Christians shouldn't be gay?
Malevolence is easier to understand than biology
Being gay in the Church is being as depraved as a pedophile.
In 1922, the Vatican promulgated Instructions relating to especially grave canonical crimes, including certain sexual crimes committed by the clergy. Homosexual acts were to be treated in the same way as the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. In 1962 the Instructions were again ratified.
Being gay in the Church can be life-threatening.
In June 2003 when Gene Robinson, who had earlier acknowledged he was more attracted to men than women, became Anglican bishop of New Hampshire. He received death threats and wore a bullet-proof vest at his consecration.
Being gay is a curse.
In June 2009, an evangelical church in Connecticut felt the need to exorcise the 'homosexual demon' from a teenage boy. In February 2010, the Rev. Martin Ssempa performed homosexual exorcisms in Uganda.
A choice?
Increasingly, credible evidence indicates that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a lifestyle choice. Research (published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal in 2008) explains how sexual orientation may be set in the womb.
A group of 90 healthy gay and non-gay adults, men and women, were scanned by scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden to measure the volume of both hemispheres of the brain. It was found that the brains of gay men were more like non-gay women, and gay women more like non-gay men. A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences. In non-gay men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left. The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in gay men and non-gay women. The role of the amygdala is to direct the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus, including the presence of a potential mate. In other words, the part of the brain that determines the person's sexual orientation.
The Karolinska team said that these differences in neural connections could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects.
Some still view homosexuality as a choice, and if that were the case, then it could be a candidate for sinfulness. Preference for the same sex is not a choice, any more than we can choose to have high intelligence, green eyes, or indeed a preference for the opposite sex.
(If you are straight and believe that sexuality is a choice, let me ask: When did you decide you wanted to be straight?)
It's just not right, say the righteous
Most people don't think about the subject much at all, but whilst some (mainly conservative) Christians are willing to accept divorce, even though Jesus said divorce was sinful, they are not willing to accept homosexuality, even though Jesus did not say it was sinful. They are simply encouraged by old Church doctrine and consider homosexuality an outright sin against God.
Christians therefore, are instructed not to be gay. Yet there is a growing number of Christians, both heterosexual and homosexual, who consider gays favourably, encourage relationships to grow, and even condone same-sex marriage.
How can this be permitted if such a preference is a sin?
Are conservatives more homophobic than liberals?
We should consider the psychological differences between conservatives, who consider that being gay is a disgusting affront to general social decency and stability, and liberals, who consider that interfering with an individual's sexuality is against basic human rights.
Where conservatives concern themselves with the welfare of society as a whole, liberals are concerned with the welfare of individuals. And both groups can get so carried away by their own moral stance that they forget the point that a romantic relationship, whether gay or not, is more about love than sex.
As pointed out in the short page about the problem of ordaining women, femininity in men makes them appear submissive and weak. This applies not only to gays but also transsexuals and transvestites. By having a relationship with another man, or dressing as a woman, men can be considered to be damaging society by debasing themselves in wanting to become the "weaker" sex. Conversely, women who adopt male fashion or traits can be considered role models – Margaret Thatcher, for example.
Even a conservative mind would have difficulty in explaining why such feelings are immoral.
Why Christians shouldn't be gay
AIDS has been portrayed by some people as a punishment by God against gays.
If that is so, then he's waited a long time before introducing it.
Christians have, in the main, thrown off some of the old-fashioned racism, sexism and illness phobia, but preference for the same sex is still viewed by most in a negative light.
The tide is turning and tolerance is increasing, but there is a squad of gallant die-hard conservative Christians who are increasingly terrified, obsessed and adamant that having a sexual attraction to the opposite sex is good, and a sexual attraction to the same sex is so bad that it's a sin. And they even attempt to back up their claim with Scripture, which we look at further down this page.
Why is there such a conflict of ideas? On this page, we review some of the reasons why gays are still given a tough time by the Church.
And it's not just Christianity. Most other faiths disapprove of homosexuality. (See Why other religions don't like gays)
Same sex marriage
Marriage has traditionally been between man and woman. There's a fear that anything different demeans marriage, and the institution of marriage is sanctioned by God; therefore gay marriage is against God's will.
Now that would make sense if gay marriage did violate the institute, but it doesn't. Marriage (heterosexual), in Western cultures at least, is becoming less and less popular, so if homosexuals marry then that helps to redress this current trend.
We had an email recently which said:
"To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate."
...as if same-sex marriage would make the slightest difference to the number of babies! Or is the writer suggesting that gays should be forced to marry heterosexuals and conceive in a relationship which wasn't based on love? Would that alter the fact that 37% of babies in the US are born out of wedlock? And none of this addresses the question of whether a society's population has exceeded available sustainable resources.
Same-sex marriage poses no threat to the current traditional institution of marriage.
What's all the fuss about same sex marriage?
My wife and I have been the same sex all our lives.
And what does this new word "pansexual" mean?
Is it an inappropriate relationship with kitchen utensils?
Women's suffrage theoretically doubled the number of voters, and giving blacks the right increased the voter's roll even more. This didn't weaken the power of any vote; on the contrary, it strengthened the result of an election to be truly representative of the people.
However, if a male believes his influence has been weakened by the female vote, or the white feels his vote is more worthy than the black's, then this is blatant sexism or racism.
We like to feel we are growing out of such prejudices, but aversion to sexual preferences that differ from the social norm is still regarded by the homophobic as respectable.
Given a teeny-weeny bit of thought, it is easy to see that:
- When people of two different social classes marry, it is not an upper class person marrying a commoner; rather it is two hearts coming together.
- Similarly when people of two races marry, it is not black marrying white; it is two hearts coming together.
- When people of two religions marry, it is not Christian marrying Jew; it is two hearts coming together.
- When a man and woman marry, it is not male marrying female; it is two hearts coming together.
- And when a gay couple marry, two hearts come together.
How can two hearts coming together be a sin?
Christians should strive to lead sin-less lives
Homosexuality is either a sin or it isn't, and we cannot sit on the fence about this. We cannot say that homosexuality is 'inadvisable'. If it is a sin, then it must be prohibited. If it is not a sin then there should be no prohibition. To settle the matter, the Scriptures are often consulted.
There are several references to support the anti-gay doctrines: Lev. 18:22; 20:12-14; Rom. 1:26-27; I Tim. 1:9-10; and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 explicitly prohibit homosexual acts. And the reasons for such prohibition are increasingly accepted to have been ethnic, rather than biological.
The timing of the introduction of these Laws shows they were intended to distance the Abrahamic from the Greek, Canaanite and Egyptian pagan rituals that included homosexual acts. Those pagan rites have long since disappeared and consequently the prohibition is no longer relevant. And it's important to note that it was the physical (anal sex) which was mentioned; not the psychological feelings or biological homosexual inclinations. These biblical verses say nothing about tendencies or same-sex attraction.
Most Christians will be adamant that we mere humans are not in a position to pick and choose which bits of the Bible we are to believe. So let's look at some other prohibitions:
- Gen. 38:9-10 – death to masturbators, adulterers and those who practice birth control
- Lev. 18:19 – execution for a couple who have sex during the woman's period
- Deut. 23:1 – no entry to the church if you've had a vasectomy
- Deut. 22:13-22 – death to brides who are not virgins and death to adulterers
- Mark 12:18-27 – if a man dies before he has produced a child, his widow should have sex with each of his brothers in turn until she bears a child
...and last but not least...
- Deut. 25:11-12 – a wife shall have a hand cut off if she grabs the private parts of a man who is fighting her husband
Well, not the last word actually. The Bible goes on to forbid entry to the church if your parents were not married, as though that's your fault.
Indeed, if your parents were married but their parents were not, then you cannot join the congregation. And it doesn't stop there. If any of your ancestors, going back 10 generations, were not married, then no entry for you (Deut. 23:2). And this raises the question: just how many people alive today qualify to enter a church? Have all church goers traced their ancestry over the past 300 years and have proof of a legitimate line?
There are further verses saying that prostitution and polygamy is permitted, and how to sell your daughter as a sex slave (Exod. 21:7-11).
Fortunately, we are more enlightened these days.
Leviticus Schmiticus is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. In 2000, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned in any circumstances. The following ironic response is an open letter to Dr Schlessinger which was posted on the internet.
Dear Dr Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
- Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
- I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
- When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus1:9). The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
- I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
- A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
- Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
- Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
- I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
- My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16).
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14).
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Homer Simpson-Caldwell
Does scientific law replace God's law?
Some parts of the Bible seem quite absurd today. Take for example the geocentricism of Eccles. 1:4-5 "The sun also rises, and the sun goes down and hurries to the place from which it came."
Don't get carried away with the idea that our superior intellect and wisdom has made the Bible obsolete. On the contrary; we suffer from so much information overload these days and getting back to basics is vital.
Our intellect is a God-given gift (as is our sexual orientation), and God has also revealed to us things that were not apparent thousands of years ago. Let's look at the first example above (Gen. 38:9-10 – Onan's transgression) something considered not too serious today:
In modern society, the harshest sentences passed down by a court are for the vile crime of murder. And when the Hebrew Scriptures were written, Onan's transgression was tantamount to murder.
At that time, it was believed that the man's sperm contained everything needed to produce a baby. It wasn't until 1827 that the existence of the female egg was discovered and only in the 20th century that ovulation was understood. Moses lived a bit before this time, and if God had mentioned these biological facts to Moses, somehow the message wasn't passed down the line.
Consequently, wasting sperm, through masturbation, birth control, or homosexual acts, was considered to be destroying life (i.e., murder). The people who wrote the Scriptures didn't have the advantage of the knowledge on human sexuality that we have today.
In any case, the Bible was not written as a sex guide book – it is a book about God. It is a book about love. And it is indisputably clear on one very important teaching. Something that is infinitely more important than same-sex attraction. Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second command is similar: Love your neighbour as you love yourself."
It's only a matter of time before all Christians embrace the fact that the soul is more important than the body in which it temporarily resides; and realise that it's time to distance ourselves further from the pagan-like obsession with sexuality and gender, confusing biology with spirituality.
Semantics
Even the words "homosexual" and "homophobia" are daft.
- If we take the "man" definition, then a homosexual would be a woman who has sexual desires for a man.
- If we take the "human" definition, then a homosexual would be anyone who has sexual desires for a human.
- So homophobia means fear of the status quo, fear of things staying the same, fear of not embracing same-sex marriage!
What is it about gays that people are afraid of? A more honest term would be "hatred of gays", since malevolence is easier to understand than biology. But homophobes would deny that and just say they are maintaining their "deeply held convictions" that same-sex marriage will cause something bad to happen.
Errr... such as what?
Church tolerance toward nature's diversity is increasing. The next stage will be total assimilation to the time when there are no gay Christians or straight Christians; just Christians.
Lesbian pope? Inevitable.
Divorce is sin: Mark 10:2-12, Matt. 5:31-32, Matt. 19:3-9, Luke 16:18, 1 Cor. 7:10-13
Ironically, the first titular leader of the Anglican Church (Defender Of The Faith) was King Henry VIII, a divorcee; as is the current King Charles.
Do most Christians oppose homosexuality? Nobody knows what 'most Christians' feel about the subject.
As mentioned at the top of this page, probably most Christians, like the rest of the world, don't think about the subject much at all. But given the lack of support for change in doctrines, particularly in the biggest Churches of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican, it seems safe to say that the liberals are a minority. Increasing, but still a long way to go.
