Lucia's Blog: July 2015
Google Logo
Image Caption goes here.

Isaiah 55:8-9

Isaiah 55:8-9

Wednesday, July 29, 2015


"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it."'
Genesis 1:27-28


Christianity sustains that absolute ethics exist and are centered upon the nature of God, His righteousness, and specifically on the absolute moral standard of a Creator, God.  This ethical view banishes the untrustworthiness of cultural relativism.  It implies that God exists and has revealed absolute standards, Truths.  It affirms that these divine standards are compatible with the Creator and His creation; they are true and perfect.  Such ethics are timeless and are for man's own good. They come from a higher Authority, One that is higher than man and Who was revealed in Jesus as well as in the inspired Word of God.

According to His divine and revealed Word, God's foremost intent for gender when He created man and woman was expressed when He instructed them to "multiply."  Genesis 1:27-28.  In order to multiply, they would have to be male and female.  Moreover, everything that God created "was good." Therefore, the innate, inborn, state was for male and female to procreate.  The concept of two males simply was not in God's original design since two males cannot procreate.  Same-sex couplings were not in God's divine plan of creation.

I would like to approach some of the gay arguments from a Bible point of view, providing concise answers to them.  I will be reviewing each Scriptural text that is relevant to the issue homosexual practices, establish the traditional view of the text, quote each of the pro-gay arguments in opposition to each view and provide a response to each.

I.  Creation/God's Created Intent:   (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18-24)

"7 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."  Genesis 1:27-28
"And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him." ... And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.  24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  Genesis 2:18-24

Traditional View

God's main intent for human sexual relationships is restricted to only heterosexual union between a man and a woman in marriage.

Pro-Gay Argument

The Genesis account does not forbid homosexuality.  Simply, because it does not refer to it for obvious reasons.  A gay couple can barely begin the population process. These verses cannot be seen as a model for all couples.  Many heterosexual couples are childless or unable to have sexual relations (physical union).  Are they in sin because they do not conform to the Genesis account?

Response One

While it is true that this text does not "forbid" homosexual relations (physical union), yet it provides the fundamental model for sexuality, sexual orientation, by which other forms of sexual expression must be judged.  

The book of origins, Genesis, provides a foundation for Biblical commands and for ensuing reflection on the part of those who wish to build a sexual ethic to meet changing situations. It is suitable for us to explore the relevance of Biblical commands about marriage and to judge modern homosexuality in light of Genesis.

The crux of Christian morality is that God made sexual union for a purpose, with a special design.  His main intent or design was to unite man (husband) and woman (wife) into one flesh in marriage.  God uses physical union, full sexual intimacy, to join together, bond.

Response Two

The union, joining, of male and female, introduced in Genesis, is the only model of sexual behavior which was compatible and consistently praised in both the Old and New Testaments.  And although, other forms of behavior are introduced and even allowed in the Old Testament such as polygamy and the use of concubines, a monogamous relationship between husband and wife is still the standard approved in the Bible as the perfect one.  "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" seems irreverent and it is an equitable assessment of created intent.  Whereas heterosexuality is praised throughout the Bible and not once are homosexual relationships mentioned as being praised but to the contrary, they are always presented in negative terms as an abomination.

II.  The Destruction of Sodom:  (Genesis 19:4-9)

"But before they (the angels visiting Lot to judge the wickedness of Sodom and determine whether or not to spare it) lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him.  And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly.  Behold now, I have two daughters that 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, forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.  And they said, Stand back. And they said, 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 drew near to break the door." 

Traditional Position

The men of Sodom wanted to have homosexual contact with Lot's visitors.  Sodom was eventually destroyed for its great wickedness.

Pro-Gay Argument One

Sodom was destroyed because of lack of hospitality toward its citizens, not because of homosexuality.  Both John Boswell and Michael Bailey support this view based on two assumptions:

  1. Lot was violating Sodom’s custom by entertaining guests without the authorization of the city's elders, thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them;"  and 
  2. The words, "to know" do not necessarily mean having a sexual implication.  The Hebrew word "yada" appears 943 times in the Old Testament.  It conveys a sexual meaning perhaps ten of those 943 times.  Therefore, the argument is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions toward Lot's visitors.


This argument is absolutely absurd and makes no sense at all in view of Lot's responses.  His first response was, "I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly."  It could barely apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests.  Lot's second response is mainly instructing them:   He answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters.  This proves that they did not just want a social knowledge of his guests.  The question is:  If these men only had innocent intentions, why was the city destroyed for inhospitality?  Whose discourtesy was being judged, Lot's or Sodom's citizens?

This theory raises more questions than answers.  While some might be correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Bible times, inhospitality alone cannot be considered because of the severity of Lot's response to these men or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument Two

Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.  This is a more common argument; it is proposed by others, and it is far more credible, reasonable, than the "inhospitality" theory.

"Violence, forcing sexual activity upon another, is the real point of this story."  Therefore, homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction.  Had the attempted rape been heterosexual in nature, judgment would have come just the same.  Violence, not homosexuality, was being punished when Sodom fell.


This argument is relatively true since the men of Sodom were certainly suggesting or proposing rape. But what is obvious is that for such an occurrence to include "all the men of the city, both young and old," homosexuality must have been a common practice.  Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early writings connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices states:

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites "sexually promiscuous" (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to "Sodom, which departed from the order of nature" (Testament of Nephtali 3:4).  From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were "polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh" (16:5, compare 20:5-6).  Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom."

Pro-Gay Argument Three

According to Ezekiel 16:49, the real sins of Sodom were "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."  These sins have nothing to do with homosexuality.


Again, this argument is relatively true.  Why?  Because when Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part, or symptom of its wickedness.  Romans 1, gives us a similar illustration, describing the predominant corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of such corruption or lawlessness.  Ezekiel also speaks of the Sodomites saying, "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."  Ezekiel 16:50.  The sexual nature of these "abominatioins" is indicated in 2 Peter 2:6-7:  "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked."

In Jude 7 we find another similar text that reads, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit:  Homosexual rape was attempted and the Sodomites were surely guilty of sins other than homosexuality. BUT in view of the number of men willing to take part in the rape, and the many other sources of reference both Biblical and extra-Biblical in relation to Sodom's sexual sins, it is a confirmation or proof that homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites.  Jude calls it unnatural or strange flesh.  It is also an evidence that the sin for which they were named was one of many reasons why judgment eventually fell on them.

III.   The Levitical Law:   (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."  (Leviticus 18:22)
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."  Leviticus 20:13

Traditional Position

The Levitical Law prohibited all homosexual acts.  Under Levitical Law, homosexuality was one of many abominable practices that were worthy of being punished by death.

Pro-Gay Argument One

The practices mentioned in these chapters of Leviticus have to do with idolatry, not with homosexuality.  The Hebrew word for "abomination," according to Boswell, has less to do with something intrinsically evil and more to do with ritual uncleanness.  The Metropolitan Community Church's pamphlet, "Homosexuality:  Not a Sin, Not a Sickness," makes the same point:  The Hebrew word found in Leviticus for abomination "is usually associated with idolatry."

Pro-gay author Roger Biery agrees by associating the type of homosexuality forbidden in Leviticus with idolatrous practices.  Pro-gay authors refer to the heathen rituals of the Canaanites as rituals including both homosexual and heterosexual prostitution.  These are enough reasons God prohibited homosexuality among His people.  They contend that homosexuality itself was not the problem but rather its association with idolatry and the way it was practiced as a part of idol worship at times.  In other words, God was not prohibiting the kind of homosexuality we see practiced today.  He forbade the kind that incorporated idolatry.

Response One

Again, this argument is absurd.  The prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 against homosexuality appear alongside other sexual sins such as adultery and incest which are forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments, entirely aside from the Levitical codes.  God's wrath and displeasure against these sinful sexual practices whether or not idolatry worship was involved is shown in Scriptural references, both before and after Leviticus.

Response Two

Despite the UFMCC's contention that the word "toevah" for abomination is usually linked to idolatry, it actually appears in Proverbs 6:16-19 in connection with sins that have nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremonies:

"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination (toevah) unto him:  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked purposes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Idolatry plays no part in these Scriptures.  Therefore, it is clear that "toevah" is not limited to idolatrous practices.

Response Three

Let's say that these practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 were condemned just because they were associated with idolatry, then it logically follows that they were permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry.   It means that incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these texts) are only condemned when they are associated with idolatry.  Otherwise, they are permissible.  There is NO way any serious student of the Bible could accept such a premise.

IV.   The Apostle Paul on "Natural" and "Unnatural:"   (Romans 1:26-32)

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed 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 unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due."   And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:  32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them."

Traditional Position

Paul views homosexuality as a symptom of fallen humanity, describing it as unnatural and unseemly.

Pro-Gay Argument One

Paul is not describing true homosexuals; rather, he is referring to heterosexuals who, as he says, "changed their nature."  The real sin here is in changing what is natural to the individual.  John Boswell, professor of history at Yale is among those who differ with the classical interpretation.  In Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homesexuality he states:

"The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexuals:  what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons.  The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on."

Others agree saying, "What Paul seems to be emphasizing here is that persons who are heterosexual by nature have not only exchanged the true God for a false one but have also exchanged their ability to relate to the opposite sex by indulging in homosexual behavior that is not natural to them.  In short, Paul in Romans 1 describes heterosexuals who have deliberately committed homosexual acts, thus violating their true nature.  Homosexuality, if committed by true homosexuals, is not a sin."


Paul at no time is speaking subjectively in this passage.  There is nothing in Paul's words that might indicate, suggest that he would even recognize such a thing as a "true" homosexual versus a "false" one.  He plainly describes homosexual behavior as "unnatural," no matter who it is committing it.  

His wording, in fact, is specific.  When Paul is referring to "men" and "woman" in these texts, he chooses the Greek words that most emphasize biology:  arsenes and theleias.  As a matter of fact, both words are seldom used in the New Testament.  When they do appear, they appear in verses with the purpose of emphasizing the gender of the subject, as in a male child (arsenes).  Hence, in this context, Paul is specifically saying that the homosexual behavior committed by these people was unnatural to them as males and females (arsenes and theleias).  Paul is not contemplating such a thing as sexual orientation as Boswell contends.  Paul is declaring, in a few words, that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Furthermore, the fact that these men were "burning in lust" for each other makes it extremely unlikely that they were heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality.  The truth is that their behavior was born out of an intense inner desire, lust.  Those who claim that these men were heterosexuals that were indulging in homosexual behavior demand mental gymnastics.

In addition, if verses 26 and 27 condemn homosexual acts committed by people to whom such desires did not come naturally, they do not apply to people for whom those actions do come naturally.  Don't you think that consistency would compel us to also allow the practices mentioned in verses 29-30 such as fornication, backbiting, deceit and so forth, as long as the people who are committing them are people to whom such desires come naturally?  It is obvious that homosexuality is an example of God having delivered people over to the consequences of rebelling against Him.  Homosexuality is not the only sin listed in this text, but it is indeed highlighted.  To commit actions such as those of homosexuality is clearly opposite to God's plan or design at the nature level.  This distinctively declares rebellion.  It declares that God's very design and plan were wrong and inadequate.  

Pro-Gay Argument Two

This Scriptural text describes only those given over to idolatry, it is not talking about gay Christians who worship the true God.  Troy Perry states:

"The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today."


In Romans 1, we can clearly see idolatry playing a major role.  Paul begins this text by describing humanity's rebellion and man's choice to worship creation rather than the Creator, God.  The pro-gay theorists seize on this concept by attempting to prove that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to him since he does not worship idols.  He is a Christian.  This is what they state:

"But," Schmidt cautions, "Paul is not suggesting that a person worships an idol and decides therefore to engage in same-sex relations.  Rather, he is suggesting that the general rebellion created the environment for the specific rebellion.  A person need not bow before a golden calf to participate in the general human denial of God or to express that denial through specific behaviors."

Good sense and sound judgment when examining this entire chapter bears this out.  In Romans 1, we find a number of sins mentioned other than homosexuality:

"Fornication,  unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful."  Romans 1:29-31.

This leads me to the following question:

  • Is the interpretation applied to verses 26-27 also relevant to verses 29-30?  
Any logical, rational, integrity demands it.  Why?  Because, if verses 26-27 only apply to those who commit homosexual acts in association with idolatry, and for that reason homosexual acts are not sinful if not committed in connection with idolatry, then the same must apply to verses 29-30 as well. Consequently, we must accept that fornication, unrighteousness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, strife, deceit and so forth, are also condemned by Paul just because they were committed by those involved in idolatry.  Are they then permissible?  Not at all!

This argument is, of course, absurd!  Homosexuality as well as these other sins are not just born of idol worship.  They are indicative of a sinful state, condition.  If we say for example that homosexuality is lawful, permissible as long as it is not the outcome of idol worship, then we must also have to say that these other sins are lawful, permissible as well, as long as they are not practiced as a result of idolatry.

V.   Paul and Arsekokoite:   (I Corinthians 6:9-11; I Timothy 1:9-10)

"Or 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 men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."  I Corinthians 6:9-11 
"Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine."  I Timothy 1:9-10 ESV.

Traditional Position

The phrase, "for them that defile themselves with mankind" (KJV), comes from the Greek word "arsenokoite," meaning "homosexual."  The ESV translation uses this word.  Paul states that homosexuality is wickedness  (lawlessness) and excludes or prohibits those who practice it from entering the kingdom of God.

Pro-Gay Argument

The term "aresnokoite" is a word invented by Paul.  In the Greek translation, this word never appeared until Paul used it in these Scriptural texts. There were other words, at the time, for "homosexual." Had Paul meant homosexuality, he would have used one of the other words already in existence.  Most probably, Paul was referring in this text to male prostitution, which was very common in those days.

Boswell indicates that the word is unusual to Paul, suggesting that Paul was not thinking of speaking of homosexuality when he used it.  Prostitution is Boswell's first choice.  If not that, he suggests that Paul was condemning general immorality.  Anyhow, the term, according to this argument, refers to some type of immoral man but not to a homosexual.


Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament.  Simply because they are “original,” the terms do not significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.  Nor is it extraordinary that Paul would have invented this one, considering that he obtained it directly from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint:

"meta  arsenos ou koimethese kooiten gyniakos"  (Leviticus 18:22)

"hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos"  (Leviticus 20:13)

In a few words, when Paul used the term "arsenokoite," he derived it directly from the Levitical texts, in the Greek translation; forbidding homosexual behavior.  This meaning could not be much clearer than it is:  though the term is distinctive to Paul, it makes reference specifically to homosexual behavior.

As for the inference that the word can only be applied to male prostitution, an examination of the word indicates that it implies nothing of that kind.  "Arsane," as mentioned earlier, appears a few times in the New Testament and it appears always to refer to "male."  "Koite" appears only twice in the New Testament, meaning "bed" or "couch," and is used with a sexual connotation:

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering (koite) and wantonness, not in strife and envying."  Romans 13:13.
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed (koite) undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."  Hebrews 13:4

Paul used the two words combined to put "male" and "bed" together in a sexual sense.  There is no indication of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words that are combined to make "arsekoite."

The pro-gay theology when examined carefully shows itself to be rooted and built on a very shaky, flawed and weak foundation.  It is a theology as Elodie Ballentine points out, "a theology of desperation."  Understanding its weaknesses and flaws is only part of our task.  Our main task is to learn how to compassionately but firmly, according to the Sacred Text, confront it; speaking the TRUTH in love.  It is our duty before our Creator!

Let us consider some of the pro-gay Scriptural arguments:

1.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "Exactly which Scriptures do you think condemn homosexuality?"

Response:  "Well, Genesis, for example, makes God's intent for sexual relationships pretty clear when it describes the first couple, Adam and Eve."

2.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "There is nothing about gays in those verses!"

Response:  "My point exactly.  The story of Adam and Eve does not say anything about homosexuality, only heterosexuality.  It gives a very clear picture--a standard--of God's intention for men and women.  It is the only standard upheld throughout the Bible.  And the story of Sodom, later in Genesis, makes a very strong statement"

3.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "But not against homosexuality.  The men in Sodom were condemned for trying to rape Lot and his visitors."

Response:  "That, among other things.  But you've got to admit that homosexuality must have been practiced pretty commonly in Sodom, or all the men of the city wouldn't have tried to participate in the rape.  Besides, several other Scriptures refer to Sodom's sins as being sexual, as well as idolatrous and prideful.  Then, of course, there are the two Scriptures in Leviticus."

4.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "But that's the Law.  Christians are not under the Law."

Response:  "No, thank God, we're not.  But the chapters that the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality appear in also contain other sexual sins condemned in both the Old and New Testaments."

5.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "But homosexuality was associated with idol worship back then.  That is why God condemned it."

Response:  "So if the other sins in those chapters--incest, for example, and adultery--weren't associated with idol worship, then they'd be okay too?"

6.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "Of course not!"

Response:  "Then you can't have it both ways. Either all the sins in those chapters were condemned because of their association with idolatry, or none of them were.  The same is true of the first chapter of Romans.  Paul lists quite a few sins there--homosexuality included.  Of course, homosexuality is not the major sin of Romans 1, any more than it's the main sin in Leviticus.  But it's definitely there, condemned and forbidden."

7.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "But the people Paul described in Romans 1 weren't gay.  That's why it was a sin!  God didn't want them changing their nature.  They were heterosexuals indulging in homosexuality.  What made it wrong was the fact that it wasn't natural to them.  Otherwise, it would have been fine."

Response:  "And what about gossips, adulterers, and backbiters in Romans 1?  Were they also people who weren't really gossips, adulterers, or backbiters?  It didn't come naturally them--that was the problem?  I don't think so.  Nothing in Scripture says a certain sexual behavior is a sin unless it somehow comes naturally to you but not the rest of us."

8.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "But I don't think that Paul had any idea what it was like to be truly gay."

Response:  "Probably not, and I don't think it would have mattered one bit if he did.  It's the behavior he condemned, without even considering what factors might have led to it.  In the New Testament, in I Corinthians and 1 Timothy, he lists homosexuality as one of many other sins keeping people away from God."

9.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "But the word he uses for 'homosexuals' in those Scriptures really means 'male prostitutes."'

Response:  "Where did you get that idea?"

10.  Pro-Gay Advocate:  "I read it.  A Yale historian did a careful word study on Paul, and that's what he found.  The word Paul used--the one we usually think of as meaning 'homosexual'--didn't mean homosexual at all."'

Response:  "Well, it certainly didn't mean 'prostitute.'  The word you're talking about is arsenokoite.  It is a Greek term Paul took directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament.  In fact, it's from the Greek translation of the Leviticus verses which specifically refer to homosexuality.  Besides, if you look at the word itself--a compound of the Greek words arsane, meaning male, and koite, meaning bed or couch, you'll see there's nothing in the word even suggesting prostitution.  It's sex between men, not sex for money, that Paul is writing against."

11.  Pro-Gay Advocate: "Well, I still believe the Bible doesn't say anything against my sexuality."

Response:  "And you have every right to believe that.  But at some point you've got to ask yourself: Do I believe the pro-Gay theology because I really think it's true, or because, despite the majority opinion of Bible scholars, I want to believe it?  Is it conviction we're talking about here, or convenience?  Only you can answer that."

VI.  General Religious Arguments

1.  General Religious Argument One:   Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

This one is a favorite at gay parades.  Without fail, when the gay Christian movement is represented, someone always in their group would hold up a sign saying:

WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY:  (What follows is an empty box)

The idea, of course, is that if Jesus did not specifically forbid a behavior, the behavior must not have been very important to Him.  To expand this point further, this argument assumes that if Jesus was not explicitly concerned about something, then we shouldn't be either.

Troy Perry, as is typical of gay Christian leaders, loves to make much of this argument based on silence:  "As for the question 'What did Jesus say about homosexuality?'  The answer is simple.  Jesus said nothing.  Not one thing.  Nothing!  Jesus was more interested in love."  So, according the argument of silence, if Jesus didn't talk about it, neither should we."'

Response:  This argument is misleading and illogical for four reasons:

1.   This argument presumes that the Gospels are more authoritative than rest of the books of the Bible.  To assume that any subject or issue, was less important in the Bible just because Jesus never mentioned it is foreign to the Gospel writers themselves.  At no point did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John declare that their books should be exalted above the Law, the Word of God (Torah) or for that matter, any writings yet to come.  In a few words, the Gospels as well as the teachings (doctrine) are not more important than the rest of the Bible.
 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."  2 Timothy 3:16.  
2.   This argument assumes that the Gospels are more inclusive than they really are.  They are not more authoritative than the rest of Scripture nor are they more comprehensive.  That is, they do not supply us all that we need to know by means of doctrine and practical instruction.

When Jesus promised to send the Comforter, He explained, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13.  The writings of the New Testament are a record of all the things that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to reveal to us through the apostles.  

In fact, some of the Bible's most crucial teachings do not appear in the Gospels.  The doctrine of man's old and new nature defined by Paul in Romans 6; the future of Israel and the mystery of the Gentiles, mentioned by Christ but explained more thoroughly in Romans 9-11; the explanation and the administration of the spiritual gifts described and specified in I Corinthians 12 and 14; the priesthood of Christ illustrated in Hebrews.  All of these appear after the Gospel accounts of Christ's life, death, and resurrection.  And that is without even mentioning the teachings of the Old Testament!  Would anyone dare to say that these doctrines are unimportant simply because they were not mentioned by Jesus?

Let me put it another way,

  • Are we truly to believe that Jesus didn't care about wife-beating or incest, just because He mentioned nothing about them?  
  • Aren't these prohibitions enough to instruct us against incest found in Leviticus and I Corinthians as well as Paul's admonition to husbands to love their wives even if they are not mentioned in the Gospels?  
There are a great many sins Jesus did not mention by name.  Surely, that does not mean they are necessarily lawful for us or condoned by Jesus.  We don't condone such things for that simple reason!

Likewise, Christ's supposed silence on homosexuality in no way negates the very specific prohibitions against it which appear in both the Old and New Testaments.

3.  This argument is faulty in that it assumes that the four Gospels record all of what Jesus said.  The Gospels do not proclaim to be complete accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.  Notice that much of his early years of life are omitted; much of what He did and said still remains unknown.

You see, Luke wrote his Gospel so that Theophilus would "know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."  (Luke 1:4).  John's purposes are limited:  "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."  (John 20:31).  Notice that none of these authors suggested they were recording all of Christ's words.

In fact, John said that would have been impossible:  "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."  (John 21:25).

Assuming then that was the case, how can we be certain Jesus said nothing about homosexuality? No one can say.  As a matter of fact, we can know with certainty that there are other matters of equal importance that were left undiscussed in the Gospels, but were mentioned later in other books of the Bible such as the epistles.  And while homosexuality is absent from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is clearly present in both Testaments and just as conspicuously, it is forbidden.

4.  This argument wrongly assumes that because Jesus said nothing in particular about homosexuality, He said nothing about heterosexuality as a divine standard.  In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus was very specific about His plan for men and women and marriage.  This was God's original plan and design. Sadly, that plan and design has been warped and twisted by a sinfulness and hardness of the heart in almost every possible manner.  In this specific case it was divorce, immorality, and adultery.  Immorality like divorce declares that God's provision and design were deficient.

"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?' 4 And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.' 7 They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?' 8 He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.'"

In Mark 10:5-9, Jesus spoke specifically about His intentional plan for human sexuality:

"5 But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”'

In both these texts, Jesus was asked a hypothetical question:  Was divorce lawful?  Instead of giving a simple "yes" or "no," Jesus cited the Genesis account particularly to show the divine intent in creation, the divine standard by which we must judge all sexual matters.   By citing Genesis, Jesus emphasized several crucial elements of the intent in creation for marriage and the sexual relationship:

  • Independence was one.  
  • A man was to leave his home so as to establish his own family with his wife.  
  • A "one flesh" sexual union (between male and female, man and wife) was another.  
  • And of course, monogamy.

Even though, Jesus may have not mentioned the term homosexuality, many other sexual variations weren't either.  Jesus could not have spelled out better the standard for sexual expression:  male and female, joined together as God’s intended plan for them.  It cannot be assumed that He approved of anything less.


In our modern culture, more and more public school educators are being pressured to accept homosexuality and present it as a normal lifestyle that should be affirmed in students who feel they might be gay.  The students are increasingly embracing the notion and being indoctrinated with the false belief that homosexuals are born, not made.  In our schools preach the false religion that a "gay gene" compels people to seek same-sex partners.  However, the American College of Pediatricians has issued a warning to educators of the dangers of these falsehoods.

In an open letter addressed to school superintendents, they cited portions of The Language of God, in a book by National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.  He stated that homosexuality is "not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."  Doctor Collins, also the former director of the Genome Project, summarized his studies by showing that no known gene compels any behavior and also stated that "environment, particularly childhood experiences, and the prominent role of individual free will choices have a profound effect on us."

The college also stated that "schools should not seek to develop policy which 'affirms' or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion."

The letter provided a link to a fact sheet that highlights research-based conclusions that counter pro-homosexual school programs.  These observations, that homosexuality is caused by choices and influences and not by DNA; and that a homosexual lifestyle is completely unsafe are consistent with a Biblical worldview.  

The danger is that adolescents are vulnerable to confusions and outside influences as they make the transitions from childhood into adulthood.  That is why a school environment that encourages a child to "come out" or self-identify as gay, especially based on falsehood and misleading information, can be detrimental and cause severe damage.  The American College of Pediatricians' letter to school officials states:

"It is the school's legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students.  It is not the school's role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student's medical condition, and certainly not a school's role to 'affirm' a student's perceived personal sexual orientation."'

It is often difficult for me, as one who attended public school some years ago, to believe the shocking reports we hear about the decadence, drugs, immorality, inferior teaching and so forth, that seems to reign in our schools today.  I am not denying there were wrong influences present, but they weren't as bad as today.

The mood now in many of the public schools of our nation is aggressively anti-Christian even though there are some fine and devoted public school teachers as well as administrators.  Christian morality and ethics seem to have faded away and often is met with opposition and intimidation.

There is a subtle attempt in our public schools at "values clarification," or the encouragement of experimentation in "sex education" classes, and the inclusion of homosexuality as a lawful lifestyle as well as easy access to abortions through high school clinics.  Literature courses are now less dominated by humanistic classics but instead by occult and demonic readings including ritual murders.  What is happening to our schools in this nation?

Our new humanistic "elite," atheistic educators, are now welcoming New Age and occult influences in our schools.  This new "Science Framework" mandates teaching evolution as well.  There is a conflict over academic freedom which has emerged between proponents of secular humanism and those who accept a Christian worldview.  The Christian worldview is that God made mankind in His image and that He communicates through His inspired Word, principles, concepts and knowledge that we all need to build proper understanding of ourselves, others and the world around us.  On the other hand, secular humanism is based on the belief that man created God as a projection of his own mind, and that the mind of man is the final arbiter of morality as well as the only source of information about ourselves, others and our world.

In our schools, secular humanism is allowed to present (preach, proselytize, and evangelize!) their position to students.  Yet Christians are prohibited from presenting their position on many issues pertaining to godliness because it is unethical that they are teaching religion.  Sadly, many educators are intimidated since they assume it is illegal to teach religion, that is, Christianity.  The humanists argue that because their position is labeled non-religious or secular, therefore it can be taught.  On the other hand, the Bible because it is labeled religious, cannot be taught!

One of the most ambitious causes of the liberals has been that of ensuring "equal rights" among all people.  Yet, this idea was embraced as a religious goal in the writings of the Bible over 2,000 years ago.  Now that the liberals have embraced this cause, it is no longer seen as a religious concept but a secular one.  Therefore, we can now teach the Christian concept of racial equality.

There are other concepts where students rarely hear an objective and effective case presented against abortion, homosexuality and fornication.  Again, one side of these issues tends to be labeled as non-religious allowing teachers to discuss topics while the other side tends to be labeled religious where the teachers are not allowed to discuss and are off limits in the schools.  The truth is that for whatever reason, teachers often indoctrinate their students with only one point of view, the secular, humanistic, position.

"Anything that affects our belief structure is going to affect us religiously."

When viewing this concept of religion in general, it is impossible to take religion out of the schools because religion or its lack, is a fundamental part of our life which is going to affect our total belief structure and outlook in life.  Anything that affects our belief structure is going to affect us religiously.  Religion is a belief structure and all fields of knowledge are centered upon belief structures.

To demand that schools teach the entire world of knowledge including the religious point of view of the humanist while excluding religious point of view of the Bible believer is censorship of the worst sort.  There is no academic freedom when every area of knowledge can be taught except one, especially when that one area pervades all other areas of knowledge to some extent.

Many Christians have noticed that those who view homosexuality as an acceptable, lawful, lifestyle openly teach their position in the schools (see "The Gay Movement and the Rights of Children" in the Journal of Social Issues, V.34, No. 2, 1978, pp. 137-148).   Yet Christians who are afraid of being labeled "ultra-rightist," "fanatical," or "uninformed," often stand back and say nothing. This is tragic because our Christian faith demands that we speak up wisely and convincingly when presenting a defense of our faith and the Christian viewpoint on all these vital issues.  We as Christians must support each other and the right to convey the Christian beliefs.  Unfortunately, since many Christian so often do not present their position of faith, students are totally unaware of the "other side" on many social issues facing us today such as abortion, same sex marriage, homosexuality, evolution and so forth.  We as Christian must no longer be afraid to speak out for our position of faith.  We have an obligation to defend what we believe in!  We must take a stand and affirm our faith!

Another reason why we as Christians must speak out is because bondage, sadomasochism, pedophilia and incest are now being pushed as acceptable behavior by some liberals and they are using our public schools as indoctrination centers.  Today, books and articles support the position of incest and it is not considered a sexual deviation but normal, healthful and indeed, can "be a very beautiful relationship as long as the proper steps are taken to prevent conception."  This might seem shocking for many, but the crusade to accept homosexuality likewise seemed shocking.

Today, even “Christian” publications and articles are approving homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.  The same is true with incest which is already taking place.  For example one “Christian” journal argued that there is nothing wrong with incest, even with young children.  Outrageous! They go so far as to declare that society's main problem is that she is outdated with many cultural taboos and that "once these are overcome, we can enjoy sexual pleasures with people of the same sex, the opposite sex, animals, children or any other sexual object, and then enjoy the best of all the sexual worlds.  A person well-adjusted sexually is one who can fully enjoy the full range of sexual behavior available to mankind today requiring full sexual adjustment without any hang-ups caused by outdated religious concepts.  And our schools are the main tools or weapons, used to teach the young people this human freedom."

I guarantee you that if school teachers as Christians were to oppose this evil and speak out in defense of our faith, morals and beliefs, there would likely be repercussions in many schools, including denial of tenure (as is already happening in many cases) and outright firings.  One example is the case of a teacher who lost his job in a private religious school just because he taught creationism in his science class. There are other many similar cases throughout our country and what is ironic is that many of these schools are called Christian schools.

In addition Christians must not be afraid to respond by letter to material which seems inaccurately presented, biased or incorrect.  Consider the following letter written by a Christian in response to an article in McCall's Magazine about homosexuality:

"I am totally at loss as to how you arrived at your conclusions in your article on "How School Principals Feel About Homosexuality."  You State that 7% of the principals reported complaints of homosexual contact between teacher and students compared to 13% complaining of heterosexual contact.  This is a ratio of 35 complaints about homosexuality out of every 100 complaints. In view of the fact that according to the best estimates 5% of the population are exclusively homosexuals, your data would indicate that homosexuals are 7 times more likely to seduce students than heterosexuals.  Yet you conclude that 'homosexual teachers are less likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers.'  In spite of the fact that I have a Ph.D in research and statistics, I am unable to understand your conclusions.  Further, I realize that many writers are anxious to serve as apologists for homosexuality and, possibly as a result of these efforts, I have noticed a number of gross statistical and thinking fallacies in their reasoning.  Please respond to the above comments.'"

The writer of this letter is still waiting for an answer from McCall's Magazine.  While it is difficult for Christians to respond to a vast majority of articles, we must respond wisely to the many blatant errors and ill-founded attacks against Christianity.  If each Christian did, I guarantee you that there would be less incorrect information presented to the public.

"It is imperative that Christians be well informed, well read, and insistent on their rights."

Over the last decade we have witnessed an ongoing disintegration of Christian values, perpetuated by a government that is hostile to Christianity.  A government that is not trustworthy at all.  We trust the same government with the handling of our children in our public schools most of their day.  There they are counseled and taught worldly humanism, though we, their parents, know that humanism hates God.  In the secular school system, our children are being taught the traditions of men (humanism) according to the world, which blatantly disregard God and His inspired Word as the main foundation for learning, or the Truth according to Christ.

  • Do you really think the public school system stands with Christ, making it possible for us to stand with them when we entrust our children to them?  
  • Do you think that the classrooms are filled with teachers who are wise according to Scripture, from whom our children may freely learn to walk in wisdom?  
  • Are all their public school mentors walking in wisdom and righteousness?  
  • Are we being faithful bringing up the next generation to know and follow God's commands.
  • Can we take the chance that the faith that we instill in our children will survive the secular education that denies God and hates righteousness and that looks for man to give them all their answers leading them in the paths of unrighteousness?  
  • An unrighteousness such as the homosexual agenda which is ever aggressive to eradicate God's order of sexuality, making what is perverted seem normal to a new generation?  
  • How soon should we throw our children to the wolves? 
  • What do you think?  
  • I would suggest that you read "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" by Bruce Short.

We must not be so naive as to trust our children at a young and tender age to somehow resist the deceptions, seductions and pressures of much older adults who are skilled and experienced at promoting a profane and worldly way of thinking. When they are adults they may be mature enough to fight the Lord's battles. It is not fair to thrust them into the battle before they are equipped. You cannot expect them to be prepared with minimal parental input. Children do not thrive on the absence of parents. If that were so, there would be NO NEED for home and family. Not ALL parents are successful, but that does not mean that they are not needed. When your child has been damaged by a trusted stranger, it is too late. You can't take it back!  Let this sink deep in your heart!


How Is the Christian to Respond to Homosexuality?

The Word of God is very pragmatic about human nature.  It communicates to us that we all have fallen short of God's standard of righteousness and are worthy of God's condemnation.  However, there is forgiveness, redemption and freedom from the bondage of sin through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Romans 3:10-26.

We are all aware that we live in a world that is sin-sick where lawlessness thrives.  A world that seems to care so little about God's divine standards and that is at war and in opposition to Him and His rule.  A world that it is absolutely at odds with its Creator.  A world as Paul said that walks according to the prince of darkness, Satan, in complete disobedience to its Creator.

"In which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."   Ephesians 2:2

Our Lord Jesus is the best example of One who refused to walk according to Satan's reasonings. Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11), showing Jesus all the kingdoms of this world making an astonishing "offer," Matthew 4:8-11.

"And he said to Him, 'All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.' 10 Then Jesus said to him, 'Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’ 11 Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him."'

It is no surprise to find sexual immorality being exhibited in such a world of darkness.  Indeed, when Paul told the Corinthian church not to associate with immoral people, he did not mean with the immoral people (fornicators) in general, otherwise they would have to leave this world in order to avoid them (I Corinthians 5:9-10).  It is vital when taking a moral stand in this fallen world to remember the primary issue.  If people are dead because of their sins, they are without Christ and His hope.  Their immorality or present state of sin is secondary.  Taking a public stand against their sins demands an invitation to grace, redemption and an acknowledgment of their sinful state which is a symptom of spiritual sickness and death because of sin.

The present day civil law as well as the sympathetic Post-modern world ethic on homosexuality constitute a challenge for Christianity.  As Christians, we are commanded to be salt and light in this world of darkness, Mat. 5:13-16. It is our duty to utter God's moral Law on homosexual sins as well as other ethical moral issues, Ephesians 5:11.   But we must remember that this must be done in a loving, caring and compassionate way.  Remember that Jesus always taught the Truth in love without compromising the Truth and God-given principles in Scripture in a dying culture.

Jesus was not afraid to confront the sins of His day and deal with those issues.  He was very firm in pointing out these sins to the religious leaders of His time who proudly held on to them.  We see this portrayed in the Sermon on the Mount.  He was not reluctant to offer His grace to those caught in sin and who were repentant, John 8:3-11.  He was not afraid to interact with those who were the cast-offs and despised of society. He lovingly shared the Truth with them, John 4:4-42.  For those who were lost, He was not reluctant to go after them, Luke 15:1-10.  And neither should we!  Our lives must be characterized by grace and Truth.  We must seek wisdom to discern what is most appropriate in word and in deed for every given situation.  

Since we have been granted grace and redemption and have been set free from the bondage of sin, we should be able to empathize with those who are sin-sick and living in darkness.  Although, we must act with love and compassion toward sinners, we must never affirm homosexual conduct as morally right.  Following God’s example, we must love the sinner while hating the sin.  Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it can be forgiven and be cleansed as well as conquered by the grace of God, I Corinthians 6:9-11.  The Gospel of our Lord and Savior offers the "Good News" of forgiveness of sins and the hope for a transformed and regenerated life to homosexuals as well as to all sinners.  Converted homosexuals, like any other sinners, are to be welcomed into Christ's church. In God's church, we all strive to understand God's Way for man and to abide by His revealed Word. In Christ we all acknowledge through the glorious Gospel of Christ, the need for repentance, the saving grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and the hope of a new life available through His death and resurrection.  

Therefore, it is imperative that the Gospel message be preached to sinners.  The power that God placed in the Gospel is able to penetrate to the heart of man and meet his spiritual needs by offering redemption and salvation.  The Gospel has the power to transform and regenerate the heart of sinful men.  The sinful man can become righteous when there is godly sorrow that works repentance.  And yes, it can change, mold and transform the heart of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-genders.

As Christians, we must remember the parable of the sower, Matthew 13:4-5, 7-8.  Our job is to sow the Word of God in the heart of men.  We are not responsible for the type of ground the seed falls on. When we look at our work in planting the seed, it seems like it is a failure many times.  Why?  Because many times those seeds don't take root; most of the ground where the seeds fall is hard, stony or thorny.  But there are always some good results as well, even if they seem very little.

We must remember that we are called to present the "Good News," the Gospel.  Our job, as stewards of God's Truth, is to present the Truth of God clearly, completely, lovingly and responsibly.  Let us keep in mind that when standing before the judgment seat of Christ, we are not going to be asked how many homosexuals or sexually immoral sinners we were able to persuade, but rather how faithfully we stewarded the Truth we were given and how boldly and lovingly we presented it.  The church that Jesus our Lord purchased with His own blood must be a loving church in a dying culture. This ought to be our standard.  I am afraid that our lack of love toward sinners, such as the homosexuals, contributes to the growth and strength of this ugly gay movement.  Love demands that we share, confront their sin and declare the Gospel of our Lord and Savior so that they might be brought to the Truth, Acts 20:24-27.  Remember Christ died for ALL sinners in order that they might be saved.  I know that it is very inconvenient for some Christians to teach the Gospel of the grace of God to homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, trans-genders, fornicators, adulterers and so on, but we must if we don't want to be found guilty of the blood of all men.  

May we bring many prodigals back to our Father's house through God's grace.  May God help us and give us wisdom to speak His Truth in love as we confront the gay movement and pro-gay theology. May we be found pleasing to God in that day and hear Him say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

“… And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.” Jude 22-23


P.S.  I want to leave you with the words of this beautiful song:

Thursday, July 23, 2015


"Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."  
I Corinthians 6:9-11

The recent Supreme Court decision on marriage has shocked us. We have been forced to re-examine the foundations of our beliefs on the purpose and nature of marriage and the laws of God on morality. Let us consider the Bible teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

When Jesus walked among men, the sinners heard Him gladly.  They knew who they were and knew that Jesus loved them and wanted something better for them than a life marred by sin.  The apostle Paul followed that example as he wrote in  I Corinthians 9:19-23,

“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more…. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.  I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”  

The main purpose of this essay will be to provide a Biblical worldview of homosexuality.  I want to share the Truth, the Gospel, with those identified as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender).  The Gospel is the only power to save the sin-sick soul, giving it an eternal rest.  Likewise, my intent is to remove all misconceptions and errors about the Bible, about Jesus, and the church in this matter.  My hope is to provide you with sufficient Scripture that deals with homosexual sins as well as to equip you as a Christian to convey that Truth in love in a persuasive manner so that those in sin might repent and live truly in the likeness of God.  My prayer to God is that I may be able to present the righteousness and Truth of God boldly that might save these dying souls from an eternity in hell. Many souls are blind and need to remove the veil from their eyes that they may understand and come to their senses.  The only power that transforms us into God’s image is the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Our goal must be to grant them repentance through God's everlasting Truth. There is no other way!  It is through the hearing of the Gospel that God saves sinners.  I am reminded of II Timothy 2:24-26.

"The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

The recent Supreme Court decision on marriage has shocked us.  We have been forced to re-examine the foundations of our beliefs on the purpose and nature of marriage and the laws of God on morality. After this alarming decision had come down from the Supreme Court of the United States of America about same-sex marriage, the responses and thoughts of many made me sad.  Why?  Because many seem to have forgotten what really matters. Our goal as Christians is to share the Good News, the Gospel, with sinners.  Some behave as if they are afraid of persecution for doing what is right.  Many make arguments that don't amount to a hill of beans and forget the power of the Gospel to persuade men to repent and live for righteousness.  May God help us to not bow down to that which is against God and His everlasting Word, 

"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer thee in this matter.  If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of thy hand, O king.  But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."  Daniel 3:16-18.  

Don't you think we need this as a reminder at this time in our nation?  A time of considerable deception.  YES, I am grieving with you!  Why?  
  • Simply because our nation and her Supreme Court has disregarded all divine rules of order: the righteous principles of right and wrong, which our God has ordained.  
  • Yes, I am grieving because of the luke-warmness, tolerance and even apostasy of the Lord's church which He purchased with His own blood.  
  • I am grieving because some Christians have forgotten God's intent for marriage from the beginning, one man with one woman for life, Genesis 1:-28 and 2:21-24.  God elevates marriage far higher than many of us understand.  God chose marriage to portray to us the oneness of Christ and His bride, the church, Rev. 21:2,9.  The marriage relationship must present this picture to the world.  
  • I am grieving because many have forgotten to suffer for Christ.  Those who submit to God's authority will indeed suffer persecution in one way or another.  It is sure to come!  Phil. 1:29; 2 Timothy 3:12; James 1:2; I Peter 4:12-16.  Let us follow the example of the apostles' generation who rejoiced because they were considered worthy to suffer for Christ's sake.  May the Lord help us to suffer the world's shame and put His glory on display, to glorify and magnify Him.  It is time to stand for Truth and advocate for righteousness in this nation.  It is time to imprint God's Laws in the hearts of men.

Without a doubt, homosexual immorality is a controversial issue in our culture today.  For some, it is a matter of equal rights that same-sex marriage be legalized.  For others, it is a moral issue because the Bible addresses it.  As a terrible consequence of this, much of the debate on the issue is a meaningless discussion.  The Truth is that homosexuality is a SIN.   Period!

I am aware that many of us prefer peace to war, but we must not be silent if we are to remain faithful to God's Biblical teachings.  We have no other choice!  There is no room to cry out "peace, peace when there is no peace."  It is imperative that we be reminded of what the Bible says in such areas.  

With this in mind, I will be looking at:
  1. Homosexuality and the law
  2. The Bible and same-sex marriage..
  3. The origins of homosexuality.  
  4. Is homosexuality normal? 
  5. The world ethic on homosexuality.
  6. The Biblical ethic on homosexuality/The Bible worldview.
  7. The homosexual agenda in the Public Schools.
  8. And the Christian response to homosexuality.
Let us consider this issue in two parts.  Part One will include points 1-5Part Two will include points 6-8.


We live in a culture where Christianity and God's Laws are excluded from the public arena.  The lawfulness of homosexual marriage is openly debated by legislators.  Many Christians would easily disapprove, but when they are challenged to defend their position, they are quickly silenced by objections and protests.  These protestors say that absolute morality is not the proper domain of politics.  The way a society addresses such controversies is determined by the way they choose to directly answer the following questions:

  1. Can man legislate morality?
  2. If so, by what standard should he legislate? 
  3. And does this standard or law evolve?

The answer to each of these questions rests entirely in the Bible, that is, in one's approach to origins. The postmodern argument is that God's Laws are morally neutral and human reason is the arbiter or judge of Truth and that standards change as cultures develop or evolve. 

Today, postmodern philosophers believe that the whole idea of ethics is absurd.  They argue that the concept of right and wrong is misguided.  As a tragic result, many will accept whatever is dictated by those who are in power, without judging the fundamental moral rightness or wrongness of their dictates.  Abortion for example, is accepted and right because it is lawful.  The same is true with euthanasia, homosexuality and other similar issues.  If the majority of society allows it, it is accepted as right.  Our culture describes homosexuality as a mental disorder, alternate behavior, or simply a normal expression of sexual behavior.  God’s absolute standards become a joke.  His laws are reduced to no more than suggestions where lawlessness and confusion rule. 

1.  Can Man Legislate Morality?

It is impossible to pass a law which is free from moral implications.  So, the question is:

  • From which system of moral laws can man legislate?   Take notice that all laws are either explicitly moral or procedural to a moral concept.  Each of these principles is rooted in the book of origins, Genesis.  How?
    • God is the Creator of order, Genesis 1:31.  He is not the Author of confusion, I Cor. 14:33.
    • God commanded man to bring order to His creation by having “dominion” over every living thing of the earth, thus laying the foundations for property rights, Gen. 1:28.
    • God has established the sanctity of life as the first principle of lawful government, Gen. 9:5-6.

God's main intent for civil law is to be a restraint against evil, Romans 13:4.  Law can neither save nor sanctify.  It is ironic that the humanist argues for salvation by human legislation.  Why?  Simply, because man's biggest problem is not his environment but his sin.  The humanist wants to solve his problems through government programs and better education.  Sadly, in such a humanist world, Jesus is not honored as the True Redeemer.  Instead, we are urged to look to the State to redeem us from our worst habits and instincts.  It is the State that will save us from our hate, our prejudice, our racism, our male chauvinism, our “incorrect speech” and a thousand other common defects.

2.   By What Standard Should Man Legislate?

There are two standards by which man can legislate and govern:  the Law of God, or the will of man. We, Christians must understand that there is no middle ground.  The Law of God establishes a law order with transcendental moral principles.  When we hold these Truths, we obviously show that all men are created equal, and that they are established by our Creator with undeniably absolute rights.  

It is imperative for the Christian to respond to all the conflicts between worldly morals and Bible morals with proper understanding of the origins of our ethic.  The Christian ethic is established by the God of heaven.  He is the only authority that can proclaim what is right and wrong, good and evil. And we as Christians must accept His divine norm.

3.   Does Law Evolve?

One of the most influential jurists of the United States Supreme Court Justice was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.  His massive treatise, The Common Law, superseded Blackstone's Commentaries. Blackstone based his entire examination of law on the supremacy of the Bible, the revealed Word of God.  He affirmed the authority of Scripture as the only legitimate foundation for any society.  He specifically disproved the theory that laws could evolve as societies evolved, changed.  He stated that all laws must be laid on an eternal foundation of righteousness, divine law, only to be found in Scripture.  In spite of his influence to a divine approach to law, his writings have been downgraded to obscurity in most law schools.  Holmes taught that right and wrong do not exist in any absolute sense and that judges must determine the most adequate approach to determine which standards are the most suitable ones at any given point in the evolution of a society.  Holmes and his contemporaries laid the foundation for legalized abortion, no-fault divorce and of course the legalization of homosexuality as well as the rejection of the Framer's vision for Constitutional interpretation.  Today, most courts embrace this evolving standard for Constitutional interpretation, rejecting Blackstone at all cost.

Since the 1960's Western culture has progressively legalized private homosexual acts between consenting adults.  In 2003 our nation, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated all state sodomy laws, opening the doors to the legalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriages state by state.  Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states such that homosexual activities are as acceptable as heterosexual activity. This crosses the Biblical moral baseline since the Bible warns against homosexuality as a sin.  As a terrible consequence of this Satanic law, freedom of speech is effectively restricted on homosexuality and free expression of Christian ethics on sexuality.  The biggest problem with same-sex marriage law is that it generates ethical and moral confusion.  Why?  Simply because God, the Lawgiver, is the true source of all laws and He, the Lawgiver, never changes, Hebrews 13:8.  God’s moral Law for men never changes as well since it reflects His character or righteousness, His holiness.  He has established His standards, “ethics,” from the beginning of creation as revealed in Scripture.  Such Laws would eternally be binding on any society.  Although these standards may evolve from culture to culture, God’s principles or morals will not.  As a result, any debate pertaining to morality, homosexual marriage and so on can only be properly addressed based upon the Genesis foundation.  Only by building upon this divine foundation can we be armed as Christians to speak authoritatively to the defining and challenging issues of our day such as same-sex marriage and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender).  

Without a doubt, our society’s view of ethics has completely changed the cultural morals of our nation and the world.  In fact, it has evolved to the point of denying all traditional Christian views of righteousness.  Sacred morals are widely criticized by the majority as hateful and destructive.  Our Lord Jesus was so right when He said to his disciples,

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” John 15:18-19


Elements of our government and our culture have tried intensely for years to redefine and legalize same-sex (gay) marriage.  When the government legalizes same-sex marriage, they automatically generate ethical and moral confusion.  Why? Because with the passing of time, our society accepts this behavior as a civil right guaranteed by  the "equality" law and all defined ethics would take priority over established Biblical morality.  

Judiciary Equality Law eliminates God and His judgment of sin.  It introduces a moral tangle and actions against those of faith without being judged.  Such laws have but one intent, to violate God's moral baseline, especially in the area of homosexuality.  This will crush our personal ethics.  This law also will tear down a nation with a crown of shame since it is defying all of God's divine Laws.  This is detrimental to any society.  Why?  Because God is the only originator of marriage, Genesis 2:24.  Only God has all authority to define marriage.  According to God's inspired Word, marriage must be the union between a man and a woman.  Period!  It is not the role of the government to redefine marriage.  Notice what the Word of God has to say about this:

"Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people."  Proverbs 14:34

Same-sex marriage is not "marriage."  Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman, for the purpose of having children and raising them to adulthood.  "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it."  Genesis 1:27-28.  "And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him." Genesis 2:18.  Genesis uses Adam and Eve as examples for all marriages.  "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  Genesis 2:24.  This is the divine pattern God demands for all marriages to follow, "And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?  So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."  Matthew 19:4-6.

Marriage is a three-way covenant between a man, his wife, and God.  It involves both genders (male and female).  It requires the concept of "one flesh" which involves physical union.  The wife is to be his companion and helper or helpmeet in the having and raising of children, forming a family after the pattern of God.  Jesus also emphasized such union between one man and one woman in Mark 10:6-8.  This union is joined together by God and in His sight for a lifetime.  Mark 10:9.  This union also implies child conception since the primary reason of this bond between husband and wife is to procreate and to produce offspring, Gen. 1:28, Mal. 2:15.  There is nowhere in the Bible where you find the notion of marriage between two people of the same gender.  They cannot physically conceive and bear children!  Therefore, no one has the right to seize the definition of marriage and redefine it with the absurd excuse of anti-discrimination "equality law."  To do so is to defy and blaspheme God! They bastardize the concept of marriage.

Any society must examine the question as to whether "equality law" without "absolute morality" is a valid objective.  Is it even logical?  Equality Law claims that "all activities above a certain moral baseline are equally valid."  (They keep lowering that moral baseline!)  The truth is that without a moral baseline for judging equality, certain aspects of Equality Law are strictly flawed.  

Same-sex marriage absolutely eliminates the fundamental concept of a mother and a father for every child by law.  It denies a child either a father or a mother.  The child would always be deprived of either his natural mother or father.  Why?  Simply because he will be raised by someone who is not blood-related to him.  The child would always be lacking a mother or father role model.  It ignores the child's best interests.  They do not want a family of children.  They want a child as a toy for personal fulfillment.  Likewise, legal acceptance of same-sex marriage conceals moral values, devalues traditional marriage and weakens all morality.  Although, all homosexual activists claim that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality, still it is false and opposes nature.  It turns a moral wrong into a civil right.  It imposes on all society its acceptance by using the government to legalize it and promote it.  It forces all public officials as well as public schools to teach its acceptability to children and punishes anyone who opposes it or shows disapproval. 

Our society considers morals against homosexuality and same-sex marriage as hateful, intolerant and destructive.  Ironically, what once was accepted by almost everybody as moral, honorable, law-abiding and upright, is now reproved, reprimanded and scolded. 

When a society is pressured to accept all kinds of immoral behavior and same-sex marriage, it is detrimental.  This evil behavior leads to other evil behaviors such as incest, pedophilia, bestiality and other forms of unnatural behavior.  It is a sexual revolution!  It offends God and we must oppose it!   And even though we, Christians, will probably be forced to accept it legally that does not mean we have to accept man's redefinition of marriage.  Even if the law sanctions homosexuality and muzzles free speech on homosexual acts, that still does not make homosexual acts moral.  What matters the most is not what anyone says against homosexuality and homosexual acts, or gay marriage.  What does matter is one's relationship with our Creator.  He is the one Who can command and edit what is right and wrong.  He has decreed that homosexuality is wrong and sinful in His sight.  He will judge and He will bring to account every thought, word, and deed.  In the Day of Judgment, God will judge all people for their sins against Him.  He will judge all who have sinned. He will do this because He is holy and righteous. 


There are many arguments based on the nature of homosexuality, but their only aim is to prove it is inborn, unchangeable, normal and common.  Therefore, it should be accepted as equal to heterosexuality.  In order to challenge such arguments, one must dismantle all pro-gay assumptions by identifying such assumptions as either illogical, misleading or exaggerated.  I will be considering each argument.
  • Argument One:  Homosexuality is Inborn and unchangeable.  Therefore, it is normal and God ordained.

As the gay rights movement has evolved, the idea of homosexuality being inborn has gained broad approval among gays.  Homosexuals claim that they were born gay.   In the Pew Research Center poll, the belief that homosexuality is inborn was connected with the support for same-sex marriage.  Over 70 percent opposed this redefinition, until they were persuaded that it was "inborn." They go so far as to say that homosexuality is "a gift from God to be embraced, celebrated, lived with integrity." This is called the "inborn theory." It implies that if something is inborn, God must have created it.  

No wonder many homosexuals truly believe they were genetically born that way and that they were determined to be gay.  The origination of such belief as well as the growth of the gay rights movement cannot be a coincidence.  To view sexual orientation as inborn is political expedient.  As a result of this, many who would consider homosexuality as immoral would support gay rights if they can be convinced it is genetically inborn.  People tend to view homosexuality more favorably when it is inborn.  No wonder these gay leaders push their gay agenda as an inborn gay theory.  It furthers their cause.

The claim that some people are "born gay" settles this issue for many because it makes them feel better about the sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of someone they care about.  

Gay rights activists refer to three different studies claiming that such studies show that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.  These three studies are known as:
  1. Hamer's X-chromosome research.
  2. LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus.
  3. And Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.  
Sub-Argument One:   Homosexuality is born.  In 1991 Dr. Simon LeVay proved homosexuality to be the result of structures in the hypothalamus. Therefore, it should be accepted as normal.

This argument is exaggerated and misleading.  LeVay, a neuroscientist who examined the brains of 41 cadavers did not prove homosexuality to be inborn.  His research results were not steadily consistent.  All of his subjects had smaller INAH3s (interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus). In fact, three of the homosexual subjects had a larger INAH3s than the heterosexuals.  Furthermore, three of the heterosexual subjects had smaller INAH3s than the average homosexual one.  This is the study most often quoted by those who insist that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn.  Levay's study, research contradicted his own theory for the following reasons:

  • First, because he did not know with certainty which of his subjects were homosexual or heterosexual.  
  • Second, his peers in the neuroscientific community could not agree on whether the INAH3 should be measured by its size and volume of by its numbers of neurons.  
  • Third, it is not clear whether brain structure affects behavior or that behavior affects brain structure.  In other words, it is unclear whether the brain structures caused homosexuality, or if homosexuality affected brain structure.  
  • Fourth, LeVay was a homosexual and was determined to find a genetic cause for homosexuality after the death of his lover.  Furthermore, his main intent, as he admitted, was to educate society about homosexuality, affecting legal and Biblical principles toward it.  
  • Fifth, the scientific community did not unanimously accept this study.  They claimed that in all these three studies, these researchers were homosexuals themselves thus having a secured and established outcome.  They also affirmed that such studies did not stand up to scientific examination.  Thus concluded that "there is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes."  This conclusion was supported by other researchers as well:
"There is no conclusive scientific evidence for any genetic trait causing homosexuality, bisexual, or transgender desires."  

Sub-Argument Two:   Another argument they make is that homosexuality is inborn since a study of men with homosexual twins found that twin brothers of gay man are more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. 

In 1991, psychologist Michael Bailey (a gay rights advocate) and psychiatrist Richard Pillard (who is openly homosexual) compared sets of identical male twins to fraternal twins.  In each set, at least one twin was homosexual.  They found out that of the identical twins, 52 percent were both homosexual as opposed to the fraternal twins, in whom only 22 percent shared a homosexual orientation.  Their final conclusion was that twin brothers of gay men are more likely to become homosexual than heterosexual.  That homosexuality was genetic in origin.   

This argument is false, exaggerated and misleading for the following reasons:

  • First, because Pillard and Bailey's findings as a matter of fact indicated that something besides genes must account for homosexuality.  Baily admitted saying, 'There must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins."  
  • Second, all of the sets of twins studied were raised in the same household.  If the sets of twins in which both brothers were homosexual were raised in separate homes, it would have been easier to believe that genes played a major role in their sexual development. But since they were all raised in the same households, therefore it is impossible to know what effect environment really played and what effect if any, genes played.  
  • Third, both  Pillard, Baily and LeVay did not approach their subject objectively.  Their personal feelings about homosexuality undoubtedly did not disqualify them from doing a good research about the subject. In fact, Pillard said, "a genetic component in sexual orientation says, 'this is not a fault,'" and both he and Bailey stated that they hoped their work would "disprove homophobic claims."  
  • Fourth, a later study of twins produced different results from those of Pillard and Bailey's. These led other researchers to conclude that "genetic factors are an insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientations."  

Sub-Argument Three:   The other argument about inborn homosexuality was made in 1993 by Dr. Dean Hamer in which he claims homosexuality is linked to a gene on the X chromosome which is inherited from the mother. 

Now, this argument is misleading and overstated for two reasons:

  1. His results have yet to be replicated.  His study's conclusions have not been confirmed by further research.
  2. Second, a later similar study contradicted Hamer's conclusions.  
All of the arguments made by LeVay, Pillard and Bailey are illogical since they assume that "inborn" means "normal" or "morally acceptable."

Thus, such an assumption is false for three reasons:  

  1. "Inborn" and "normal" are not necessarily the same.  
  2. Inborn tendencies toward certain behavior as in the case of homosexuality do not make such behaviors moral.
  3. We cannot assume that because something is inborn, therefore it is God ordained.  God never intended for us to be mentally, psychologically, physically and sexually handicapped.  Inborn does not mean "divinely sanctioned."

Other scientists affirm that homosexuality is caused by a complex combination of social (relational), psychological and biological factors.  Others claim that biological factors are not a fundamentally genetic.  Scientific studies point out that homosexuality is what a person does in contrast to gender, race, and impairment.  This relates to what a person is.  The fact is that homosexuality is a learned behavior and its root cause is psychological rather than biological.  The root of the problem is relational rather than genetic.

It is obvious that the scientific community is not convinced that homosexuality is inborn.  They find the "born gay" theories "unfounded and politically dangerous."

If genes do not determine homosexuality, then how does it emerge?  The Bible is clear about how turning away from God can lead to homosexuality and all forms of sexual immorality.

"Their foolish heart was darkened.... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie... For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."  Romans 1:21-27

When man refuses to acknowledge his Creator and His divine design for our lives, the consequences are devastating.  God's Word influences a person's life when it comes to his choices and behavior. Even science cannot refute this.  It is personal choice that seems to be a precursor to homosexual conduct.  The answer to such conduct is available to all through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  

  • Argument Two:  The other argument they make is that because homosexuality is inborn, homosexuals cannot change.  

This argument is false in nature.  They state that "sexual orientation simply cannot be changed."  A gay psychiatrist warned that "there may be severe emotional and social consequences in the attempt to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality."  Of course, this argument draws heavily from the social sciences.  The Bible at no moment supports such a claim!  Indeed, the apostle Paul affirms that homosexuals can change or repent when he declared,

"9 Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."  I Corinthians 6:9-11.  Such loving-kindness makes my eyes tear!!

Sadly, the gay Christian apologist does not believe this text refers to homosexuality, which brings us to the heart of the matter.  Whether they want to accept it or not, homosexual behavior according to the Bible is a SIN.  But it is a fact that it can be changed or repented of.  Jesus frees us from the guilt of sin when we repent and are baptized for the forgiveness of our sins, walking in newness of life, freed from sin, alive to God and dead to sin, Romans 6:3-14.  As new creatures in Him, 2 Corinthians 5:17.  It is a fact that you can be certain of, that any sin either big or small, even homosexuality, can be overcome through the blood of Christ, through redemption, and by God's grace.

So why do homosexuals argue vehemently that they cannot change if they really believe homosexuality is not a biblical forbidden sin?  If something is not a sin, then it will not matter if it is inborn or a choice, immutable or changeable, after all.  When the homosexual tries so hard to prove that their sexuality is inborn and unchangeable, they are betraying themselves with a certain self-doubt.  And while many mental health authorities support strongly that homosexuality is unchangeable, many others believe it can be changed.  Some secular studies have shown success in change among those who testify to have substantial healing by God and the power there is in His Word, the Gospel.  The homosexual as well as the lesbian, bisexual, and transgender must believe in the power of the Gospel to forgive sins and be transformed into righteousness rather than relying on clinical authorities to support their position.  Yes, homosexuality is changeable through the power of the Gospel.  

  • Augument Three:  What is not changeable is desirable.
The other argument they make is that if something is not changeable, therefore it is desirable. This is false again.  Drug and alcohol addiction is not changeable, but nevertheless it is not desirable nor is it justifiable.  Just because I want to do something real bad, does not mean that I have the right to do it, when it is condemned by the Bible.  The desire for the husband or wife of one's neighbor may be very strong and unchangeable, but he still doesn't have the right to commit adultery.  Immorality is not normal.


  • Another argument is that homosexuality is not a psychological aberration or mental illness.  Therefore the church should not condemn it.  
This argument draws its strength from the American Psychiatric Association (APA).   They claim that the APA Board determined that homosexuality is normal.  They say that their gay leaders began protesting demanding APA a reconsideration of homosexuality's diagnostic status and that they be also included in any further discussions with them on the subject.  APA consented and intense discussions and debates followed.  The APA along with the American Psychology Association have since positioned themselves strongly with gay causes promoting the view that homosexuality is normal. As a result of this, gays look for support among them claiming their behavior and orientation as "normal."

Now, this argument is misleading since it omits important facts surrounding the APA decision.  Their decision was not made under normal circumstances but under intimidating ones.  It was made under much conflict, threats and many questionable methods.  The fact is that APA never stated homosexuality is normal.  It did not reflect the views of American psychiatrists.  This argument is also illogical since it assumes that mental health and righteousness are one and the same.  Even if we were to say that both APA and the American psychiatrists had agreed, that still has no bearing on the Christian position on the subject of homosexuality.  The Bible is crystal clear when it speaks of homosexuality as well as other sexual sins that the issues are moral rather than psychological.  What is considered and judged as mentally sound by man does not necessarily make it morally right in the sight of God.

This leads me to this question:  If homosexuality is "normal," then why is it that we don’t find 50 percent of the population to be heterosexual and the other 50 percent as homosexual?

The postmodernists claim that what is, is okay.  That all homosexual activity is a feasible choice. That there is no guilt.  That all homosexual feelings are normal.  They say to our young, "there is nothing wrong with you."  But the question  is, are homosexual feelings normal?  What is normal? Since rational issues seem to be the primary cause of homosexuality, we are able to challenge their postmodern concept that homosexuality is "normal."  When one asks:  Are homosexual feelings normal?  The answer that is given from a perceptive definition of normality is as follows:  "that which functions according to its design."  It is obvious that from this perceptive definition, it is not normal since they don't follow the perceived design pattern.  The truth is that it is not normal because they were not designed that way!


When society rejects God and His everlasting Word, the Bible, and regards homosexuality and same-sex marriage as an equality and non-discrimination issue, then they are without ethics.

  • If feelings of homosexuality are not "normal," what about homosexual acts?  
  • Is there a "correct" worldview on such acts?  
  • Is there any leading standard or ethic on this matter that points out such acts as "right," or "wrong?"  
Most societies tend to go by a majority set of cultural ethics.  It means that they would accept or abide by whatever culture approves of as being "right," and whatever they disapprove of as being "wrong."  This is called moral and cultural relativism.

In a world without ethics, morality and all Biblical concepts such as goodness, decency, integrity, and godliness is notably absent.  Ethics refers to a system of moral standards or principles.  It is a system of laws or rules of conduct acknowledged by a distinct group of people or society.  For Christians, morals and ethics should be absolute standards set by God.  These morals and ethics are centered on God's character, His righteousness, and Law.  Likewise, ethics describes a social system or societal structure of moral codes that govern godly behavior.  From a secular worldview, ethics always change from group to group as well as from society to society.  However, from a Christian worldview, ethics must be concrete and governed by God.  Christian ethics do not change from society to society as secular ethics do.  Discernment and wisdom are a vital part of ethics .  For that, one must be immersed in the Word of God, examining, questioning and reasoning everything.

Postmodernists (atheists and humanists) believe and maintain that ethics are socially and culturally defined.  Therefore, they have few if any absolute values.  The postmodernist argues that since there is no God, our actions are merely the result of our genetic make-up or our social and cultural environment. That what influences us is the material world around us.   They as well as the evolutionists argue that Bonobo apes found in Africa  are our cousins and that we humans share a piece of their DNA.   Therefore, we should not expect our social behavior to be totally different from that of the Bonobos.  They maintain that morality has evolved. They also argue that a human's moral and ethical behavior evolves from other non-human species such as the primitive roots of creatures like the ants.  

Where traditional Christianity diverges is in the concept that man's morality evolved from primitive morality and without the intervention of a Creator. The Bible maintains that man is made in God’s image (Geneses 1:26) and so is capable of reflecting His attributes, such as longsuffering, forgiveness, creativity and wisdom. In particular, man reflects the righteousness and morality of a moral God.   Man has not obtained this by evolution from some primitive morality. Man also is able to worship his Creator - something that is obviously absent in the Bonobo. Therefore, we must expect our society to follow a morality far superior to that of the Bonobo!

A consequence of this weak and distorted ethical view called Postmodernism, we have a distorted ape-like culture where almost anything goes.  That is why justice and righteousness suffers in such a culture. 

In an opinion poll, people were asked if they personally and strongly approved, somewhat approved or strongly disapproved of homosexuality.  A 22 percent approved in 1996 and then a few years later in 2001 a 44 approved.  This is to show that society changes rapidly when it comes to their worldview.  This poll indicates that homosexuality is quickly becoming right in the sight of many people.  It is obvious that the majority of culturally defined ethics is variable and unreliable.   Again, here we see cultural relativism.   One example is slavery.  It was socially acceptable and legal in our nation in 1850, but of course it was still immoral. Today, the reverse is true. Most importantly, if there is no absolute reference point, the trends of cultural relativism can be dangerous and no one is safe. This applies particularly to the handicapped, elderly, and unborn. There is no certain justice. The social consequences are devastating.  Another example is the liberal sexual ethics.  It has increased promiscuity and hence sexually transmitted infections such as HIV cases worldwide.  Men who have sex with men increase their risk of getting HIV.  Liberal, humanistic Law is failing society. The Bible is clear about abstaining from fornication and about saving physical union for marriage:  

"A man shall ... be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."  Geness 2:24  

In conclusion, those who deliberately live immoral, unclean lives in the sight of God are excluded from the kingdom of God and the heavenly city (Rev. 21:27, 22:15), the New Jerusalem, Revelation 22:1-5.  The Word of God still maintains that homosexual feelings are abnormal.  That all homosexual activity (sexual acts) is sin in the sight of God.  That Jesus offers the remedy, the forgiveness for such sin.  That we as Christians must show compassion for those caught up in the sin of homosexuality without compromising the divine and moral principles laid out in the Bible.

It is up to the lesbians, gays, transgenders and bisexuals (LGBT) to decide which path in life they wish to follow:  humanistic law devoid of morality which is the way of death, or God's Law and Biblical morality which is the way of everlasting life.

This concludes part one of our study.  The second part will consider THE BIBLICAL ETHIC ON HOMOSEXUALITY.