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.
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.]
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
should enrage anyone of good conscience). We have become a society
that tolerates abnormality and punishes normality in the court of
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.
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
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
Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
attempt to justify the unjustifiable, Mr. Boykin goes on:
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.
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
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:
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
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.
Sin" of Homosexuality
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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].
Causes of Homosexuality
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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).
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
Gospel of Hope
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
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
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.
is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds
of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Proverbs
articles on this subject can be found here: