Gospel Answers
Earnestly Defending the Faith
Flash Intro
The Gospel
Statement of Faith
Apologetics
Apologetics Resources
Christian Doctrine
Cults
About the Author
YouTube Ministry
Contact Us
Overview
The Doctrine of the Trinity
Creation and Intelligent Design
Alleged Contradictions
Controversial Christian Issues
The Gospel Truth About John 8:58
Homosexuality Today: The Art of Justifying Sin
Homosexuality Today: The Art of Justifying Sin

 

 

Arthur Daniels, Jr.

 

 

The subject of homosexuality has been at the center of heated debate and discussion over the last few years. Some people call it a "sin" and "abnormal," while others feel nothing is wrong with it. In fact, some go so far as to say it is a legitimate lifestyle choice or "orientation" that is even equal to heterosexuality, even to the point of advocating same-sex "marriage" and openly, practicing homosexual ministers in the pulpits of our churches and other places of worship.

In today's society it is commonplace to call people who disagree with homosexuality on Biblical and scientific (biological/psychological) grounds imaginative names like "homophobic" or "anti-gay" or "bigots" or "gay-bashers" or, worst of all (tongue in cheek) "religious right." But name-calling on either side of this debate proves nothing and will not get us anywhere.

This is especially true of the favorite term used, "homophobic," since it is a misnomer of the highest order, being derived from the Greek "homo" for "same," and "phobos" meaning "fear." Those of us who believe that homosexuality is not part of "God's creative plan" but is a perversion of it do not "fear" anyone of the same sex. They have a problem with immorality being called moral, and sin being called, in effect, a "righteous," God ordained alternative lifestyle. [This section has been edited from its original form, which had assumed that the "homo" in "homophobic" was derived from Latin instead of Greek.]

Furthermore, it's getting so bad today that people are actually getting fired from their jobs at well-known companies like AllState because of their Judeo-Christian stance against homosexuality (the article here should enrage anyone of good conscience). We have become a society that tolerates abnormality and punishes normality in the court of public opinion.

Examining God's Perspective

Many in the homosexual community are willing to admit that God exists and is the Creator. But they seem to be unwilling to admit that this same Creator condemns homosexuality as wrong and an "abomination." Those of us who follow the historic Judeo-Christian ethic believe that God has spoken in history and has ordained this spoken word to be written down. This spoken word now written down we recognize as the Bible. For those of us who take it seriously and believe it to be authoritative for our lives, it is the final court of arbitration in matters of faith and morals.

Therefore, if it can be shown that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it stands to reason that the Creator knows best and we should align our views with His. So does the Bible condemn homosexuality as something to be avoided as sinful and wrong? To read some of the intellectually dishonest sophistry and Scripture twisting in the literature of many homosexuals and their advocates, you might even be led to believe the Bible actually condones it. But before taking a look at the main passages used to support the view that homosexuality is condemned by the God of the Bible, here is what Dennis Prager, a conservative Jewish radio talkshow host and commentator, had to say about the issue:

"Jews or Christians who take the Bible's views on homosexuality seriously are not obligated to prove that they are not fundamentalists or literalists, let alone bigots (though, of course, people have used the Bible to defend bigotry). Rather, those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Judaism or Christianity bear the burden of proof to reconcile this view with their Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the biblical attitude toward homosexuality, however, such a reconciliation is not possible. All that is possible is to declare: 'I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I consider the Bible wrong.' That would be an intellectually honest approach." [taken from Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality].

This insightful analysis by Mr. Prager demonstrates that you do not have to be a "Fundamentalist Christian" in order to acknowledge the fact that the Bible indeed condemns homosexuality as it does other sins. Even many honest homosexuals will partially admit this. But the problem today is that many people are not being intellectually honest when approaching this issue.

Instead of honestly admitting to what the Bible says, many have ignored the Biblical warnings against adding to or taking away from or otherwise distorting the Bible in order to fabricate the idea that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible (see Proverbs 30:6; Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19 for the warnings). There are numerous examples of this fabrication for the sake of personal bias to be found from popular books to Internet websites.

For example, Mel White, the controversial author of “Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America,” actually believes that his homosexuality is part of “God’s creative plan.” And of course this is all made possible by distorting Scripture so that it seems not to say what it clearly does.

From Mel White we can go to websites like www.christianlesbians.com and read articles by Paul Cahill. He also tries to justify homosexuality by removing it from the realm of sin by twisting Scripture beyond recognition (see particularly the article called “The Bible and Homosexuality”). I have chosen to deal with Mr. Cahill’s arguments in a separate web article soon to be posted. It will expose the intellectual dishonesty and Scriptural distortions used to justify this particular sinful behavior.

The Bible’s Declaration

There are about five main passages that can be used to show that homosexual behavior is condemned by God as sinful. And the key thing to remember is that this condemnation does not only come from the Old Testament. Sure, we have Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and the mention of rabid homosexual behavior in Genesis 19. But we also have Paul in Romans 1:26, 27 of the New Testament calling this behavior “against nature.”

Interestingly enough, in mentioning a variety of sinful behaviors, Paul also mentions “homosexuals” and “sodomites” in the same context of those who are “unrighteous” and will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Paul does the same thing in 1 Timothy 1:9,10 and shows that homosexual behavior is equal to other sins such as fornication (sex between unmarried people) and those who murder their mothers or fathers.

How any clear thinking person can read these passages from both Testaments and not come away understanding that the Bible views homosexuality as sinful is truly remarkable. As Dennis Prager argued, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit what the Bible says but simply say you disagree with the Bible. But for some people with a vested interest and bias in the subject this is not good enough. For them, the Bible and its history must also be dissected, distorted, and manipulated so that these texts do not really prove homosexuality is equated with sin. A detailed analysis of this effort will be reserved for my upcoming article Homosexuality Today 2: The Art of Distorting the Bible.

Common Objections to the Bible’s Declaration

There are four main arguments people use to attempt to defend their homosexuality or lesbianism against what the Bible says. These arguments are all flawed but range in degree from the weakest to the seemingly strongest. We will briefly look at them in this order.

1. The Prior Misuse Argument

It is often said that the Bible has been used to justify slavery, racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism, etc. From this some would like to deduce that because this has been done in the past that this somehow proves that in dealing with homosexuality today people are doing the same thing. But the problem with arguing this way is that it is logically fallacious. Sure, the initial premise is true. But to conclude from that premise that people who teach against homosexuality today are doing the same as those who abused the Bible in the past to justify slavery or other social evils simply does not follow. This is called the fallacy of the non sequitur. So this weakest of the arguments does not hold up rationally. You simply have to prove the point and not assume it to be true because of prior misuse.

2. The "Forget the Bible" Argument

This argument I would grant is probably the most honest one. Those who use it do not have to make excuses for what the Bible says or distort it to make it say that homosexuality is not morally sinful. They can simply say, “Forget the Bible because I don’t care if it does condemn homosexuality. It is a book of myths and fairy tales anyway with all kinds of historical and scientific errors in it. Who cares what it says.” But of course this argument has its own flaws, not the least of which is the fact that those who use it argue from ignorance of the wide body of evidence demonstrating the historical and scientific veracity of the Bible (see these select links showing the reliability and accuracy of the Bible: Archaeology: Biblical Ally or Adversary? Why I Believe the New Testament is Historically Reliable, The Trustworthiness of the Bible, and Evidence and Answers about the Bible). But to me an honest “forget what the Bible says” is much better than the next two attempts, which are based in Biblical ignorance and illiteracy and attempts to distort the text for obvious, self-serving reasons.

3. The "Christians are Inconsistent" Argument

This argument seeks to paint Christians as inconsistent in their views and thereby weaken their stand against homosexuality. If you point them to Leviticus 18:22 which says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination,” they will point you to places like Leviticus 11:7 which prohibits eating pork and Leviticus 11:9 which prohibits eating certain kinds of seafood. If you’re going to be consistent and not “selective” in your interpretation, they argue, then Christians should also abide by these. Now of course it is forgotten that there are indeed some Christians who do abide by these also. But that is beside the point.

Even if we conveniently forget the fact that Paul, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, said that “Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4,5), what homosexuals and their advocates fail to do when arguing this way is to properly distinguish between Hebrew dietary laws and universal moral and ethical laws. There is a very important difference here that seems to be deliberately ignored.

A contemporary example should suffice to expose the foolishness of the argument. How many of you are willing to argue that there is no difference between these two violations of the "law": a) a parking ticket and b) murder. Now we know that officers have the authority to dismiss such tickets and issue a "warning," but how many of you would say issuing a "warning" for murder would be justified for the sake of being "consistent"? Or, conversely, perhaps we should put people in jail for life or have them suffer capital punishment for a parking ticket for the sake of consistency?

So you see the "Christians are inconsistent" argument falls flat on its own face because those who use it create for themselves a self-contradictory problem in which there is no way out and demonstrates the absurdity of the argument.

Now we can see this absurdity by using just the contemporary examples we all can relate to very easily. But if I were to go back to Leviticus they would have greater problems. For if it is argued that we must dispense with eating pork or seafood and other Levitical admonitions along with the condemnation of homosexuality, then perhaps we should also stop condemning adultery (18:20), human sacrifice (18:21), bestiality (18:23), stealing (19:11), lying (19:11), and child prostitution (19:29). After all, if we are going to be "consistent" then don't these have to go as well?

Consequently, those who try to trap Christians with this argument only trap themselves in a morass of absurdity, contradiction, and inconsistency. For the Christian who understands that different laws by nature have different penalties and points of applicability, there are obvious reasons why we hold to some Levitical laws and dispense with others. But ignoring these reasons or pretending that they hold no validity simply to advocate homosexuality will not work.

4. The "Christians Misread the Bible" Argument

Since this argument involves more detailed arguments from the Bible, we will only look at an example or two of this fallacious argument to expose its weakness. For a more comprehensive refutation of this argument, readers are encouraged to read the upcoming article: Homosexuality Today 2: The Art of Distorting the Bible.

By far the most dangerous and deceptive argument is this one. This is because those who use it try to pretend to find Biblical justification for the sin of homosexuality in a way that no other group who sins does. We don't find liars or thieves or murderers trying to argue that what they do is not wrong because Christians have misinterpreted the Bible. But homosexuals and those who do homosexual "apologetics" attempt to do this all the time.

Boykin's Bible Bloopers and Blunders

A writer by the name of Keith Boykin wrote a web article called "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality." In it he tried to argue that Christians were simply not reading the Bible right. But the problem is, neither Mr. Boykin nor the author he refers to in his article (Daniel Helminiak, author of the book "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality") are truly qualified to tell anyone what the Bible really says. Helminiak was refuted soundly here, for those interested. And now I would like to address a few comments by Mr. Boykin to demonstrate his Biblical ignorance and lack of good reasoning skills.

Mr. Boykin says: "First, the creation story in Genesis 2-5 is often cited to prove that 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,' but the story proves no such thing. After Cain killed his brother Abel, he was banished to a land east of Eden where he started a family and built a city (Genesis 4:16-17). But since the Bible at this point mentions no other humans besides Adam and Eve, how could Cain have created such a city if there were no other people on Earth? Clearly, the story of Adam and Eve does not tell us all of the people that God created, so it's quite possible that there were 'Adam and Steve' couples around as well."

Boykin is trying to be clever but fails miserably. God did create Adam and then created a mate for him. But did God create another man to be his mate? No. Even Boykin would be foolish to disagree with this. Boykin tries to argue from his own Biblical ignorance and from silence to assert that it was somehow "possible" for there to have been "Adam and Steve" couples around. But the fundamental question is this: Can "Adam and Steve" couples fulfill the mandate given in Genesis to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)? Such couples are not biologically equipped to reproduce and obviously cannot "be fruitful" or "multiply." But Boykin conveniently forgets this.

And who told Boykin that there were no other people on Earth when Cain went away to build a city? The Bible makes clear that Adam lived 930 years and during this time he had sons and daughters (Genesis 5). Genesis is recognized by many scholars to have not been written in a strict chronological order, and you don't have to be a scholar to see this. So it should be obvious that when Cain left and began to build a city and "knew" his wife, it should be apparent that by that time he had met and married one of his distant sisters.

The other people were merely the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and this in no way "proves" that it is even "possible" for there to have been "Adam and Steve" couples around as well. And even if there were, this would not change the fact that when God originally created the first man and then decided to create a mate for him, he did NOT decide to create another man (Genesis 2:21-25). So in doing this, God validated heterosexual love and companionship, not homosexual so-called sex and union. Boykin has made both Biblical and logical errors in his argumentation, and therefore no one should blindly accept his views. Boykin clearly needs to take courses in Biblical hermeneutics and logical reasoning.

Next Mr. Boykin tries to argue away the writings of the apostle Paul by saying, "...Paul's critical message about homosexuality has been widely debated by biblical scholars, but Paul is hardly a standard that modern Christians would follow. It was Paul, after all, who wrote that women should 'adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array' (I Timothy 2:9). That means the church ladies would have to take off their hats, their weaves, their gold earrings and their pearl necklaces before they could condemn homosexuals. And even then they could not condemn gay men because Paul does not allow women 'to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.'"

This is a sad case of very bad argumentation, for Mr. Boykin avoids what Paul says in order to argue that women can't condemn homosexuals. But what about the men, Mr. Boykin? Surely men are never told to "keep silence" in the churches. But even this argument he uses is based on a misreading of what Paul intended, since the context of what Paul was saying in one place was to keep "silence" to preserve order in services, not to keep silent completely (1 Corinthians 14:26-40), and in another place the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 speaks to a husband/wife relationship in that context, not to all women in every circumstance. Apparently Mr. Boykin didn't do enough homework on the issue so that he could make accurate statements about the Bible and what it means.

In another attempt to justify the unjustifiable, Mr. Boykin goes on:

"The Christian critics of homosexuality rarely mention Jonathan's homosexual love affair with David (I Samuel 18:20, II Samuel 1), the omission of homosexuality from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) or Jesus' omission of any criticism of homosexuality. They see the Bible as a weapon of hate instead of a tool for love. But if homosexuality were such a big concern to Christ, then surely Jesus would have mentioned it and someone would have recorded it. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus take up the issue."

The first problem is that Boykin assumes that Jonathan and David had a "homosexual love affair." The texts he quotes do not say that. In fact, he didn't even quote the right texts to begin with on the topic! This kind of lazy effort speaks volumes. He probably meant to make reference to 1 Samuel 18:1, 3 and 20:17.

In Biblical hermeneutics proper we call this eisegesis, which means to read into the text what's not there. But we are supposed to do exegesis, which means we take out from the text what is there. Here Boykin made a critical error in his misinterpretation. Men can love each other, even as father and son can love each other, without there being a "homosexual" love taking place. And I will not even bother to go into the Hebrew word translated "love" in the passages in question, known as "ahab," to demonstrate why Boykin doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

When Mr. Boykin says that the Ten Commandments don't mention homosexuality, I am reminded of the "argument from silence" fallacy in logic. It usually holds no validity. Has it ever occurred to Mr. Boykin that perhaps the reason for this omission was the fact that homosexuality was not yet a practice of Israel until much later when it was forbidden in Leviticus? Do we have a problem reasoning that far? Is there perhaps a bias that blinds to the obvious?

Now I love when homosexuals and others try to paint Jesus as someone who never condemned homosexuality. Oh really? But this assumes that all truth must be explicit, and that unless you come right out and say "Homosexuality is a sin and not the design of God" then you are not saying it. I have another logical term I think Mr. Boykin should learn: non sequitur. In other words, your reasoning does not follow. The most powerful statement Jesus made against homosexuality is His direct affirmation of heterosexual marriage in Matthew 19:4-6:

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at 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 then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

So you mean to tell me that affirming heterosexuality is not by implication a condemnation of homosexuality? Surely those who ignore this fool themselves. If I affirm that the sky is blue, then by implication I am denying any other color. I don't have to say the sky is not red in order for me to clarify that I do not believe it is red. Neither did Jesus have to say "Homosexuality is a sin and not part of God's design" for Him to have said it by affirmative implication. There is simply no way around this. Jesus never said God made people homosexuals and never affirmed homosexuality as being an "alternative" lifestyle. That too speaks volumes.

So Mr. Boykin, like many others in the homosexual movement, is seemingly content to misread the Bible while claiming Christians misread it, and to distort the truth and deny logical reasoning in order to believe and do as they wish. This is hypocrisy and self-deception of the highest order.

Well did Jeremiah tell us about the human condition and our capacity for self-deception when he said, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it" (17:9) I would implore Mr. Boykin and all homosexuals and their advocates to stop deceiving themselves and repent, asking God for forgiveness and restoration.

I cannot accept the distorted view of Christians which says we see the Bible as a "weapon of hate" instead a tool of love. But what is "love," Mr. Boykin? Would it be "love" for me to tell you the truth or for me to lie to you? If the bridge was out on a highway and I knew it, and you were headed to sure death and destruction on that highway, would it be "love" for me to say nothing or to pretend that everything is fine? Would it be "hate" for me to do all I can to warn you that you are headed for danger? No. If I truly loved you, I would tell you the truth and hope you listen in time. So let's stop the character attacks on Christians and start practicing the "love" that you try to preach. We don't use the Bible as a "weapon" of hate. We try to use it to save lives that God says are headed down the wrong road. You can't reasonably fault us for that.

Biology's Declaration

The "Dual Sin" of Homosexuality

Many people fail to see that the sin of homosexuality is different from other sins in the sense that it is the only one (aside from bestiality, to my knowledge) that involves dual wrong, moral and biological. Not only is the practice of homosexuality a sin but it also violates God's created order in biological sexuality.

Strictly from a scientific perspective, we all know that same-sex couples are biologically incapable (by design) of having sexual intercourse and producing children. The sexual organs were designed by God to complement each other and work together for mutual pleasure and species reproduction. The question then comes to mind that if God truly wanted same-sex couples to engage in sexual activities and so forth, why did He not allow them the ability to procreate as heterosexual couples usually can? Surely the omnipotent God could have made it possible if He so chose.

Homosexuals are well aware of this biological problem and it is not surprising that they generally choose to ignore this problem and its logical implications. The usual retort is that some heterosexual couples can’t have kids either. But the fact that some heterosexual couples may have a defect that hinders normal reproduction doesn’t prove anything for the same-sex couples’ case.

For even if the reproductive organs don’t work properly in some heterosexual couples, the fact remains that the biological function of the sexual organs was designed to work only in a certain way, i.e., heterosexually. And no amount of deceptive rhetoric or Scripture distortion or straw man arguments or emotional appeals can do away with this fact. Biology joins with the Bible to condemn homosexuality as both morally and biologically aberrant.

Homosexual Animals?

Weak attempts have been made to draw conclusions in favor of the homosexual lifestyle from the animal kingdom. Popular books have tried to say that since there are animals that perform homosexual acts, we can conclude from this that homosexual behavior is somehow "natural" and not abnormal. But the same problem from biological design remains even if we grant that some animals perform "homosexual" acts.

No two males or females can reproduce. Sperm and sperm (or egg and egg) cannot provide for the continuance of the race, whether animal or human. Homosexuality by its very nature is self-defeating, for if every creature were to forsake the created order, in time all male/female gendered species would die out. Ultimately, then, homosexuality on a broad scale in this context is synonymous with death.

Another problem ignored by those who try to argue this way is the fact that animals are not the moral creatures that we are. A male dog will "hump" a human's leg in an attempt to perform a sexual act. But is this animal cognitively attempting to commit bestiality, or was the animal simply reacting to certain environmental stimuli out of instinct? It is completely asinine to try to argue for homosexuality from the animal world because animals will attempt to have sex with just about anything when properly stimulated. We know this for a fact without any deep scientific studies. They mainly act on instinct and environmental stimulus, not human moral and cognitive principles. This argument is seriously flawed because people have simply forced human morality and cognition on mere animals. It has no validity whatsoever and in no way validates human homosexuality [update: A good article on this can be found at http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html].

Possible Causes of Homosexuality

In discussing the possible causes of homosexuality, one has to be careful to note that homosexuality is not monolithic. All homosexuals do not share the same experiences and all do not “become” homosexual by the same means. Despite the widespread myth that people are “born” with a homosexual “orientation” that is unchangeable and “natural,” the fact remains that there are about 6 basic potential causes for homosexuality. One of these causes, from a Christian theological perspective, is the sinful nature and is the ultimate cause of all sinful acts and behaviors. We’ve already covered this area so there is no need to repeat the Biblical points here. We will now look at these potential causes in this order:1- People Choosing to be"Gay," 2- Bad Relationship with Male or Female Parent, 3 -Hormonal Imbalance in the Womb, 4- Genetic Defect, and 5- Demonic Activity.

1-People choosing to be “gay”

There are those who want us to believe that you cannot “choose” to be homosexual, just as you cannot “choose” to be African-American. However, the problem is that you have to assume that being “gay” and being born into a particular racial category are somehow equivalent. Yet no one has ever chosen to be Chinese or Irish or African. You are either born that way or you’re not. But I think a good number of people, myself included, have known or do know people who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle.

Women will talk about going out with other women because they’ve been hurt emotionally so much by men. And we know that there are some men out there who will pull the “switch” on women for the same reason. For those homosexual men and women who actually chose to have relations with the same sex, it cannot be said that their “orientation” is caused by genetics and being born a certain way. Since there are some who can make this choice, and no one can make such a choice regarding his or her ethnic background, it would seem that homosexuality cannot be equated with ethnicity in an attempt to justify it as some do.

2- Bad Relationship with Male or Female Parent

Some have argued that one of the reasons for homosexuality is because a male had a bad relationship with his father, or a female had a bad relationship with her mom. The person who seeks to find fulfillment in the same sex is simply trying to attain the love from the same sex he or she did not get from that parent. This argument is based on extensive psychoanalytic research, and it reveals:

“That in the lives of their patients there was unusually often an emotional mismatch between the child and same-sex parent (such as a father who subtly or overtly rejects a son who has many ‘feminine’ traits); or an emotional mismatch between the child and the opposite sex parent; or sexual abuse of a child by either the same sex or opposite sex parent; and most often the rejection of a child by same-sex peers.” (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 104, by Jeffrey Satinover, Baker Books, 1996).

Although I am sure this argument has some validity, it would seem that it has an obvious flaw. There are perhaps millions of people who have not become homosexual but did not have a good relationship with a parent. So what explains this? The answer is simple. As stated earlier, homosexuality is not monolithic. There may be some who are attracted to the same sex for this particular reason, but this does not explain those who do not fall into this category.

3 -Hormonal Imbalance in the Womb

There is evidence that another component in the formation of homosexual “orientation” could be intrauterine environmental conditions. In other words, the conditions in the womb during fetal development. Dr. Satinover remarked about the research of Gunter Dorner:

“In 1991 Gunter Dorner, one of the major researchers of the prenatal hormonal influences on sexuality, published a review of the studies on the subject to date. He concluded that a prenatal abnormality in hormones – perhaps caused by undue stress to the mother – will cause later homosexual behavior.” (p. 101). Dr. Satinover also noted that this conclusion has been "vigorously disputed" and that “…no hormonal difference has ever been discovered between homosexuals and heterosexuals (as is dramatically the case between males and females)…” (p. 102).

However, Dr. Satinover further explained that research done by behavioral neurologist Norman Geschwind and Ronald Galaburda proposed that “homosexuality might be an intrauterine developmental abnormality that is not necessarily hormonal in nature” (p. 102). They found that at least one cause of left-handedness was “an abnormal autoimmune effect during pregnancy” (p. 102). They also noted that left-handedness appeared to be more common among homosexuals. This research has also been disputed, but it seems that there is a remote possibility that there is a link between homosexuality and developmental autoimmune abnormality. Perhaps more detailed and comprehensive research, done without bias or activist agenda, will help us better understand this potential cause of homosexuality.

4- Genetic Defect

After looking at some of the research and pondering the implications, I cannot help but feel a sense of awe at all the variables involved. My initial impression was that, if homosexuality is genetic at all, then it was perhaps a genetic defect, much like sickle-cell anemia. People are born with sickle-cell, but this does not mean they were meant to be that way. It is a genetic defect that needs correcting, not something to be praised or paraded as something to take "pride" in.

From the research so far, it seems that we simply do not know enough about the workings of human genetics to accurately determine the cause or causes of homosexuality from a genetic perspective.

But my “prediction” on this is that if we do find a clearly defined, conclusive genetic link to homosexuality, it will turn out to be a genetic defect. It simply makes sense in light of what we already know about human sexuality and biology. There are only two sexes, not three or four, despite artificial attempts of people create new genders (like “bisexual”) or to have their gender changed.

The little conundrum that homosexuals find themselves in is that they want to be able to say their lifestyle is “normal” and should be accepted because they are “born” that way. Yet if genetic research should find that they are born that way as a result of a genetic defect, they will be faced with the undeniable fact that their condition is something abnormal that should be “corrected.” It is a catch-22 indeed, but it is one that they will have to deal with if later research should prove homosexuality is tied to a genetic defect.

5- Demonic Activity

This last possible cause of homosexuality is perhaps too popular in some Christian circles. Some would argue that all homosexuality is demonic in nature, meaning that they think demon spirits are behind it. While it is entirely possible, from a Biblical point of view, that demons are indeed involved in homosexuality, it does not make sense to argue that all homosexuality is demonic based on what we know so far from the Bible and science.

The Bible tells us that all are sinners (Romans 3:23). We don’t need demons to help us sin. We can do it all by ourselves quite well. But, the Bible also tells us that satan and his demons do indeed involve themselves in our affairs in order to tempt us and provoke us to sin and disobey God. Jesus was tempted by satan himself in Matthew 4. According to Ephesians 2:1-3 we find that satan, the “prince of the power of the air,” is the “spirit” who now works in the “sons of disobedience.”

Satan influenced Peter to even try to “rebuke” Jesus for stating the fact that He would suffer and die and be raised up (Matthew 16:22). Satan himself is said to have “entered” Judas and used him to betray Jesus into the hands of the Romans (Luke 22:3, 47, 48). We even have the testimony from both Testaments that idol worship, the worship of a false god, is tantamount to demon worship (Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20).

So these and other passages demonstrate that demons are active in the world and seek to influence us into disobedience against God’s revealed will. Therefore, since the Bible declares homosexuality against God’s will and biological design, it is no wonder that demons would also get involved with promoting homosexuality just like any other sin.

But we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that homosexuality is any more demonic than any other sin. It is not. It may be different and people may be treating it as if it is something to be proud of by having parades and so forth, but this does not mean it is more demonic or any worse sin in God’s eyes than any other.

A Balanced Gospel of Hope

Despite all of the activist agendas on the “left” or “right,” the fact remains that there is good news (I saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico…no, just kidding…I couldn’t resist that one). The good news is that there is love and hope for those bound by homosexuality, just like there is love and hope for all sinners. The Bible does not say that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and the homosexual has fallen even farther.” But that is tragically how too many Christians have interpreted the verse to say.

On the other hand, and on the other side of the spectrum, we have Christians and homosexual activists trying to change the Bible so that homosexuality is no longer sinful and therefore wrong to be involved in. I would caution those people to remember that God does not take kindly to having His words changed, especially when the meaning is made to say the opposite of what He originally said. The words of Proverbs 30:6 bare repeating here: “Do not add to His words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar” (also see Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18,19).

Homosexuality is much more complex than we might have thought. It is quite possible that all of these potential causes play a part in the homosexuality of just about everyone who professes to be “gay” or “lesbian.” Some of these potential causes may be more dominant than others depending on various factors and the individuals involved. We must be careful not to paint every homosexual with a broad and inaccurate brush, but at the same time we must keep the Biblical perspective that homosexuality is indeed wrong and sinful. It is not in any way part of God’s intended design. It is a deviation from God’s created order.

Yet God in His infinite wisdom and grace has provided grace and restoration from this and all other sins by the sacrificial love He showed us on the Cross. If God can love the sinner and yet hate and despise the sin we commit, then so can we. If we can understand how God can hate our sin and yet still love us as people, then those who are homosexual should also understand that true Christian love demands that we love the homosexual enough to speak the truth about homosexuality while still loving them as people.

“Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Proverbs 27:5,6).

Other good articles on this subject can be found here:

http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-christian-position

http://www.equip.org/articles/homosexuality-facts-and-fiction

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/born-gay

 

 

 


Flash Intro
The Gospel
Statement of Faith
Apologetics
Apologetics Resources
Christian Doctrine
Cults
About the Author
YouTube Ministry
Contact Us