I am not a homosexual, nor do I know any open homosexuals. Yet, I have felt God's call to study this issue very carefully. Though at times in this essay, I may use strong language, I am very open to reproof--which is partly how I got to my position. I beg for us both to prayfully submit ourselves to God's will.

The debate over homosexuality is posed to divide the Christian church. However, a careful reading of Scripture reveals no condemnation of biological attraction to one's own gender (or of two men or two women marrying), and all Christians, bearing in mind the second greatest commandment, must therefore fight against untruth and prejudice against homosexuality.

Especially if one has already become deeply convinced to think that homosexuality is worthy of condemnation, this paper will not be convincing. Yet, if read in a group that discusses it calmly or read as if dialoguing with one's own thoughts, this paper should be very convincing. "Therefore, consider carefully how you listen."

I am using the word "homosexual" to mean a person biologically attracted to his or her own gender--not a merely person who engages in same gender sex. Perhaps the majority of science will be overturned and such persons will be shown not to exist. I cannot operate under such an assumption however, and the burden of proof lies squarely on those would think in such a manner.

[Long commentary on various scriptures edited out]

 
 
You base your argument on what I respectfully submit is a faulty premise: "a careful reading of Scripture reveals no condemnation of biological attraction to one's own gender."

I have two questions for you.

#1. Please point me to the empirical evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality. I have been studying this issue for several years and cannot find any. (I am already familiar with the studies by LeVay, Bailey and Pillard.)

#2. Why is it important for you to bring your agenda about homosexuality to the scriptures, instead of allowing the scripture to address the issue of homosexuality? Whenever someone says (basically) "Yes, this is what it says, but that's not what it means," I look for a presupposition that affects the way they look at the text.

Thank you.

Sue Bohlin
Probe Ministries

 
 
Hello.

You write, "You base your argument on what I respectfully submit is a faulty premise: 'a careful reading of Scripture reveals no condemnation of biological attraction to one's own gender.'"

And then, "#1. Please point me to the empirical evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality. I have been studying this issue for several years and cannot find any. (I am already familiar with the studies by LeVay, Bailey and Pillard.)"

Can you please explain to me how homosexuality is not biological? I am not claiming that it is genetic or unchangeable or 'predestined.' I do not think anyone denies it is influenced by genetics. My point is that is is not a choice in the sense of what one chooses to wear for a day. Think about it this way: have all the homosexuals you know known God and rejected Him? Perhaps they have, and there are not people (about whom I talked in my essay) that did not do so but prefer the same sex. But can you really say that everyone you would call a homosexual knew God and rejected Him as Paul makes clear?

"#2. Why is it important for you to bring your agenda about homosexuality to the scriptures, instead of allowing the scripture to address the issue of homosexuality? Whenever someone says (basically) "Yes, this is what it says, but that's not what it means," I look for a presupposition that affects the way they look at the text. "

What agenda did I bring? Recently I had some time off in the summer (at which time I believed homosexual marriage was condemned by the Bible), and I decided to read the Biblical texts and 'anti-gay' essays. So I fail to see what agenda I bring to the table. In fact, I should take offense at your unsubstantiated claim. It seems that you are the one with an agenda because you assume I have an agenda, instead of reading what I have to say. And you should back up statements claiming that the sum total of my essay is "Yes, this is what [the Bible] says, but that's not what it means", rather than letting your apparent agenda ignore my arguments. Could you please send a substantial reply?

Can you please explain to me how homosexuality is not biological? I am not claiming that it is genetic or unchangeable or 'predestined.'

I would gently suggest that for homosexuality to be biological but not genetic, perhaps you don't understand the role of genes. How else can something be biological without being genetic? Things don't happen biologically without a genetic component.

Nonetheless, I would say that homosexuality is not biological because it is a developmental issue. While there may conceivably be a genetic predisposition (for which, again, there is no evidence, despite attempts to find it), there is nothing physical that determines that someone will become homosexual. There are several components that scientists see in the lives of people who report a homosexual orientation.

First is the family dynamic. With many homosexual men, there is a mother-father-son relationship that happens so often it has become a stereotype: the domineering mother, the passive, detached father, and a strong bond between mother and son. In both homosexual men and lesbians, it is not unusual to see a pattern where the parents don't support and cherish the gender of their children.

Another component is personality, and the perception of what goes on in the family and in life. Which is why you can have two or more siblings growing up in the same family, and one becomes homosexual and the others don't. They experience the same family, but they have differing perceptions of that family.

And, tragically, there is often sexual abuse. About half of homosexual men and 80-85% of lesbian women report having been abused. When boys are given the attention and affection they need but it comes in a sexual way (which constitutes abuse), they can equate getting their God-given emotional needs met, with sex. When girls are abused, it's usually by males, and it's certainly understandable why they would despise their femininity, which makes them vulnerable to sexual abuse, and shut themselves off from men because men=abusers.

Many homosexual men and lesbian women report that they always experienced same-gender attraction, thus they were born gay, but since children were not created to be sexual creatures until later in life, I think it is fair to say this is an inaccurate analysis of their experience. Many of them felt different from the very beginning, not bonding to their same gender, feeling like they were outsiders, but that doesn't make them gay. It's our culture that has identified that as gay.

I think I hear you saying that God doesn't condemn the CONDITION of homosexuality, because you're right, no one chooses same-gender attraction. And I totally agree. SGA (same-gender attraction) is the symptom of emotional deficit, and it is part of living in a fallen world. I think God grieves at His children whose lives have been so bent by others' sin that they want to connect sexually with people of the same sex.

HOWEVER, God still condemns same-gender behavior (i.e., sexual activity). There is a difference between experiencing an attraction and acting on it, just as there is for heterosexuals. God's moral standard for ALL of us is that we experience sex only within a committed, covenantal, heterosexual marriage. Those who are not married, whether straight or homosexual, are called to purity.

Those who experience same-gender attraction are not necessarily condemned to a lonely, unpartnered life. There is hope for change through the power of Jesus Christ. Homosexuality is about getting God-given needs met in ungodly, unhealthy ways, and what God wants is for us to come to Him first to get our needs met, and receive healing for the wounds that made someone homosexual in the first place.

Back to your biological argument, one last thought. While there is no evidence for a genetic component to the homosexual condition, there IS evidence for a genetic component to alcoholism. Would you not agree that God's command not to get drunk is equally applicable across the board to both those who inherit a sensitivity to alcohol, as well as those who do not? Or would you say that this command does not apply to those who are "biologically" prone to drunkenness? I would suggest that because every person has a choice in whether or not to drink alcohol, no one is exempt from God's command not to get drunk. And I would suggest that because every person has a choice in whether or not to voluntarily engage in sexual activity, no one is exempt from God's command to be sexually pure and keep sex within hetersexual marriage. Especially when He has not only commanded sexual purity BUT has added that the homosexual act is an abomination to Him!

This might be a good time to share with you a story a good friend of mine tells. After he became a Christian and realized homosexual activity was sinful and God had a better, higher love for him, he was praying one day and thought about the Leviticus 18 verse, especially the part that says, "IT is an abomination." The Lord broke into his thoughts and asked, "What is 'IT'?" Being literal, my friend answered, "A gender-neutral pronoun."

The Lord said, "Exactly. The abomination is the sex act. It's not you. I love you--it's the homosexual sex act I hate." At that point, the Lord provided him with His own perspective on the night my friend had deliberately given himself over to the gay lifestyle, completely submitting himself to homosexuality and to a very intense relationship with his gay lover. He saw himself and his lover in bed together, and Jesus was standing next to the bed weeping. The Lord put it into my friend's head that the reason He was so distraught was that He had created him for Himself, and had created his lover for Himself, and they were giving to each other the primary energies and their entire hearts that Jesus longed to receive. My friend realized that not just the sex act, but his whole homosexual relationship with his lover was complete idolatry, and it wounded the Lord deeply. They had worshiped each other and had worshiped sexuality, when they were both created to worship the Lord.

Does this make sense?

Sue

 
 
Thank you for your response.

I would gently suggest that for homosexuality to be biological but not genetic, perhaps you don't understand the role of genes. How else can something be biological without being genetic? Things don't happen biologically without a genetic component.

Love,
______

 
 
Hi ______,

Perhaps nothing can be biological without a genetic influence, but there is plenty of biology that comes from the environment and not from genes--the overall compostion of the brain (how it's wired) it very much shaped by the environment.

Interesting hypothesis. What do you base this on? I'm serious. My husband has a Ph.D. in molecular biology, and both of us are baffled at what you're suggesting, but I'm certainly open to new evidence.

You say there is no evidence for a genetic influence, but what about the study that shows a 50-52% correlation among identical twins. People often quote that to prove homosexuality is not genetic, but it also seems to prove that is must be partly genetic.

Why? Think about the implications of IDENTICAL twins, ______. If it were genetic, there wouldn't be any 50% correlation. There would be 100% correlation. Identical twins have the same genes. So you don't end up with identical twins with one right-handed and one left-handed, or one blonde and the other brunette. BUT. . . twins are raised in the same house, experiencing the same familiar culture. That would explain some of them being both gay, and some being one gay-one straight. If it were genetic, you'd never see only a 50% correlation.

It's funny how you say "scientists," but whether or not you are right or wrong, in the scientific community you are a minority and it is sinfully misleading to imply otherwise.

So, are you saying that when it comes to science, majority rules? Are you sure you want to go there?

You argue that even if homosexuality is biological that does not make it right (which I did not argue at all by the way), but even if you are right about the causes of homosexuality, that just as equally does not make it wrong.

No. What makes it wrong is God's revelation. He said homosexual behavior is sinful and it is an abomination. Note: not "homosexual desires" or "homosexual temptations," but homosexual behavior. People don't have a choice over the first two, but they always have a choice over their behavior because we are made in the image of God and we have been given the gift of choice.

Genes, environment, abuse and many things can influence a person's preference for ice cream, but none of those reasons say anything at all about the morality of the choice.

Agreed. As Christians, we believe that morality must come from an outside source, which is the Bible. Revelation gives us information that we cannot get through human reason alone. Preference for ice cream is not a moral issue; sexual behavior always, always is.

Why do you quote "science" to me and only obliquely refer to Scriptures every now and then? One would think that you are so firm in your position that disproving or at least producing some Scriptural evidence would be easy. Could you please do so? I am particularly interested in a response to my interpretation of Romans 1, in which I argue that Paul is clear that wickedness (knowing God and rejecting him) precedes homosexuality, not the other way around.

I have taken several days to respond to your letter so I could prayerfully think about your arguments.

3. Romans 1
This actually proves forcefully and beyond a shadow of a doubt that biological attraction to one's own gender is not what the Bible condemns.

First though, let the key verses in regard to this specific issue be examined: 26-27. Verse 26 is interesting in that it is the only verse in the Bible that can be construed to condemn lesbianism. However, Paul writes that they traded "natural relations for unnatural." Now, this clearly does not have to mean lesbian activity--it could just as easily mean debauched heterosexual activity or even bestiality.

No, it can't. Check the context, which tells you what Paul means. The very next verse draws a parallel the lesbian activity of vs. 26. Verse 27 starts out, "IN THE SAME WAY the men ALSO abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Paul is clearly drawing a parallel between lesbian and homosexual activity.

It is true that Paul goes on to say that like the women, the men gave up "natural relations" and says that they committed shameless acts with men--whether this latter part qualifies only the men's or both the men's and the women's actions is not made manifestly clear.

Does it really matter? The entire section is a condemnation of unnatural sexual activity.

Though saying this does not prove anything--one wonders that if homosexuality is such a horrid thing, God could not have been a little clearer in condemning it,

"A little clearer"?? The word "abomination" makes it very clear how He feels about homosexual behavior.

especially lesbianism and committed relationships between two people of the same gender.

Are you familiar with lesbianism? Are you familiar with "committed relationships between two people of the same gender?"

Depending on the relationship, lesbianism is can be either a tremendously unhealthy enmeshed relationship of emotional dependency where each partner can't function without the other, or just as lust-driven as male homosexuality. Either way, it is idolatry. The women in lesbian relationships exalt the other woman above God; these relationships are never honoring to God because they are idolatrous. They are also extremely emotionally unhealthy. One former lesbian said, "We don't have relationships, we have prisoners." Lesbian relationships are a far cry from God's original intent for marriage, where the spouses complement, not mirror, each other.

Perhaps you heard about the recent breakup of Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche. Their relationship lasted about 3 1/2 years, which is about the max for most lesbian relationships. After that, they get increasingly desperate, controlling, and often abusive. (Not always--I know of one that has lasted 17 years. . .but both women admit that they are living in sin but feel powerless to get out of it. The powerlessness comes from the emotional unhealthiness.) Did you know that the alarming increase of lesbians at battered women's shelters has become a major issue in the "family domestic violence" arena?

And then there are male homosexual "committed relationships." Sociologists (McWhirter & Mattison, Kirk & Madsen) have been studying this concept. They gave up trying to find monogamous, long-term relationships. The gay community, unable to stay monogamous, has coined a new term: "serial monogamy." I know I'm presuming here, but when you and I say "committed relationship," we think of emotionally and sexually exclusive relationships (read: marriage). That's not what you find in the gay community. It's an unending cycle of infatuation and breakup, infatuation and breakup. And in those relationships that DO last for several years, there are inevitable other sexual partners. That's their definition of "committed."

Yet, if the sexual nature and action of these people might be a little unclear, Paul is clear that these people are so because they suppress the truth because they are wicked (verse 18). NOTE WELL--any supposed homosexual behavior follows wickedness, not the other way around.

This is the core of your argument, right?

Let me ask you a question: How do you define sin? Is it not elevating what we want above what God wants? Is it not defying God's commands? Is it not knowing what is right and choosing wrong?

Talk to practicing homosexuals and lesbians. They will tell you that there was a definite point in time when they crossed the line from thinking about same-sex relationships and sexual activity, and actually did it. They made a conscious choice.

It was a choice to sin. That, my friend, is wickedness, and it's no less and no more wicked than the choice to indulge in the sin of gossiping, cheating, overeating, getting drunk, or vaunting ourselves in pride.

Crossing that line is sin, and sin is so wicked that it required the death of the holy Son of God.

You may put it in a category of "less wicked," but it still has eternally significant consequences.

Paul makes clear again and again that the people he is talking about in chapter knew what was right and good and do the opposite.

I refer you to the "crossing the line" decision that all practicing homosexuals and lesbians make.

So one argument that has been raised time and time again recently--why would one think that he is referring in anyway to homosexuals or those in committed, loving, sexual relationships that do no harm?

No harm?

There is physical harm. The risk of being infected with HIV is far greater for gay men than the rest of the population. The risk is 1 in 175,000 for hetero sex. It's 1 in 165 for homosexual men. I did not forget to add the zeroes.

There is emotional harm. Men and women were designed for complementary relationships with each other, not for same-sex relationships. Men end up in one short-lived love affair after another, the aforementioned infatuation/breakup/infatuation/breakup cycle, if they're able to enter into relationships at all. A great many homosexual men experience nothing but anonymous sex with other men whose names they never know. Women's relationships are even stormier, many are short-lived, and there is wrenching pain to the emotional unhealthiness of their "I can't live without you" bondage to each other.

There is spiritual harm. 1 Cor 6:9-11 says that we can't stay connected to our lifestyle of sin and experience the kingdom of God.

Everything he mentions later (in verses 29-31) is clearly and obviously evil without any reservations.

That makes sense, too, because there is a downward spiral that continues as one continually maintains a seared conscience and an "in your face" attitude about his/her sin.

Yet, it is not so clear that being married to a person of one's own gender is harmful.

The fact that God's intent is heterosexual monogamy within the confines of marriage isn't enough for you? Do you not believe me? Look up every reference to sex and sexual sin in the entire Bible. The ONLY sexual relationship God honors is heterosexual marriage between people who are not closely related to each other.

It sounds like you're saying that since the Bible doesn't come right out and say "gay marriage is harmful," it's okay. The Bible doesn't come right out and say "pornography is harmful" or "wifebeating is harmful," either. Are they okay then?

A much simpler interpretation of the verses commonly taken to refer to homosexuality is that these people are wholly given to being evil and as such no longer respect the sacredness of sex and they receive the penalty in their bodies for their sin. How this could be taken to apply to a person who is biologically attracted to his or her own gender is amazing.

I don't accept your "biological attraction" argument, and I still ask for ANY evidence of such a thing. Nonetheless, there is a difference between experiencing same-sex attraction, which is not sin because it is merely a feeling and a temptation, and ACTING on it, which IS sin because a choice has been made. It's an evil choice. Every choice to step from temptation to sin is evil regardless of what it is.

Paul is clear that it refers to those who knowingly, willfully, and maliciously trade the truth for a lie.

It's about suppressing the truth, according to verse 18. Anyone who acts out homosexually is suppressing the truth they they intuitively know because all they have to do is think about the physiology of sex and reproduction to know the truth: that sex is designed to be experienced between a man and a woman, not two same-sex people. Lots of denial happens in homosexual acting out. That's why almost all girls have their first lesbian experience under the influence of alcohol; they need something to help override what they know to be the truth.

At the core of your argument, ______, as I see it, is a belief that homosexual activity just isn't that bad. God says it is, and it cost Jesus His life.

Respectfully,

Sue