Sinful Nature
By focusing on homosexual activity, I am not singling it out as inherently worse than other sins.  The biblical evidence indicates that accepting their lifestyle as legitimate violates Scripture’s teachings.  The Old Testament begins with the affirmation of the creation order, which is the goodness of sexual pleasure within the context of a husband-wife relationship.  Jesus and Paul appealed to this creational order as opposed to homosexual relationships.  The Scriptures offer no indications—no stories, no metaphors—that homosexual relationships are acceptable before God.  The underlying spirit and redemptive movement across the sweep of Scripture consistently prohibits homosexual activity.  Scripture clearly affirms the equality of all individuals—blacks, women, and slaves—because they are God’s image-bearers.  The same doesn’t hold true for sexual relationships.  Scripture’s regular affirmations reinforced by the unfolding direction of Scripture reject any inherent legitimacy to homosexual relations.  If one persists in trying to muster biblical support for homosexual relations, we could point out that the same argument could be extended to bigamy/multiple marriage, incest, or pedophilia.  If we justified sexual activity based on “natural attraction” or “That’s the way I was born,” all kinds of immoral activity could be justified.  The Bible consistently rejects homosexual activity as legitimate.  The following verses clarify the sinful nature:  Genesis 19:1-29; Judges 19; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27.

The gay marriage debate tends to be rooted in moral relativism—“What’s right for you may not be right for me.”  But if so, then why think humans have any rights—including a right to gay marriage—at all?  If people insist on legalization of gay marriage as “inherently fair,” one wonders on what basis.  Where does the standard of fairness or human rights and human dignity come from?  It is hard to see how such moral standards could be grounded in anything apart from a good Creator who has made human beings in his image.  And if that is the case, then we are back to God’s original design for us at creation.  Moral relativism and rights don’t mix.  Relativism undermines any appeal to rights:  If rights exist, relativism is false; if rights exist, where do they come from?  We are once again pointed in the direction of a good God.  If we change the definition of marriage, why restrict it to two persons—or even to humans?  If marriage is just socially constructed, then why should any marital arrangement be preferred over any other, and why should gays get preferential treatment over others?  Once we cast aside the time-tested male-female, one-flesh-union view of marriage in favor of marriage as individuals choose to define it, we have endless possibilities (Group marriage, Incestuous marriage, Bestial marriage, Pedophilia, Polygamous/polyandrous marriage, Marriage to self, Marriage to material objects).  If marriage is just a socially constructed arrangement as a result of human choice and preference, it’s hard to see how any marital arrangement can rightly be banned.  A traditional model of mother-father parenting is empirically more beneficial for children and society.  We should take note that a push toward gay marriage moves us in the direction of pedophilia, and this should make us cautious about gay marriage and gay adoption.  The goal of a one-flesh union between husband and wife is a picture of marital completeness and unity, not simply a fulfillment of sexual desires. 

The first official “scientific” legitimization of homosexuality didn’t come as the result of research; it came as a result of political pressure.  The 1973 reversal of the American Psychiatric Association’s position on homosexuality had nothing to do with advances in scientific research to support the biology of homosexuality.  In fact, prior to this time, the APA had listed homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, believing that homosexuals needed treatment.  The strong political pressure from gay activists (the National Gay Task Force) forced APA to “legitimize” what was once considered a disorder.  In 1979, sex researchers Masters and Johnson said that homosexuals oriented by learned preferences,” and as late as 1985, declared the “genetic theory of homosexuality” to be “generally discarded today.”  The idea that “biology is fate” is actually demeaning to homosexual persons, who are much more than sexual/biological beings.  We are more than sexual beings; we are spiritual, creative, emotional, intellectual, and social beings as well.  Just because we are born a certain way doesn’t mean that it ought to be affirmed—let alone that we’re compelled to carry it out.  We shouldn’t make the mistake of moving automatically from “is” to “ought”.  Presumed explanations for behaviors are not the same as justifications for those behaviors. 


Christian Response
Sy Rogers is a former homosexual and transvestite who grew up in an abusive home and was tormented by his peers.  In the midst of his homosexual struggles, he would pray, “Lord, I have these temptations in my life…I have these desires in my life.  But I want You more.”  He eventually married and became a father and is now a pastor and speaker on the topic of sexual temptation and wholeness.  Christians tried to reach out to him but made the classic mistake of trying to win a moral argument with him.  Sy proclaimed to be Christian, but believed that God hated people like him because of how other Christians treated him.  All too often self-proclaimed “Bible-believing Christians” can act with a smug moral superiority toward homosexuals rather than extending friendship and Christ-like love to them.  The Scriptures indicate that God is able to deliver people from a lifestyle of homosexuality or adultery, greed, and so on.  “Such were some of you; but you were washed…sanctified…justified” (1 Corinthians 6:11).  Of course, those committed to the pursuit of a gay lifestyle aren’t going to be swayed by such appeals to biblical texts.  Besides that, grace, kindness, and love tend to speak much more powerfully!

Since homosexuality is not the result of genetic necessity but results largely from dysfunctional same-sex relationships in one’s youth, this also signals the possibility of greater healing and wholeness, which thousands of ex-gays have found—another indication that people are not “born gay.”  Ministries such as Exodus International (www.exodus-international.org), Inqueery (www.inqueery.com), and the International Healing Foundation (www.Gaytostraight.org) offer support, help, and hope for transformation.  The secular National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (www.NARTH.com) also offers important discussion and scientific research results on this topic.  Christians should not insist that homosexuals have to change, but that they can make significant strides if they want to.  Christians should seek to understand, show grace, correct misperceptions, and build bridges wherever possible when interacting with others.  Everyone needs to be committed to truth seeking. 

 

References:
Paul Copan provided much insight regarding this topic as well as other topics in his book When God Goes To Starbucks.  Because of his straightforwardness, I have mixed his work in with this journal entry. 

Advertisements