidents like this do occur, this event is an overwhelming exaggeration in an effort to manipulate our kids' natural sympathies. The result ironically is that youth develop favorable views about a controversial, high risk behavior. At the same time, any disagreement, even when responsibly expressed, is viewed as "hateful".
This year, GLSEN adds a special twist to “Day of Silence”: shameless exploitation of the recent tragic school shooting death of California 8th grade student Lawrence King. Los Angeles media report that although the boy had been entrusted to the care of Casa Pacifica, a residential center for “abused, neglected, and severely emotionally disturbed children,” he had been permitted for the last two weeks to attend school in feminine makeup, nail polish, and high-heeled boots. The adult guardians, school administrators, and teachers responsible for guiding and protecting this precious troubled child failed him miserably; GLSEN fails him again now by employing his violent death to manipulate and deceive millions of children.
Q. How widespread is the observance of the 'Day of Silence' now?
A. Unfortunately, thousands of schools are now involved. Some schools are passive in their participation, and simply allow a few students (usually members of a homosexual school club) to hang signs around their necks and remain silent all day. Other schools are at the other end of the spectrum, with many students, teachers and faculty remaining silent, and with the school allowing several days of outside speakers, school assemblies, announcements, even school TV shows.
Q. Isn't the Day of Silence just a way for students to learn compassion and tolerance?
A. In reality, the Day of Silence is a one-sided campaign to manipulate acceptance of homosexuality by every student. Nationwide, parents are fed up with the political hijacking of their kids' classrooms with no opposing views allowed. What makes it even more problematic is that the results of 'tolerating' this lifestyle without objection can be tragic for many young people. The risks of homosexual behavior are well-understood by public health officials, but are being ignored by some politically correct school administrations.
Q. What can parents do?
>A. Parents can send letters and make phone calls to schools, expressing their grave concerns about an event like the Day of Silence. They can choose to remove their sons and daughters on the day that the school is observing the DOS, which is in most cases a day in late April. Parents may also want to insist that schools offer students a responsible opposing view on the risks of homosexuality.
A positive alternative exists. They can encourage their kids to participate in the Day of Truth on the school day following the Day of Silence. Go to Day of Truth for more information.
Source: This article was sent to me by one of our Apostolic pastors. I believe it is a compilation of his own thoughts mingled with those of others. Not having the total source is regrettable, with apologies to anyone who had a part in its publication. But it was too accurate and helpful to ignore. Therefore, it is passed to you, the reader.
Creationism and the problem of homosexual behavior First published:
TJ 9(1):121130 April 1995 by Dr Jerry Bergman
Birke, L.I.A., 1981. Is homosexuality hormonally determined? Journal of Homosexuality 6(4), Summer.
LeVay, S., 1991. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 253:10341037 (p. 1034).
Rueda, E., 1982. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, Devin Adair Company, Old Greenwich, Connecticut, pp. 5233
Feinberg, J. S., Feinberg, P. D., & Huxley, A. (1996, c1993). Ethics for a Brave new world (189). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
Lindsay, D. G. (1998, c1990). Foundations for creationism. Dallas: Christ for the Nations.
Karleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system. "This book is intended as a companion to the Scofield Reference Bible"--Pref.; Includes indexes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (543). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.
Lindsay, D. G. (1998, c1990). Harmony of Science and Scripture. Dallas: Christ for the Nations.
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Eph 4:17). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The teacher's commentary. Includes index. (1060). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.