The issue of homosexuality has increasingly received a lot of publicity of late. "Same-sex marriages" has brought homosexual couples equal social security benefits as heterosexual couples. Many church leaders and entire denominations have given their blessing to homosexual relationships and even homosexual ministers. The Bible is often used by advocates of both sides. Yet, what does the Bible really teach about the ethics of homosexuality? What do homosexuals claim about their lifestyle? Is it justified? How should Christians respond to homosexuals? This paper will address the ethics of homosexuality in two parts: The first part of the paper will examine what the Bible says about homosexuality, and the second part of the paper will examine what homosexuals claim about themselves. In this second section, the main premises of ideology proposed by gay rights activists will be carefully examined and refuted.
From the very beginning of His revelation to humankind, God has revealed His order of creation, especially as it relates to sexuality. In Genesis 1 we are told that one purpose in creating the two sexes was procreative — through the sexual union of male and female humanity could reproduce the race: "So 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 said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number.’(Gen. 1:27-28a)." More detail is provided in Genesis 2, however, where we are told that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship: "The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him (Gen. 2:18)." Then, after God created Eve and presented her to Adam, Adam rejoiced in his God-given companion. The chapter concludes: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Gen. 2:24-25)."
In this second chapter of Genesis several items emerge. First, man has need for companionship: "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18); second, God makes provision to meet this need: the creation of woman (2:19-23). And third, God ordains the institution of marriage. We are told that the man would (1) "Leave his father and mother," (2) "Be united to his wife," and (3) "they will become one flesh." Thus we find that heterosexuality is proclaimed to be God's natural order of creation for humanity.
"Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate (Matt. 19:4-6)."
It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive. Now that we have considered God's positive purpose in creating human sexuality, we are ready to look at biblical texts which explicitly address homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Also, Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."
Although these prohibitions explicitly condemn homosexuality as something "detestable" before God, many pro-homosexuals have two objections with these verses: Firstly, these verses are no longer relevant today because these condemnations are contained in the "Holiness Code" of Israel – meaning that they were only applicable to ancient Israelites, to keep them separate from the pagan practices of their neighboring tribes.1 Secondly, parts of this code are not kept today. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott assert that "Consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."2
Now a response to these objections. Firstly, God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23). Other prohibitions listed in Leviticus include incest and adultery (Lev. 18:6ff; 20:10). Were these too only condemned because of the Canaanites? To argue in this fashion is dishonest and denies that there are eternal moral absolutes. Secondly, what of the fact that other parts of the Holiness Code in Leviticus are not kept today? Again, the answer is simple. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, and adultery are still forbidden by God today.
In Genesis 19 we find the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Two angels – in the form of men - come to visit the town of Sodom. Lot, who lives there with his wife and children, extends an invitation to the men to spend the night in his home rather than in the town square. The story recounts how later in the evening, "All the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded [Lot’s] house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (Gen. 19:4-5) Jude 7 says that "Sodom and Gomorrah…gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." According to this NT passage, sexual immorality thus includes homosexuality. When Lot hears of the homosexual requests of the crowd he responds, "No friends, don’t do this wicked thing." Lot rightly hears their homosexual offers as wicked and then made his own counteroffer to let these men do as they wished with his own two daughters. Lot’s unrighteous offer is difficult to understand. What seems clear though is that Lot’s offer was simply what he thought to be the lesser of two evils. The story concludes with the two men striking the people with blindness. The two men tell Lot and his family to quickly leave the city because, "The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it (Gen. 19:13)." The inescapable conclusion when God does destroy these towns is that he is judging them particularly for the sin of homosexuality.
To the Church in Rome Paul writes the following:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:26-27)
Paul's intent in Romans 1 - 3 is to show that all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike, and turned from God. It is not an accident that the apostle begins his argument with a reference to the Creator and His creation (1:16-20). His Jewish/Christian audience would immediately have connected this with Genesis 1 - 2, which, as we have seen, tells us not only about God's created order, but also about the complementary design of male and female within that order. In his catalogue of sins (Rom. 1:18-32) Paul lists homosexuality and lesbianism first after idolatry not because they are the most serious sins, but because they are warning signs that a violation of reason and nature has occurred. Men have inverted God's order by worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and, "As a signal of this error, like the blinking red light on the dashboard of a car which is functioning improperly, God has given them up to "indecent acts" in the inversion of their sexual roles."3
Three main arguments are raised against the historic understanding of this passage. The first is that Paul was not referring to true homosexuality here because he stated that they exchanged "natural relations for unnatural ones." It is argued that for those with a true homosexual orientation, that is their "natural" sexual expression. Hence he could only mean heterosexuals who were leaving their heterosexual relations for what was against their natures.4 This argument involves an amazing anachronism. That is, those saying this are attempting to place a very recent twenty-first century understanding of homosexuality back into the first century mindset of Paul. People in the first century did not think in terms of "sexual orientation." It is inconceivable for Paul to have even attempted to make a psychological differentiation such as this. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."5
The second attempt to refute Paul's clear condemnation of homosexuality argues that his word "unnatural" does not refer to a certain created order, but rather uses "nature" in the sense of "current convention" or "current custom."6 While "nature" is sometimes used in this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:14), the context of Paul's argument in Romans 1 clearly is that of creation and the natural order established by the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:20, 25). Thus Paul is asserting that homosexuality is a gross violation of God's natural design for His creation.
The third attempt to refute Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality argues that nowhere is homosexual love mentioned and condemned.7 It is true that these verses (and even all of Scripture) do not refer to homosexual love, rather only to lust and degrading passions. This is because the Bible never approves any form of sexual love within a homosexual relationship. Motives like love are not the issue in this argument. Homosexuality is wrong because it is intrinsically evil – against the created design for human sexuality.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the apostle Paul states that those guilty of sexual immorality will not inherit the kingdom of God. At the time Paul wrote his letters there was no word in classical, biblical, or patristic Greek which corresponded with our English term "homosexual." Instead, homosexual behavior was described (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27). The words Paul uses here — ‘malakoi’ ("male prostitute") and ‘arsenokoitai’ ("homosexual offenders") — have been translated in different ways. Because of this, those condoning homosexuality have tried to lessen the impact of these verses, saying that all Paul was condemning was either homosexual prostitution or pederasty (i.e., men having sexual relations with boys).8 However, virtually every Greek lexicon, including all of the standard English ones, has understood these words (especially ‘arsenokoitai’) to be referring to homosexuality.9 If Paul were only condemning certain types of homosexuality he would certainly have specified this. Interestingly, the term ‘arsenokoitai’ that Paul used is based on the Greek Septuagint translation of the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus. Paul, a rabbi thoroughly trained in the Torah, was certainly mindful of these Levitical condemnations and the Septuagint translation of them when he chose his wording in 1 Corinthians.
The ideology generally supported by homosexual rights activists includes the following four foundational premises: (10)
The end result of this ideology is that homosexuality should therefore be celebrated. Let us examine each of these premises carefully and methodically in light of well- documented research.
Homosexual rights activists claim that people are "born gay", and that therefore homosexuality is innate because it is genetically or biologically based. The logic is that if a person is born gay, gays should be accepted for who they are and should not be condemned. In 1993 a study was published in Science magazine that purported to find a genetic cause for homosexuality. As a result of the study, Time Magazine’s front cover read, "Born Gay: Science Finds a Genetic Link" (July 26, 1993) In the study, Dean Hamer studied forty pairs of homosexual brothers, and reported that 33 pairs shared a set of five genetic markers. Hamer’s study identified a link on the q28 region of the X chromosone in homosexual males. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, comments on the Hamer’s study. He states:
Even though a trait may have a chromosonal link, it does not necessarily mean it is genetic. Genetic traits are those such as eye colors, that are coded for us by genes alone…Behavioral traits, such as weight, are influenced by genetics, but unlike genetic traits, most behavioral traits are programmed by multiple genes and things such as the environment in the womb, the mother’s health habits or post natal effects of a virus. All of these and more may combine and influence one another throughout a lifetime.10
Brian Suarez, a psychiatric researcher, calculated that at least 8000 people would be required for a study to confirm that a behavioral trait as solely genetic. Hamer’s study doesn’t come close to this. Interestingly, Science revisited the topic in 1999, publishing two articles questioning supposed links to a gay gene. The study in question attempted to duplicate Hamer’s study and was done by George Ebers, a researcher at the University of Western Ontario. Ebers concluded "It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study…Our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28."12 In other words, any claims to have found a "gay gene" were overblown, if not outright wrong. Furtheremore, when Hamer was later asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited."13
If homosexuality is genetic, as gay activists and their media supporters repeatedly claim, then the incidence of identical twins (who have identical genes) either being both homosexual or both heterosexual should be 100%. After all, when we say that eye color is genetically determined, which is true, this means that identical twins always have the same eye color. If we were to find identical twins with different eye colors we would be forced to conclude that although genetics may exert an influence on eye color, it does not determine it. Eye color would therefore be dependent on some additional factor or factors. An example of such a characteristic that is influenced but not determined by genetics is weight.14 When it comes to homosexuality, in one study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," the authors found that identical twins were both homosexual 52% of the time. Satinover concludes from this study: "If accurate, this finding alone argues for the enormous importance of non-genetic factors influencing homosexuality, because…in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100%."15 Born gay? What the studies actually suggest is that persons who experience same-sex attraction are not prisoners of their biology.
The second premise of the gay rights movement is that homosexuals constitute at least 10% of the popluation. USA Today said that there are "25 million gay men and lesbians" (11/13/91) [i.e., about 10% of the US population]. The Washington Times said "10 percent of American men are homosexual and 5 percent of women are lesbian" (11/19/91). The American Psychological Association assures us that homosexuality is "An orientation found consistently in about ten percent of the male population and approximately five percent of the female population' (2/6/89)."16 The truth is that this ten percent statistic comes from a report published more than 40 years ago — the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey.17 Joseph Gudel of the Christian Research Institute, says, "The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population."18 Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, "who by the nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison. This was hardly a representative sample of the American population. There were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. In addition there was clearly a "volunteer bias." In attempting to select a representative group to work with, one does not merely run an ad and accept anyone who responds. Research has shown that those responding to a study as intimate as the one Kinsey was doing would not be representative of the general population. To make matters worse, the people who refer back to this old and flawed study do not quote it accurately. Kinsey did not say that 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was homosexual. Rather, he affirmed that ten percent of white American males were "more or less" exclusively homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 65. The statistic for females was five percent. The actual percentage of those thought to be exclusively homosexual for their entire lives was only four percent of men and two or three percent of women, all based on his allegedly representative sample of the population.19
So, what are the real figures then? A study, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1989 and reported at the 1990 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, resulted in a figure of "less than 1% exclusively homosexual."20 Are these results significant? Well, they are significant in at least setting the record straight as to the actual scope or parameters of the debate. There is quite a difference between one or two percent of the population being homosexual as opposed to ten percent of the population. Obviously, the higher the percentage cited as being homosexual, the more influence those in the gay rights movement can wield.
Homosexual rights advocates claim that the lifestyle of the practicing homosexual is healthy and harms no one. The facts however seem to say otherwise. The question of whether or not homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle can be firstly addressed by examining the issue of promiscuity. If one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practiced must be termed extremely unhealthy. Homosexualities, an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous." Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.21 Just a few years after the publication of this report, Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months."22 In contrast with this, "the average heterosexual male has — throughout his life — from five to nine sex partners."23
Another issue that contributes to whether or not homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle that harms no one concerns the area of sexual practices. The vast preponderance of medical evidence is resoundingly negative. Dr. Bernard J. Klamecki, a medical doctor (rectal specialist) for over 30 years, has written extensively on the sexual practices of homosexuals. The evidence in his article "Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue" clearly demonstrates the unhealthy sexual practices of homosexuals. He writes, "I know well the medical and surgical pathology directly related to the sexual practices typical of active homosexuals."24 He clearly recounts in detail the physical aberrancy and unhealthy effects of the homosexual lifestyle. Most striking is the various bacterial diseases and viral diseases he regularly encounters with his homosexual patients — the most prominent being AIDS. 70 percent of Americans with AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals.25 Is the homosexual lifestyle a healthy one? The information presented above just scratches the surface showing the homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one that can be extremely harmful.
A commonly heard theme proposed by those who are homosexual is simply that a person who has a homosexual orientation cannot change or be changed. But is it true? No one will deny that a person can change his behavior, at least in terms of choosing whether to be sexually active. But what about attraction and desire? Can these change? Can these be changed? Is there any evidence that a homosexual person can become exclusively heterosexual? There are at least three places where we can look for answers:
Are there really changed lives? Yes, there is Darlene Bogle, a woman who "struggled with lesbianism" for 17 years. She was raised in an environment where she was sexually abused by different men and boys, the first at the age of three. Her parents divorced when she was only five. Her new stepfather frequently abused her, both verbally and physically. In her own words she was raised in "a home that lacked nurturing, that was void of positive role models and void of love."26 Today, through the grace and mercy of God, she has been completely free for 15 years from her former lifestyle and is currently a counselor at Paraklete Ministries in Hayward, California. There is Frank Worthen, a practicing homosexual for 25 years. In 1973 he turned back to Jesus Christ, who delivered him from that lifestyle. Since then he has remained free, without once falling back into his old secular behavior. Today he and his wife Anita are missionaries in the Philippines with Exodus International27 - a ministry that helps homosexuals who want to change. There is also Andrew Comiskey, a former homosexual who is now the director of Desert Stream Ministries ( www.desertstream.org).28 – which seeks to lead people to healing of their sexual brokenness. He is also past president of Exodus International. Their web site ( www.exodus-international.org) is full of testimonies of people who have gone from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. New Direction for Life Ministries is a Canadian Christian counselling outreach for people desiring freedom from homosexuality. Their web site ( www.newdirection.ca) is also full of stories of people who claim to have changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.
William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, write in their work Homosexuality in Perspective: "Providing therapeutic support for the homosexually oriented man or woman who wishes to convert or revert to heterosexuality has been an integral part of the practice of psychotherapy for decades."29 Dr. Joseph Nicolosi is a psychologist and psychotherapist who has been helping homosexual men convert to heterosexuality for a number of years now. He is president of NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). Dr. Nicolosi states on his web site ( www.narth.com) that "Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies." In Dr. Robert Kronemeyer’s work Overcoming Homosexuality, he recounts eight case histories of people who sought relief from their lives of homosexual bondage (their own description of their lifestyles) and were converted to heterosexuality.30
Today’s political climate provides little encouragement to researchers who study change in sexual orientation. Thus most of the studies are from the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, the age of a study does not change the fact that change either happened or did not happen. Freeman and Meyer (1975) used behavior therapy techniques in their work with 11 homosexual men. The goal of treatment was "learning to be sexually attracted to females" and "learning not to be sexually attracted to males"31 Four men who had been exclusively homosexual became exclusively heterosexual. An 18 month follow-up was successfully completed.
A more recent research study was done by Van den Aardweg, a psychoanalyst, in 1986. He reported on his work with 101 clients. His goal was "radical change" and the restoration of full heterosexuality. Fifty-eight of his clients stayed in treatment for more than 8 months. Five men who were exclusively homosexual experienced "radical change" and become heterosexual. The follow-up period was two or more years.32
Conclusion
Are there really changed lives, people who were exclusively homosexual and became heterosexual? Yes. Have there not been those who have fallen back into their old lifestyles? Again, the answer is yes, which is to be expected. Just like in Alcoholics Anonymous, the road is rarely easy and involves a tremendous commitment by the individual seeking recovery and healing. Sometimes individuals stumble and never get back up again. Sometimes they stumble, get back up, and continue on in the process of recovery. And occasionally, individuals are healed instantly and never turn back again. But the fact remains that there are many former homosexuals, ex-gays, who have been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.
It shouldn’t surprise us that change is possible. The Bible says it is. In Paul’s letter to the Christians at Corinth he reminds them how some of them had changed:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Cor. 6:9)
Some of the Corinthian believers had left behind their homosexual practices when they had begun to follow Christ. St. Augustine said that our hearts are restless until they find their rest in the Lord. Everyone is tempted to turn to sexual perversions to fill this restlessness. Homosexuality is one among many types of sexual brokenness. However, through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, the restlessness can be met. Healing is possible. Change is possible. New life is possible.
Bible Gateway which has several translations and many languages from which you can choose
or Crosswalk's Bible Study Tools which has many English translations, including the NKJV.
Peoples Church of Montreal
2097 Union Avenue
Montreal, Quebec H3A 2C3