Homosexuality: Speaking the Truth in Love (Part 1 of 4)
Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 181 viewsPt. 1: What the OLD Testament teaches about HOMOSEXUALITY.
Notes
Transcript
Homosexuality: Speaking the Truth in Love (Part 1 of 4)
Homosexuality: Speaking the Truth in Love (Part 1 of 4)
Introduction to these notes:
Hi there! I hope that these notes are a useful resource for you but I want to give a couple words of caution before you read them. These notes include things I taught and other things I noted but did not teach. To really make sense of everything I have in these notes please refer to the videos of these teachings on YouTube. For a shortcut to this teaching, GO HERE (https://biblethinker.org/homosexuality-pt1-the-old-testament-passages/ ).
In Christ’s merciful love,
Mike Winger
HomosexualityFirst things firstThis is a series for Christians and those who want to understand Christians and their relationship to homosexualityAll are welcome to listen inA biblical view is what we are going forSubtitle: Speaking truth in love Some speak truth and wield it like a spiked clubNot partnered with love“Put gay people on an island and let them die out”WHAT! Luke 9:51-56 Jesus was rejected by a group of Samarians and James and John said “Lord do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”“You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”This series is NOT about hate.I love gay people. I mean it. It is love for them which compels me to do this series and I HOPE to do it in a way that won’t unnecessarily offend anyoneI don’t intend to use name calling, sarcasm or treat a gay person as less than loved by GodYou are loved as much as God loves meSome have a goal of love which causes them to embrace not only sinners but sins as wellNot partnered with truthThere is a difference between tolerating behavior and approving it (legitimizing it)Some have bought the lie that thinking homosexual acts are sinful means that you hate gay peopleBy definition we only tolerate those things we DISAGREE withIf a parent sees a son using drugs and says “I think your drug use is bad and you should stop” are they hating their child or loving them?So often those who take a view that homosexual acts are sinful are called “intolerant” and are hatedThe irony is that if “tolerance” were really important to those people they would choose to tolerate people who think it is a sin Love shouldn’t mean approving everything1 Corinthians 13:6 (NKJV) 6does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; Our goal – (Eph 4:15) Speak the truth in love This is what is neededThis is what Jesus didIt’s what the Bible teaches us to doTruth WITH LoveAs Jesus was full of grace AND truthAn olive branchIF it is wrong and harmful to people and their relationship with God then the loving thing to do is to try and helpHomosexuals are not the enemy and are NOT those we fight, they are those we fight forWe are dealing with a battle of ideas “the darkness of this age” –Ephesians 6:11–12 (NKJV) 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. What we are going to doUnderstanding the new pro-gay theology which has recently become the fuel of the modern "gay reformers" movement.Understanding how the pro-gay movement is wrong about the Bible and being able to help others understand it.Having a thorough secular case against homosexuality (for those conversations with non-Christians).Answering the pro-gay slogans like "love is love" "two people should be able to do what they want in their own bedroom" "as long as it's two consenting adults" "equal marriage rights" "your bigotry is why so many gays commit suicide" etc.Looking at the legal case against same-sex marriage.Dealing with the anger of pro-gay friends and family.How to truly love gay friends and family in a Christ-like way.Different issuesSame-sex attractionSame-sex behaviorsSame-sex marriageGender identity issuesThe state of thingsSupreme Court Ruling Resultant media celebrationResultant social media rainbowsWhat’s NOT suprising is the number of Christians who have come out in support of homosexual behaviorThis has been a speedy paradigm shiftThis is a watershed issueAnd there is a gay theology that we must addressBecause this is the intellectual veneer of those preaching that this sin is actually love“Jesus would support gay marriage” quotesLet’s start with the biblical view Because, I will be openIf the Bible supports something, so should Christians. But if the Bible condemns something, so should ChristiansLest they fail to represent God truly or even become preachers of liesGay theology given a careful hearingThis may be hard for some of you to hear but I encourage you to listen CAREFULLYFirst, we need to hear what they are sayingThen, we need to weigh the truth of itThe Biblical viewThe false pro-gay theologyA fair hearing of it just for comprehension Matthew Vine’s – 21 when he came out with his new interpretation of the Bible on the issue of marriage and homosexual behaviorIt is nuancedIt’s not the offensive slogans of the past“David and Jonathan”“Jesus and John” (the disciple whom Jesus loved”It’s not in rejecting the authority of the Bible or Jesus as saviorThey are committed (at least in principle) to a biblical Christianity Some quotes from MVs youtube videoOn why he began to reconsider the traditional interpretation The first problem is this: In Matthew 7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching. By their fruit, you will recognize them, he says. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. That doesn’t mean that following Christian teaching will or should be easy, and in fact, many of Jesus’s commands are not easy at all – turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, laying down your life for your friends. But those are all profound acts of love that both reflect God’s love for us and that powerfully affirm the dignity and worth of human life and of human beings. Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.To him “bad fruit” is hurting gay peopleTo him Human dignity and self-esteem being brought down are evidence of bad fruitBiblically – being brought low is a good thing (romans 7-8, Tax collector)False ideasThat being alone is a great evilIt’s not completely aloneThis is offensive to many who do choose to live aloneThis isn’t consistent with what Jesus taught or what 1 Cor 7 saysHis interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 is that man shouldn’t be aloneIn Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men – for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.
This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bible’s own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is.
Is it true that “in all of the ways a woman is a suitable partner for straight men – for gay men, it is another gay man who is a suitable partner”No He ignores the meaning of the words “ezer” helper “kenegdow” doesn’t just mean suitable it means “that which is opposite, that which corresponds”Complimentary geneticsThey fit togetherProducing childrenRepresenting Christ and the churchFulfilling “love and submit” rolesPhysically not suitableGay actions in the bedroom aren’t really the same as the sacred union of man and womanIt’s harmful Two men can’t do what a man and woman do and two women can’t either.Not only does it ignore the words used, and the obvious differences between man and womanIt ignores the fact that Adam and Eve are seen, in the Bible, as representative of all who come from themAdam (the quintessential man) has a woman who is his helper and the titles of marriage given next are gender specific. There is no acknowledging, in the Bible, of a third kind of personWith same-sex desires who rightly belongs with a same-sex partner6 passagesWhat are these 6 verses? There are three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament, so I’ll go in order of their appearance in Scripture. In the Old Testament, we have the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 as well as two prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. And in the New Testament, we have a passage by Paul in Romans 1, as well as two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.Sodom and Gomorrah Gen 18, 19Main points of their theologyThis is an issue of same-sex gang rape and not homosexual monogamous loveTherefore it doesn’t applyThe term “sodomy” is wrongly applied to Sodom The other Bible passages that talk about Sodom identify it’s sin as something other than homosexuality20 times the Bible talks about Sodom and Gomorrah Even mentioning a list of sinsHomosexuality isn’t among that listResponse: what was Sodom’s sin?This isn’t a key passage and it isn’t one I would go toThe example of the men of the city coming against the angels (who appeared as human males) is wickedSodom’s sin is listed as many things in the BiblePride, injustice, not helping the poor and fatherless, being proud of their sin (treating sin as it is a good thing), committing abomination (catch all)Jude 7 (NKJV) 7as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. This verse seems to say that it wasn’t just the act of rape but the nature of the attraction that was also badStrange fleshHeteros sarkos (other than what is right)Angels?No, they didn’t know they were angels and asked for “the man” No, “and Gomorrah, and the cities around them”Certainly this could only be homosexual activityIt’s true that this doesn’t specifically address homosexual consenting relationsNor does it endorse itIt seems to say “this was bad in every way”Jude shows it’s the nature of the relationship NOT merely that it was forced (strange flesh)About design, not desiresWe don’t need to prove HA was the ONLY sin, just that it was a sinLeviticus 18 and 20Leviticus 18:22 (NKJV) 22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 (NKJV) 13If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. What is the sin here?Not rapeNon-consentual would be written differently and the punishment would be one-sidedNot pedophilia Man/child would be written differentlyA man doing with a man what is right with a womanWhat’s right with a woman?Two become one in marriageMan and man can’t substitute man and wifeThat “we are not under the law”Christians have always regarded the Book of Leviticus, in particular, as being inapplicable to them in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the law. So while it is true that Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, it also prohibits a vast array of other behaviors, activities, and foods that Christians have never regarded as being prohibited for them. For example, chapter 11 of Leviticus forbids the eating of pork, shrimp, and lobster, which the church does not consider to be a sin. Chapter 19 forbids planting two kinds of seed in the same field; wearing clothing woven of two types of material; and cutting the hair at the sides of one’s head. Christians have never regarded any of these things to be sinful behaviors, because Christ’s death on the cross liberated Christians from what Paul called the “yoke of slavery.” We are not subject to the Old Law.They claim it has NO application to usResponse: wrong! Though we aren’t under the law as the Israelites were we are to learn truth from it and apply it to our lives today seeing it through an awareness of Christ’s work.2 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV) 16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 1 – we don’t casually cast off the OT LawI just taught a series on thisA- all foods declared clean (Acts 10:8-11:18, Rom 14:14)B- holy days are optional (Rom 14:5-6)C- Sacrifices ended (Heb 7-10)D- constant reaffirmation of moral truths AND principles to learn from all OT Law2- Jesus quoted Leviticus more than any other “love your neighbor as yourself”3- Peter and Paul quote Leviticus1 Peter “be holy for I am holy”App: be holy for God is holy!That same verse is quoted 10 times in the NTApply it to the Jews firstHomosexual acts are forbidden and penalized by death regardless of considerations about love, “marriage” or anything elsePaul’s quotes for application1 Timothy 1:8–11 (NKJV) 8But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. Specifically that the Law’s moral standards on these issues apply today to Jew and GentileEven if “sodomites” wasn’t there, sexual sin in general is applied (fornicators)Many OT moral laws are reissued in the NT, FROM the OT revelation Honor parents, don’t steal, don’t murder, especially things related to heterosexual marriage being the only sanctified bedroom relationshipSo, is there a principle that we can learn? Let’s look more carefully at it and seeLev 18 is its own section of the law“holiness code”Lev 18 is a groupTo not being together during a woman’s periodTo not being with a neighbors wifeTo incestTo incest with a younger family member specificallyTo sacrificing your children to MolechTo a man being with a manTo a man being with an animalMV - But just 3 verses away from the prohibition of male same-sex relations, in 18:19, sexual relations during a woman’s menstrual period are also prohibited, and this, too, is called an “abomination” at the chapters’ close. But this is not regarded as sinful behavior by Christians; rather, it’s seen as a limited matter of ceremonial cleanliness for the ancient Israelites.Response: 1- Don’t make a rule on an exception. 2- It is the lowest rung on the ladder. 3- It is clearly ceremonial and not a moral sin (no sacrifice for menstrual uncleanness is given and it is even called uncleanness in the passage) 4- the majority are moral and are mentioned in the NTMV - Well, Leviticus calls it an abomination, and if it was an abomination then, then it certainly can’t be a good thing now. The term “abomination” is applied to a very broad range of things in the Old Law – eating shellfish in Leviticus 11, eating rabbit or pork in Deuteronomy 14; these are all called abominations. As I just said, sex during a woman’s menstrual period is also called an abomination. The term “abomination” is primarily used in the Old Testament to distinguish practices that are common to foreign nations from those that are distinctly Israelite. This is why Genesis 43:32 says that for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews would be an abomination to the Egyptians, and why Exodus 8:26 says that for the Israelites to make sacrifices near the Pharaoh’s palace would be an abomination to the Egyptians. There is nothing wrong with the Israelites’ sacrifices, of course. The problem with both of these things is that they would blur the lines between practices that are specifically Israelite and those that are foreign. The nature of the term “abomination” in the Old Testament is intentionally culturally specific; it defines religious and cultural boundaries between Israel and other nations. But it’s not a statement about what is intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong, and that’s why numerous things that it’s applied to in the Old Testament have long been accepted parts of Christian life and practice.That the word “abomination” is a term that “defines religious and cultural boundaries between Israel and other nations. But it’s not a statement about what is intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong, and that’s why numerous things that it’s applied to in the Old Testament have long been accepted parts of Christian life and practice.Response A: The word “abomination” occurs in the English a lot but this Hebrew word is only in Leviticus 6 times“Abomination” in Leviticus 11 (se-qes) is a different word than Lev 18 (To-uh-baht)Every time it is about the actions in Leviticus 18 (incest, child sacrifice, sexual sins)The only one that is singled out is male-male sexual behaviorTwice – Leviticus 18 and 20If anything – this says it’s NOT the same as shellfish Numerous other things it’s applied to are accepted?Not child sacrifice, incest, adulteryOther verses use it differentlyInaccurate Response B: Definitely beside the point. The REASON for the prohibition is given in more words that “abomination” and that reason stands.God judged the other nations for these things!Leviticus 18:1–3 (NKJV) 1Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. Leviticus 18:24–28 (NKJV) 24‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. Judged GentilesThis is where Matthew Vine begins demonizing the Old Testament Law (a tactic commonly used by those who want to attack traditional biblical values)Speaking despairingly about the severity of punishments in the OT LawOkay, but the penalty is death – certainly, that indicates that the behavior in question is particularly bad, and that we should still regard it as sinful. But this overlooks the severity of all of the other punishments in the Old Law. Given the threats posed to the Israelites by starvation, disease, internal discord, and attacks from other tribes, maintaining order and cohesiveness was of paramount importance for them, and so almost all of the punishments in the Old Testament will strike us as being quite harsh. A couple that has sex during the woman’s menstrual period is to be permanently exiled from the community. If a priest’s daughter falls into prostitution, she is to be burned at the stake. Anyone who uses the Lord’s name in vain is not only to be reprimanded, but to be stoned. And anyone who disobeys their parents is to be stoned as well.I must answer this“anyone who disobeys their parents is to be stoned”Then why does the Bible say chasten and discipline?Deut 21:18-21 speaks about thisHis point? To say “just because the penalty was death doesn’t mean it is a moral issue Christians today should face”Response: true. Nor does it mean we should ignore itOur reasons for saying this applies is because of the context, not some casual idea that “death penalty offenses are still offenses for Christians today”The power behind his arguments is in the fact that some of what he says is true, but it doesn’t warrant his conclusionLike saying “humans need to drink water to live, water is in the ocean, humans need to drink the ocean”Just like this argument ignores the issues of salt water being unhealthy Gay-theology ignores many of the reasons these passages are such a unanimous declaration against all homosexual behavior
END WEEK ONE – BEGIN WEEK TWO
ReminderThis class is for Christians and those who want to understand the Christian/biblical viewSpeaking the truth in loveAll are welcomeIf it’s ok, we want to embrace itIf not we want to rescue people from sin that will harmtheir relationship with Godothersand themselves We are going through the pro-gay theology that has recently become popularWe are hearing it outAnd analyzing it carefullyHowever, it falls shortNot historically accurateNot grammatically accurateNot philosophically soundNot biblicalLast time we looked at the OTFrom Genesis 19 and Jude’s commentaryTo Leviticus 18 and 20 in contextNamely that God judges Gentiles by these standardsThis time it is the NTRomans 1Matthew Vines admits that the most powerful passage against homosexual behavior is not in the Old Testament (though that would be sufficient) but is in the New.Romans 1:26–27 (NKJV) 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. He rejects the traditional view initially because it results in “God desiring gay people to be forced to be alone their entire lives”This is important – it fuels the theologyThough their loneliness can’t be compared to Adam’s “only human” isn’t the same as “single human”1 Cor 7 lauds singleness as a good thing, better than marriagePro-gay theology makes a big deal about the context having mentioned idolatry firstThat they exchanged God for idolsMV will speak as if it only applies to idolatersActually, it’s more broad than that – Gentiles (the majority of the world)In context Romans 1-3 is about saying “all the world is guilty before God” not just idolaters but GentilesWith this idea in mind they take it somewhere very peculiar, But let’s hear it outMV - Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality—they were naturally disposed to it just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God—but they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior. Paul’s argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange; the reason, he says, that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him, exchanged Him for idols. Paul’s reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force, in order for it to make sense within this argument, the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them. And that is exactly how he describes it.Pause: Paul’s not making an analogy. It’s just a plain description of the guilt of mankind in various areas (rejecting God, sinning)
But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Paul’s argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging “the natural for the unnatural” in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.
So, gay people are NATURALLY gay and therefore Paul was only condemning heterosexuals for experimenting with homosexualityMV - But is this just a clever argument that has no grounding in the historical context of Paul’s world and therefore yields an interpretation that could not be what he originally intended? After all, the concept of sexual orientation is very recent; it was only developed within the past century, and has only come to be widely understood within the past few decades. So how we can we take our modern categories and understandings and use them to interpret a text that is so far removed from them? But that level of removal is precisely the point. In the ancient world, homosexuality was widely considered, not to be a different sexual orientation or something inherent in a small minority of people, but to be an excess of lust or passion that anyone could be prone to if they let themselves go too much. Just a couple of quotes to illustrate this. A well-known first-century Greek philosopher named Dio Chrysostom wrote the following:
“The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things [referring to heterosexual relations] …will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman’s love, as a thing too readily given…and will turn his assault against the male quarters…believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure.”
A fourth-century Christian writer said of same-sex behavior: “You will see that all such desire stems from a greed which will not remain within its usual bounds.” The abandonment of heterosexual relations for same-sex lust was frequently compared to gluttony in eating or drinking. Sexuality was seen as a spectrum, with opposite-sex relations being the product of a “moderate” level of desire and same-sex relations the product of an excessive amount of desire. Personal orientation had nothing to do with it. But within this framework, as I said, same-sex relations were associated with the height of excess and lust, and that is why Paul invokes them in Romans 1. His purpose is to show that the idolaters were given over to unbridled passion, and to depict a scene of sexual chaos and excess that illustrates that. And that is completely consistent with how same-sex relations were most commonly described at the time. But the only reason that a reference to same-sex behavior helps Paul illustrate general sexual chaos is because the people he is describing first began with opposite-sex relations and then, in a burst of lust, abandoned them, exchanged them for something else.
So, the only thing Paul rejected was heterosexuals acting like homosexualsA central argument – “They only knew about bad homosexual behavior and that’s all Paul condemns. Modern ideas of homosexual ORIENTATION were unknown and committed gay relationships were unknown. This is why none of these verses apply!”MV “No same-sex relationships were marked by long term commitment and love”The logic is like thisThere were many bad examples of homosexual behavior in the ancient worldFollowed by quotes or descriptions of the worst examples they can findOf which there are manyTherefore, when the Bible condemns SS behavior, it’s only condemning those things1st problem with thatThe Bible doesn’t single out only those behaviorsIt condemns all homosexual acts without any qualificationsLev 18, 20, Rom 1 2nd problem with thatThe Bible never gives any exceptions to the prohibitions against SS behaviorAll it takes is one verse saying “unless they marry” “unless they love each other” “unless they stay together till death”3rd problem with thatCommitted same sex relations aren’t newPlato’s Symposium – c. 375BCIt explains same-sex desire among men and women to be a result of their inborn natureThat Zeus split half THREE forms of humanityMale, female and mixedAnd each is looking for their partner (other half)Emperor Nero married two men One he had castratedBernadette Brooten (Ph. D)In the past there was more support for MV’s position, but more research has changed thatWilliam Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 2012), 84Pg 22 – “Subsequent research, including Dover’s revised edition, has shown, however, that not all pederastic relations were experienced as exploitive and that other forms of same-sex relations were known, both in the classical Greek period and in the Hellenistic era, including lifelong same-sex relationships.”Thomas K. Hubbard, a non-Christian classics professor is the editor who brought together a bunch of ancient writings on homosexuality, it’s a 558 page book titled “Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A sourcebook of Basic Documents”It’s available in English if you like!It shows that every kind of homosexual relationship we see today was also existent in ancient Rome.Lesbianism, sex-parties, lifelong SS partners and even SS marriageHubbard describes early imperial Rome this way“The coincidence of such severity on the part of moralistic writers with the flagrant and open display of every form of homosexual behavior by Nero and other practitioners indicates a culture in which attitude about this issue increasingly defined one’s ideological and moral position. In other words, homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation”Thomas K. Hubbard, ed., Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents (Berkley: University of California Press, 2003), pages 7-8This is why Louis Crompton, a gay man and pioneer in queer studies, in his massive book “Homosexuality and Civilization” admitted“Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at ‘Bona fide’ homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew of early Christian”N.T. Wright “As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it is already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever… of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.”From: John L. Allen Jr., “Interview with Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright of Durham, England,” National Catholic Reporter, May 21st, 2004, http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wright.htm A lot of discussion on the words “natural” and “unnatural”His main point isAgain – “the people he (Paul) is describing first began with opposite-sex relations and then, in a burst of lust, abandoned them, exchanged them for something else.”No joke. This is really what he says.The idea is that there is a THIRD category that either didn’t exist or was simply not acknowledged which is now the center of this argumentTo Paul there were men and women and men’s natural desires are toward woman and women’s toward men. To Matthew Vine there is a third category of men and women who are naturally and rightly attracted to menNo defense of this view is given. No supportWe will address this laterThis is what philosophers call “ad hoc” or just made up to save his main point that homosexual behavior is acceptableRomans 1:26–27 (NKJV) 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. No qualifier only two categories women and menNot exchanged natural desires but natural useDesire contrary to function (desire against design)Saying “My desire = my design” is unbiblicalPaul is clearly ruling out a third categoryThere are only male and female whose natural sexual partner is one of the opposite sexAnother pro-gay view - This is really about harmful, dominant, abusive relationshipsResponse: lesbianism is rejected for the same reasonsNo record of that in lesbianismResponse: this lust is mutual, not one-sided“lust for one another” vs27A point about why Romans 1:26-27 doesn’t apply to same-sex unions (marriage)And surely it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful, casual behavior. He says nothing about the people in question falling in love, making a lifelong commitment to one another, starting a family togetherEarlier he argued Romans 1 was saying “be true to your sexual orientation”, but now it’s differentNow the argument is more like “yeah it’s against same-sex relations but only casual ones”Only of “casual behavior”?Is it true that Paul knew nothing about committed, long term same sex relationships?Already coveredDoes Love make it ok?The Bible doesn’t have a “love” vs “lust” conceptJust a “lust in marriage” “lust out of it” conceptNot even about loveLove of money is evilDemas “loved the world”More on that laterAnother point about natural and unnatural He asserts that “natural” is only referring to customsThat natural means according to custom and unnatural means not according to custom.Because he says it means custom in 1 Cor 11Then he goes on to say that in Greek and Roman culture the custom was for men to have the active role and women to have the passive role in bed.So against custom would be for men to have a passive role“so the term nature here refers to social custom, not to the biological order and is a culturally specific term”His point? It’s irrelevant Response: Now we have a third and contradictory interpretation!It no longer means “Gay men and women should stick to their natural desires and so should straight ones, so long as they are born that way”It no longer means “casual same-sex relations are forbidden but loving committed ones are good”NOW it means “the romans thought men should be active and women passive in bed and having two of the same-sex in bed would mess up that custom. But, it’s just a custom and isn’t binding on us today”This is kitchen sink theologyThrowing everything against the interpretation I don’t like even if my conclusions contradict themselves. Enough weak arguments might make one strong argument.It’s like saying “I didn’t do my homework because I was with my mom in the hospital, at a church retreat, looking for my runaway dog, I forgot it, and you never told me about any homework.”“nature = roman custom?”No – Phusis – used 14 times in the NTGalatians 4:8 (NKJV) 8But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. Romans 2:14–15 (NKJV) 14for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) Romans 2:27 (NKJV) 27And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? Romans 11:21 (NKJV) 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 2 Peter 1:3 “partakers of the divine nature”There is no passage in Paul’s writing where it clearly means “custom”It means nature, specifically the physical makeup and designAlso, this ignores the actual contextRomans 1 is clearly saying that these actions are a result of sin and that same-sex desires happen as a result of God “giving them up to vile passions”Vile – dishonorablePassions – sexual, lustful desiresGod is not saying “those who are lustful homosexuals are in sin” The vile passion IS same-sex desireAll same sex desireLesbian relationships are includedThese aren’t dominant/submissive like male ones areSo Roman views of male roles are irrelevant It is not, as this pro-gay theology says, that they were going against their hearts desiresOn the contrary, their desires were going against their physical designThis includes all manner of same-sex desires in one category that says “against physical nature”The desires are wrongJust as desires for self-promotion are wrongOr maliceOr theftOr desires to lieRomans 1:26–27 (NKJV) 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. It’s clear that this isn’t about dominant rolesIt’s written from a Jewish, not Roman viewGentle but serious warning: Almost every cult does thisTakes the passage that proves them wrong, and uses it to preach their messageNo jokeRom 1:26-27 clearly teaches that homosexual acts are wrong and that same-sex desires (without any qualification) are a temptation not a good thingLast two passages of the six (1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10)1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NKJV) 9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. MV pointsWe don’t know what these words mean and that’s why for 1900 years they were treated as unclear MV - Because the dispute here is about translation, I’ll start with the King James Version of this passage, which was published more than 400 years ago and so predates this modern controversy. It reads:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Our key words for the discussion here are the words translated as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” These somewhat ambiguous translations in the King James are consistent with how these words were actually translated into English for hundreds of years: some kind of immorality or abuse, but specifically what kind was never stated.
The right way to translate them is in non-specific termsIt would be more faithful to the text to return to the ambiguity that prevailed for more than 1,900 years of translation. The notion that Paul is singling out gay people here and saying that they will not inherit the kingdom of God simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.ArsenakoitosA word that is coined by PaulFrom Leviticus 18 LXX“arsenos” – male“koiten” – to bed (intimate sense)Therefore – ArsenakoitosMalekoi – passive and active partners bothSoft? Feminine Context is kingSandwiched between “adulterers” and “men who practice homosexuality”It’s effeminate in context of sexual sinPassive partner who takes the female roleAlso, it’s cause for not entering heavenIt’s seriousIt’s not just culturalIt’s sweeping condemnationOther words Paul could have usedPederast Other translations(Vulgate 450AD) Latin – men lying together with males(Syriac 463AD) those who lie with men(Darby Bible 1890) nor those who make women of themselves, nor those who abuse themselves with men(Young’s literal translation 1852) nor effeminate, nor sodomites(NKJV) nor homosexuals, nor sodomites(ESV) nor men who practice homosexuality(NASB 1995) nor effeminate, nor homosexuals(NIV 1984) nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders(NRSV) male prostitutes, sodomites(NLT) or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality(Holman Christian Standard Bible) or anyone practicing homosexuality(New English Translation) passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals(New Century Version) those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sex with other men(ISV) male prostitutes, homosexualsEva Cantarella is an Italian classicist. She is professor of Roman law and ancient Greek law at the University of MilanIn her book “Bisexuality in the Ancient World” pg 192-193Paul, then, condemns each and every form of homosexuality. But despite the clarity of his language, the text is sometimes interpreted in a much more restricted sense than a simple reading reveals. Paul, it is maintained, condemned only a specific and precisely identified type of homosexual relations – pederastic relations – which had now degenerated to the point where, in practice, they amounted to mere bullying of young boys, whom the apostle therefore wished to protect. In support of this hypothesis, it is asserted that malakoi is a word which indicated the boys who were subjected to such treatment (thus pejoratively defined because quite frequently they sold their services), while arsenokoitai indicated those adults who took advantage of these youths, or who paid them for their services.
But this hypothesis is clearly unacceptable for a number of reasons, the first being a matter of vocabulary. To maintain that malakoi referred to passive homosexuals of a youthful age (excluding adults) means falsifying the meaning of the term (which Jerome was not mistaken in translating into Latin with the word molles, the meaning of which we know well). The Greek word malakia indicates, exactly like mollities, the lamentable passivity of an adult. For proof of this, it is enough to think of what Dionysius of Halicarnassus says about Aristodamantes, whose nickname was malajos: the reason for this nickname, Dionysius says, is not absolutely certain. Some people think that it may be due to Aristodamantes’ effeminacy (theludria); others maintain that it is attributable to his sweetness of behavior….
So the malakoi to whom Paul alludes are not boys. They are passive homosexuals, whom Paul defines by using a term which, in Greek, alludes only to adults, but which he obviously uses to indicate all those who take on an ‘effeminate’ role, without distinction of age. And along with those, he also condemns the arsenokoitai: a term which literally means a man who shares his bed with another man, but which Paul is clearly associating with malakoi to include active homosexuals also in his condemnation. And there is nothing in the text to limit his condemnation to adults who took advantage of boys. If Paul’s aim had been to protect paides from exploitation and abuse, among other things, he would presumably have levelled his condemnation only at the abusers, and not at their victims as well.
In short, as can clearly be seen from a reading of the two passages devoted to this topic, Paul condemned homosexuality on a global basis, whatever its manifestations. This is a not inconsiderable innovation. It immediately shows the Christians attempt to introduce a different sexual ethic, which replaced the old contrast between activity and passivity with a new, fundamental dichotomy between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The novelty of this principle is underlined, if it needs underlining, by a consideration which is by no means of negligible or secondary importance: in his letter to the Romans, as we saw, Paul condemns not only male but also female homosexuality. For him, clearly, the problem is not the typical one experienced by Romans law and ethics in the era before Justinian, of how to proclaim the principle that a man must be manly. His concern is to impose respect for a rules which is for the first time defined as natural, which demands that men should always and only couple with woman, and vice versa.
1 Timothy 1:101 Timothy 1:10 (NKJV) 10for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, “sodomites” A modern translation would be “homosexuals”But the word never existed till the 1800s!Response: which is why translations prior to that used other words that meant the same thingDutch scholar and gay activist named Pim Pronk “wherever homosexual intercourse is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned… rejection is a foregone conclusion; the assessment of it nowhere constitutes a problem”Another helpful quote is from a book called “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views”Dan O. Via (a revisionist) and Robert A. J. Gagnon (a traditional)Partnered to write the book with two opposing viewsWhat they AGREE on is very tellingDan O. Via (a revisionist) who has interacted with Prof Robert Gagnon says “Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally” He just doesn’t feel the need to make the Bible agree with him1 Cor 7 – marriage as a remedy!Why not?Can marriage hallow any relationship?Incest? Bestiality? More importantly, is that what God meant in 1 Cor 7?Marriage is limited to one man and one woman from Genesis to RevelationAd Hoc – In order to suggest that homosexuality could be redeemed in a marriage like relationship we simply must assume it is trueIn spite of constant and clear statements that it is wrong as a behavior regardless of contextIn spite of the understanding of Jewish readers of the OT or Christian readers of the NTIn spite of the nature of marriage being based on gender differences in Gen 1 and the rest of the BibleSo to summarizeWe can’t rationally think there are any exceptions to the prohibition against homosexual activity in the Bible because1- While the authors of the Bible could have selectively condemned certain homosexual behavior, they didn’t, the Bible condemns it all2- The idea of homosexual orientation is not new and was known in the Roman world3- The idea of long term committed SS relationships is not new and was known in the Roman worldSo – Paul knew what it was and condemned it entirely.It’s a sin“Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”1 – to think whatever He didn’t talk about is permissible is a problemJesus didn’t say anything about using cocaine, slavery, incest or spousal abuseWe can’t assume Jesus approved of everything He didn’t specifically condemnThe Judaism of His day universally condemned those practicesSo, He had no need to speak about it unless it was to change something2 – we don’t know what Jesus didn’t say Much of what Jesus said wasn’t recorded3 – Jesus believed the Old Testament to be true and, if asked about the issue, would have simply repeated the words of Leviticus or GenesisWithout Him saying it is OK we should assume it is wrong4 – Jesus is God. He should be given equal credit for the writing of the Old Testament as being His own ideas1 Peter 1:11 says that the prophets spoke by the Spirit of ChristIt’s not just the red letters that come from Jesus5 – Jesus did say something about marriageMatt 19:3-12Matthew 19:4–6 (NKJV) 4And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5and 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’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” The nature of marriage is found in GenesisTough questions about marriage can be answered by referring to God’s design in GenesisGod’s design is one male and one female joined for lifeThis is what “God has joined together”This rules out polygamy Two become oneThis rules out homosexual relations by definitionComplimentary opposites – male and female Therefore they can’t be sanctified by marriageMarriage can’t be applied to same-sex relationships for the same reason that a woman can’t be a father Oh, a woman can try to behave in a fatherly role but she won’t actually BE a fatherA same-sex couple can try and behave in marriage-like roles but they can’t actually have a marriageGod invented and defined marriage and Jesus endorsed this as the basis for solving marriage issuesKeep in mind that marriage is the ONLY good and accepted place for human passionsOther things we SHOULD consider (it’s MORE than 6 passages)Porneia - any sexual sinOnce you have recognized (as a first century Christian would have) that homosexual acts are sinful, it is included any time prohibitions against “fornication” or “sexual immorality” are mentionedGenesis 2:21–24 (NKJV) 21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Man and wife (not man and significant other) Man and WIFEGod designed humanity with marriage in mindMarriage is the natural expression of human natureIt is not only defined by God. It is INVENTED by GodSince marriage is the only proper place for sexuality then the only proper partners are a husband and wife (male and female)Sexual sin is a big deal according to the BibleIt is singled out (1 Cor)It’s not the worst sin – murder and preaching a false gospel are much worseBut it’s worse than some
END WEEK 2 BEGIN WEEK 3
So, the Bible entirely and unanimously and clearly states that homosexual behavior is a sin.Regardless of context (love, marriage, commitment)It’s against God’s created design in Genesis 2It’s one of the chief examples of why God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities according to Jude 7 and Genesis 18-19It’s forbidden in Leviticus 18 and 20 and in context it is one of the reasons God judged the nations who were driven out of the land of IsraelIn Romans 1:26-27 It’s used as an example of rejecting God’s created order. It is unequivocally called a sin.In 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 it is included in two lists which make it something that keeps one from getting to heaven, something to be repented of and something that Christians “were” but are no longerFor this and other reasons we recognize that the long held belief (over 3,000 years) of the people of God that homosexual behavior is sinful is clearly the right, biblical and therefore Christian belief.But there is still more to discussToday we will tackle the issues ofPro-gay slogans and tacticsCommon misconceptions and distortionsLike“born gay”“gays didn’t choose this and can’t change it”“love is love”“can’t two people who love each other be together?”“who are you to judge”What is meant by “homosexual”I’m going to use it meaning “having same-sex erotic attractions”active vs non-activeThe FIRST slogan I want to deal with is probably the most involved“born that way”Why does this matter?Because it is central to almost EVERY pro-gay theology argumentWhereas they often disagree and even contradict each other in other waysWhat is meant by “born that way” “born gay”?They mean several things“I have no choice but to be this way”Like skin color or having kidneys it’s entirely predetermined before birth“I can’t change my same-sex attraction”“I’m supposed to be this way”Therefore, “It is GOOD and RIGHT for me to act this way”Disapproval = hatredThey have said that moral disapproval of homoerotic activity and relationships constitutes hatred of same-sex attracted persons.So, the adolescent who finds someone of the same sex attractive or has homo-erotic dreams is supposed to think“Maybe this means I am gay” And therefore … … …It’s about unchangeable identity issues meant to create minority statusThe western world is largely in favor of minorities, simply for being minoritiesIn the words of Howard Dean “if God had thought homosexuality a sin, he would not have created gay people” Conclusion – this is irrelevantHypothetically, if it is inborn to have erotic same sex desires Then it is still wrongHow I am born doesn’t equal what is rightIf God didn’t want people to be jerks, why did he make so many?People may be born selfish So I should be thoughtless and careless of others’ needsPeople may be born lazySo I should lay about and have others provide for mePeople may be born fornicatorsSo I should have many sex partnersBorn gluttons? What is enough food for YOU isn’t for meMy weight is therefore SUPPOSED to be like thisBorn violent, born thieves, born liars, born racist, born polygamous, or with bestiality genesIn Theology – this doesn’t make for acceptanceBecause the Bible seems to speak to this possibilitySin NATUREEphesians 2:3 (NKJV) 3among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. Numbers 15:39 (NKJV) 39And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, SSA is just like our inclination toward all sorts of other sinsSo we should treat it the sameIf it’s inborn it is still bad and to be resistedWhy we need JesusIn societyWe can’t excuse behavior because it is geneticMurder?Theft?Immoral and recklessly unsafe to societyEven if “I didn’t consciously choose to be this way” I can choose not to ACT this wayI didn’t choose to be attracted to women I’m not married toBut I can certainly CHOOSE not to feed or fulfill those desiresCertainly the power of Christ in my life is for thisWhat does science say?Many studies have been doneA great amount of money and time has gone into proving “being gay” is a genetic factNo conclusive evidence has supported itYet news articles about “born gay” or “a gay gene” are not uncommonLet’s not forget what the news isFor profit businesses that make money often by parading the atrocious and contraversialThey routinely misrepresent scientific research to get the story to popA couple famous studies are good examples of thisIn the 1990s scientific support for the “born-that-way theory” became common knowledgeA landmark study by Harvard trained neurobiologist Simon LeVay, published in Science in 1991. LeVay noted that the hypothalamus of homosexuals was smaller than in heterosexuals, leading some to believe homosexuality had a biological basis.Two years later, Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer published his research in Science,Hamer stated that there was a, and I quote, “statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.” LeVay and Hamer’s studies received worldwide coverage. The implications were obvious. Since homosexuality had a bio-genetic cause, it’s immutable and morally acceptable. Case closed.What never made the headlines was the storm of scientific criticism that followed, His results have been criticized forlack of a significant different between the samples of gay and straight menan overlapping middle-ground where the samples are indistinguishable.He responded to these criticisms by agreeing that they are valid.“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).In a Newsweek article, we learn why LeVay did this studyHe was already convinced that it was biologicalHis gay lover had tragically died of AIDS and after a bout with depression and two weeks in the hospital he decided to do this study“I felt if I didn’t find any [difference in the hypothalamuses], I would give up a scientific career altogether” (as quoted in Gelman, et al., 1992, p. 49). http://www.newsweek.com/homosexuality-born-or-bred-200636 He actually DID give up science and became a leading gay activist and educatorHamer’s conclusions also came under fire.Lack of a control groupA co-scientist who worked with him later came out and said that Hamer specifically hid the results of a control group in order to support his intended endUnrepeatable resultsGeorge Rice and his colleagues from Canada looked intently at the gene Xq28. They then observed: “Allele and halotype sharing for these markers was not increased over expectation. These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (1999, 284:665, emp. added). Rice, et al., included 182 families in their study. They noted: Rice said, “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28” (284:667).A 2nd lab also failed to reproduce the results Alan Sanders of the University of Chicago (in June of 1998) Said that he, too, had been unable to verify Hamer’s results.That study was of 54 gay brother pairs.http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php Info on Rice and Sanders found on this linkWith this criticism and an investigation opened he sais “The best recent study,” Hamer conceded, “suggests that female sexual identification is more a matter of environment than heredity.” He told Scientific American that homosexuality was “absolutely not” rooted solely in biology. http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/2013%2007%20Enhanced%20Solid%20Ground%20Final%20Nature%20or%20Nurture-1.pdf Research involving identical twins had disproved that theory.Identical twins have identical genesIf one twin was homosexual, the other should be, too. That’s not what the research showedUsing a registry of 25,000 twins, Northwestern’s Michael Bailey showed that homosexuality occurred in both twins only one in nine times (that’s 11%).Bailey concluded that the data “did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors” for homosexuality. The study also failed to rule out environmental factors.Since most twins share the same home, it’s possible their common environment was a factor in their common same-sex attractionOther twin studies have been doneNONE show a terribly high correlation which would indicate “born-that-way”Despite the growing scientific evidence against it, though, the born-gay theory persists.Because it is rhetorically usefulIn fact – a growing group of gay advocates are changing their tuneGay is good and who cares if you choose itSanders has a new study just out (2014) and he says that it supports Hamer’s researchHis conclusion is that Homosexual orientation is possibly influenced by genes 30-40%And from the 1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard – also a gay man – admits: "Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins."3Bad sample group – from pro-gay publication advertisementsSmall sample groupAnd from the 1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: "environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay; I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."4And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviors are genetically determined is "rudimentary at best." He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviors they observed probably involved "environmental and social stimuli" and that the female-female courtship behavior was abnormal – missing some key steps.5And what about the 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behavior. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said "it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation."6More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations" (italics added).7 As a comparison, Collins indicates that the potential genetic component for homosexuality is much less than the genetic contribution that has been found for common personality traits such as general cognitive ability, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, aggression and traditionalism.8Is “gay” changeable?If it’s not genetic, can it be changed?Fluid or fixedActress Cynthia Nixon (Sex and the City)"I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me,"Websites and watchdog groups (like Truth Wins Out) came against her viciously About a week later she changed her mind"While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship.”She isn’t representative of everyoneBut it shows the biasWhat if isn’t changeable?Then the biblical thing is to treat it like any other temptationBut does God want gays to live alone forever?That’s a loaded question.In North Korea this happensTwo choices – abandon Christ or be killedStaying faithful means – Your children will be fatherlessYour wife will be a widowYour family won’t be able to support themselvesMark 8:34–38 (NKJV) 34When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” This whole life is temporaryWe are called to resist temptationTo follow Jesus THIS is the goal, not changing my desiresWe all will experience it till we go to be with the LordIs that true, can there be change?Yes, absolutelyOne study* followed approximately 10,800 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 22 years old. Of the 16 year-old males who had exclusively SSA, 61% had opposite-sex attraction at age 17. For same-sex attracted females, 81% changed to opposite attraction in just one year.
The study also compared sexual attraction at ages 17 and 22, with similar results. For example, 75% of adolescent males with SSA at age 17 had opposite-sex attraction at age 22.
Dr. Neil Whitehead, a research scientist who worked for the New Zealand government for 24 years and the United Nations for another four years, analyzed this study. He notes that although a small percentage of heterosexual adolescents developed homosexuality, the vast majority transitioned in the opposite direction. Based on the data, 16 year-olds with SSA are “25 times more likely to change towards heterosexuality at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to change towards bi-sexuality or homosexuality.” That means that heterosexuality is 25 times more stable than homosexuality. It also seems to suggest that heterosexuality is more of a “default” orientation.That’s not all. Approximately 3% of the current heterosexual population once claimed to have either SSA or bisexual attractions. That means there are more people who have changed to exclusively heterosexual attraction than there are currently homosexuals and bisexuals combined. As Dr. Whitehead put it, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays.”This is a stunning report. Not only does it contradict the widely held belief that homosexuality is unchangeable, but it demonstrates that change is prevalent in adolescence. Moreover, these young men and women experienced change without any known therapeutic or faith-based intervention. It was through “natural” life experiences.*Savin-Williams et al., “Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components during Adolescence and Young Adulthood,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2007Instances of adults changingFirst, note one ancient report claiming this kind of change actually took placeIn 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Paul says some Christians in Corinth had been homosexual (“Such were some of you…”), yet experienced significant change.Some reject the Bible as God’s word, that’s irrelevant I’m appealing to this ancient letter on historical groundsSome people in ancient Greece left homosexuality behindAnd from a Christian standpointWhat is meant by change?No longer living in the grip of this sin!That’s nice changeRecent studies indicate the same thingAn article published in Psychological Reports in 2000investigated 882 dissatisfied homosexualsAfter pursuing some form of therapy, 34% of the participants reported shifting their orientation to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation.They experienced statistically significant reductions in “homosexual thoughts and fantasies” and improvements in their “psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.”Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts, “Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: a Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” Psychological Reports (June, 2000), 1071-1088As quoted in Solid Ground “Nature or Nurture”One long-term study in 2007 by Jones and Yarhouse was recently published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.It’s been hailed as one of the most rigorous studies ever designed to investigate the possibility of change.Researchers followed 98 people with unwanted samesex attractions for over six years.15% of the participants reported “substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.” The most surprising result, though, was that subjects classified as “truly gay”—those with the highest levels of homosexual attraction, fantasy, and behavior—reported the greatest amount of change.Jones, & Yarhouse, “A Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37 (2011), 404-427Clinicians and other scientists have reported successes for over a century.Back in 1882, Jean-Martin Charcot, the “father of modern neurology,” described how “the homosexual became heterosexual” as a result of his treatments.In the 1920s, Freud reported sexual orientation change through psychoanalysis. Researchers continued to report similar findings throughout the 20th century: Wilhelm Stekel in the 1930s,Frank Caprio and Albert Ellis in the 1950s,Russell Monroe and Edward Glover in the 1960s, Irving Bieber in the 1970s, Karolynn Siegel in the 1980s, Houston MacIntosh in the 1990sGiven such convincing evidence, it’s not surprising a recent psychiatry textbook, Essential Psychopathology & Its Treatment, concluded that homosexual orientation can change and that therapy isn’t necessarily harmful: Recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted.Kilgus, Maxmen, and Ward, Essential Psychopathology & Its Treatment (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009), 488.According to clinical data, thousands have personally experienced this change. Each year, more people publicly declare they are no longer homosexual.Given this evidence, how can some still claim that sexual orientation change isn’t possible? Multiple, independent lines of evidence would all have to be faulty or fraudulent. Over the last 100 years, hundreds of professionals who’ve treated homosexuals would have to be either mistaken or lied about their findings. Are therapists working with homosexuals today all fabricating success stories? Are religious and secular organizations providing counseling to homosexuals all misrepresenting their results? Are thousands of heterosexuals who once lived as homosexuals faking?Is every person I’ve met over the years who’s claimed to have changed been lying? As professor of psychiatry Tiffany Barnhouse said, “The frequent claim by ‘gay’ activists that it is impossible for homosexuals to change their orientation…accuses scores of conscientious, responsible psychiatrists and psychologists of falsifying their data.”What about ex-ex-gays?Double standardDepressionSome still feel it at times but are BETTERSome principlesChange isn’t easyNot all will changeNot all will stop having attractionsNot all will maintain that changeSo it is with any other sinSome SSA people get REAL and LASTING change!For those that have unwanted SSA there is hopeAren’t reparative or conversion therapies harmful?Some can beBut the examples I hear are of BAD PRACTICES IN GENERALShock therapyBrow beating themWatching porn with the patientBut is it possible for some homosexuals to experience substantial and enduring change? Absolutely. That’s good news, given how many people experience unwanted SSA. They have hope.Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association, shared his experiences in a USA Today column:“When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco’s gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.
…With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.
…Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.
…
Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don’t believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.
Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That’s why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.
But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as “unethical” violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.
Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.”
http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexuals-admit-sexual-orientation-can-and-does-change/ The real argument – emotional words and a distorted view of the situation as it isWe are given only two options1- force gay people to live loveless and alone against the love of God and al your own Christian values. Tell them that they are mistakes of creation and worth less than you. Tell them they can’t get married or have a family or have love because you misread your Bible2- accept them and love them by approving of same-sex sexual behaviorThose aren’t our options1 – I’m not forcing anyone to live alone and loveless forever. Gay sexual acts are sin, not an inclination (this takes the love out of it)People can choose to do what they want (this takes the force out of it)I’m keeping them from having a family? Family is – A group of people living in one householdYou can do that, and have already probablyBut that’s not what is meant here.One’s spouse and childrenGay relationships can not ever produce a family 2- ignore the clear teaching of the Bible and promote sin so that you won’t be ridiculed and marginalized in societyThese aren’t just a coincidence“we sold it like cereal”“After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s”$300+ on amazonOutlined a 3 step plan to change public opinion using manipulation tacticsDesensitize Likened it to a bad smell which the nose would cease to notice over timeGoal: “We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presenting in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”JammingMaking anyone who is opposed to homoerotic behavior into a “bad guy” the way Hollywood makes bad guys.Over-exagerate and vilify every representation of them in mediaGoal: “Propogandistic advertisement can depict homophobix and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and ___holes… who are not Christian. It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohared – suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would fund unpleasant and scary….. Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”ConversionTo get the non-gays to like gaysWe mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypical picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture.label pairs , in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay – explicitly labeled as such!—who not only don’t look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotupes of all-right guys—the kind of people he already likes and admires. How Hollywood makes a good guyPaint the bad guy worseVilification of non-gay lifestyle affirming peopleEmotions of compassion used to manipulateDon’t you have gay family and friends? Don’t you care about them? Don’t you want them to have fulfilling romantic relationships?You’re a jerk if you don’tYou’re mean if you don’tYou’re a bigot and homophobe if you don’tYou’re ________If you do?You’ll feel good about yourselfSlogans and misleading propagandaPastor - “I told them they can’t ever have love”Wha?!?Of course they can have loveThey don’t define loveLove doesn’t rejoice in iniquityDV counseling – love confusion sexual desire doesn’t equate to loveneither does a sense of needThis is why Paul coined a new definition for agape in 1 Cor 13This is part of a larger tactic to avoid the real issueShow pictures of happy gay couples loving each otherBut don’t ever talk about the actual ACTS in the bedroom
End Week 3 – Begin Week 4
TODAY
Slogans and a rational response – should be VERY useful
A Secular case against society approving of homosexual behavior
Same-sex marriage issue
Vid 1 – the Old Testament Vid 2- the New TestamentVid 3- “born gay” – science and theology – “can gay people change?” and media brainwashing “you have no right to tell two consenting adults what they can and can’t do in the bedroom”SO MANY of these slogans are like thisIrrelevant We haven’t even approached what they can and can’t doMisrepresents our positionWe are discussing what they should and shouldn’t doIt’s about morality, not legalityWe will discuss that a bit todayBut our concern for laws isn’t even about what people CAN do but what they should doRelated to this is Heb 13:4Hebrews 13:4 (NKJV) 4Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; The bed undefiled?The MARRIAGE bedCould this be any clearer?Someone can redefine marriage but it won’t change what this verse means because what matters is what the word meant to the author and original audienceLook at the rest of the verseHebrews 13:4 (NKJV) 4Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.confusing the marriage bed being sacred with any bed being sacredIt’s true that there are some things which are good in private but shouldn’t be done in publicShoweringChild birthMarital relationsPrivate same-sex sexual acts are not automatically moral You could ask “Is ANYTHING really ok in as long as it’s in the bedroom?”Abuse in the bedroom isn’t better than abuse out of itMaking meth in a bedroom is not suddenly okConsenting abuse isn’t ok either (something is wrong with this)But this is where it is leadingBedrooms don’t change the moral quality of behavior “who are you to judge” Matt 7 “judge NOT lest you be judged”The person who says “don’t judge” is judgingThat’s the only way they could judge that you are judgingAnd, they obviously don’t think it’s wrong to judgeThe person saying homosexuality is acceptable is making a judgment as wellUltimately, this is a bully tacticAnd hypocritical Perhaps they think it is wrong to disapprove of what someone else is doingBut they are disapproving of what YOU are doingIs it only those who disagree with THEM who have no rights?YESTolerance only goes one wayYou are the villainAre we not supposed to make any judgments at all?Or just not to forget our place when we make them?Matt 7Matthew 7:1–5 (NKJV) 1“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.This is ALL they will quote, to twist the words of Jesus3And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 3 Kinds of judging NOT to doTo reinvent morality – calling evil good or good evilIsaiah 5:20 “woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness”This is actually what those who say “don’t judge” are OFTEN guilty ofThe idea behind “who are YOU do judge” is thisYOU don’t have the right to make up moralityGod doesTo hypocritically ignore my own issuesMatt 7:1-5Gal 6:1Which is why we are called to judge ourselves FIRST and then apply right judgment To judge beyond what I know and beyond what God has said“judge nothing before the time” 1 Cor 4:5We are called to JUDGE in some waysTo agree with God – “confession” = to speak the sameTo call evil evil and good goodHebrews 5:14 (NKJV) …those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Privately or publicly?The constant example of the prophets, apostles and Jesus is to expose sin Ephesians 5:11 (NKJV) 11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. Are we judging (making it bad) or judging (recognizing it is bad)Ask them “is rape evil?” They will say “yes”Then ask “Who are you to judge?”The “don’t judge” response is always“I have no argument but I don’t like what you are saying”“But they love each other!”1st – they never define loveTheir “love” is generally about intensity of emotions and desiresThe Bible does!1- Chief example of love is self-sacrifice for the benefit of others1 John 3:16 (NKJV) 16By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 2- Also, it is NOT NOT NOT chiefly romantic between husband and wifeBrotherly, fatherly, motherly, sisterlyOne example of loving people like this is NOT engaging in sexual acts with them2nd – Does love make wicked things ok?“Love does not rejoice in iniquity”Not only does love NOT make sin okReal love doesn’t endorse sin for 2 reasons1- Sin hurts people who do it2- When I sin I fail to love God, and God is to be loved ABOVE peopleThis IS the principle behind what they are sayingTheir example: love in marriage makes sex ok right?No, MARRIAGE, not love, makes it okDoes love make adultery OK?Or incest?Or kidnapping?Or lying?Or fornication? Premarital sex? Love/lust false dichotomy You can have love with lustLust aloneLove aloneLove is not the condition that makes otherwise wrong actions OK“Two consenting adults”Is adult consent all that matters?Can two consenting adults say anything they do is morally GOOD?What if they gather together just to blaspheme God?Or commit adultery?0Or to commit suicide?Or to use meth?Or to write out hate notes about everyone they know but not send them?Humanism – man is the measure of moralityIf man is the measure then we are just pretendingGOD is the measure of moralityGod’s consent is what matters “You are a bigot and a homophobe”One of two things is happening hereYou ARE a bigot and homophobeYou have extreme hatred toward gay people and want them to sufferYou don’t love themOr you aren’t and are falsely accusedThis is more likely By their definition of bigot GOD is a bigotIn that caseThe person making the statement is the bigotResponses You are a being a bully“do you think incest is wrong?”“then you are an incestphobe”“You’re the reason why so many gays commit suicide!”Me? Really?They imply that disapproval of behavior is hatred of the person“your HATE is causing them to commit suicide”A couple pointsMost examples show horrible, ungodly behavior toward the LGBT personThis is merely a case for, don’t bully peopleWe all agree!Their struggle with sin may well factor inHigh rates of depression and romantic relationship problemsJudas committed suicide, do we blame Jesus for it?Some in society want to blame everyone else when someone commits suicide.This is harmful and may actually increase rates of suicide (by romanticizing it) One study compared the suicides of gay men to those of straight menIt found that what they did have in common wasDrinking and substance abuseAnd diagnosed psychiatric problemshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.1986.tb00730.x/abstract Another study published in the American Association for Suicidology said “it is concluded that this study finds no evidence that suicide is a common characteristic of gay youth, or that when suicide does occur among gay teenagers, that it is a direct consequence of stigmatization or lack of support”This quote is from the Abstract of this studyhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.1995.tb00491.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= What’s happening here is the lie that rejecting behavior as sinful is the same as rejecting a person as worthless“You justify violence against gay people”No, I don’t“yes you do!”No, I don’t“liar, you do”Wha?!?!You are the villain!You are KKK, HitlerNever mind if you’re notAd Hominem – TO THE MAN!That’s not a fair representation of me“You justify the burning of churches”“You’re on the wrong side of history”Like the church “ALWAYS is”As if there were secular liberals on the right side fighting the church and dragging her to change her views throughout historyMyth of moral evolutionHistory has not been a steady march toward moral lightProgressives cited science as the reason for the eugenics movement of the early 20th centuryMyth of the utter stupidity of “the church”“the church” told Columbus he would fall off the earthNothey already agreed that the earth was round for quite a long timethey thought it was bigger than Columbus had projectedand they were right “the church” taught that the earth didn’t move and was the center of the solar systemAnd when Galileo discovered it wasn’t he was persecuted and imprisoned for his unbiblical teachings1- the geocentric universe was a view based on Aristotle, not the Bible2- Copernicus (not Galileo) is said to have overturned it with a heliocentric view His work “On the Revolution of the Heavenly Sphere” (1543) was dedicated to the pope Criticism against it was mostly from academics, not religious leadersGalileo was initially well received by cardinals and popes. Pope Urban VIII whore an ode in honor of himBut then, in writing, Galileo made fun of the popePut the popes argument in the mouth of a foolish characterIn the end, Galileo was convinced the reason for his trouble was making “fun of his holiness” not the issue of the earth movingFrom – Kevin DeYoung “What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality” pg 106 “the church” taught slavery because of the Bible1 – It’s wrong to consider Old Testament “slavery” as similar to slavery in early America Read the restrictions on the slavery in the OTRestrictions on oppressionRadically differentThe penalty for kidnapping for slavery was death2 – Believers throughout time have come against slavery like what was in early America (even 6 popes in bulls starting as early as 1462)3 – not only does the Bible not support the type of slavery people have in their minds it paved the way for that slavery stoppingThe morality of the Bible has LEAD moral reform throughout history“Telling same-sex couples they can’t marry is the same as telling inter-racial couples they can’t marry”The racism parallel Racism is bias based on non-differences or differences that are so trivial as to be unimportant and unrelated to the conclusions of racismGender Why make this parallel?To vilify anyone who says it is a sinTo claim the role of “victim” for anyone who is engaging in sexual perversionThey do this in movies all the timeThe anti-heroHe’s no good, but his enemies are even worse! So, root for him!
The secular case against homosexuality
Why do we want this?Because we want to influence more peopleBecause there IS a secular case against itBecause this info shows the great danger of homosexual activityBecause some believers think it’s wrong but want to act like it’s rightThe secular case is going to askWhat impact this has on the individuals generallyWhat impact this has on society (others)To determineShould we encourage this behavior or not?The current issue is NOT live and let liveSociety canProhibit (like murder)Discourage (like smoking)Protect (like speech)Reward (like marriage, military service)At the very LEAST it should not be REWARDEDIn short1- Homosexual behavior is bad for individuals and societyRelated to various physical afflictionsNON-HIV/AIDS problems1/3 of men who engage in regular homosexualy receptive behavior have chronic incontinence (failure of the sphincter muscle) Diarrhea, cramps, hemorrhoids, prostate damage, ulcers or fissures (which invite infection)In 75% syphilis cases in 2012 were among MSM (men who have sex with men)According to cdc.gov The most common disease is amebiases25-40% of homosexual men are effectedGonorrhea, chlamydia, Viral infectionsCondylomata (anal warts), Herpes, hepatitis B, hepatitis AMSM have75% lifetime STD rate40% yearly STD rateGeneral population has 16.9% lifetime STD rate1.6% yearly STD rateFrom “Straight & Narrow?” pg 120-122Various cancers such as colon and even breast cancerHIV negative MSM = 20 TIMES more likely to get anal cancerHIV positive MSM = 40 TIMES more likely to get anal cancerHIV/AIDS1.2 million currently have HIV in the USAThe majority of which got it through MSM50,000 new HIV infections each yearCDC.gov says that 78% of all new HIV infections result from MSM (men having sex with men)This is startling considering MSM is probably about 2% of the populationhttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html Related to drug and substance abuseTobacco useThose who self-identified as homosexuals were found to have used tobacco in the past 30 days at a rate almost 200% that of heterosexuals (18% and 35% respectively)http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/11/1822.abstract Alcohol35% of female homosexual women had a history of alcohol abuseCompared to 5% of females in generalFrom “Straight & Narrow?” page 113Other similar stats from pro-gay sources25% of gay/transgendered abuse alcohol compared to 5-10% of the general populationhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/03/09/11228/why-the-gay-and-transgender-population-experiences-higher-rates-of-substance-use/ 45% of LGBT population abuse alcohol vs 15% of the general population http://pride-institute.com/programs/lgbt-treatment/lgbt-alcohol-addiction/ Other drugs51% of homosexual males had a history of drug abuseCompared to 7% generallyMen who have sex with men are 3.5 times more likely to use marijuana than men who do not have sex with men.These men also are 12.2 times more likely to use amphetamines than men who do not have sex with men.They are also 9.5 times more likely to use heroin than men who do not have sex with men.https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/03/09/11228/why-the-gay-and-transgender-population-experiences-higher-rates-of-substance-use/ Related to psychological problemsDepression Suicidal thoughtsAttempted suicideRelated to reckless sexual behaviorNumber of partners & brevity of relationshipsA study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research,The most common response, given by 21.6% of the respondents, was of having a 101-500 lifetime sex partnersonly 2.7 % claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [Source: Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.]It’s not just this study Another study found that homosexual men had an averaged over 20 partners per year (from LA in the late 1980s)From – Thomas E. Schmidt, “Straight & Narrow?” pg 107Another 3 year study in Boston in the late 1980s found77% of the homosexuals surveyed had more than ten partners in the previous five years34% had more than 50 partners in that timeFrom – Thomas E. Schmidt, “Straight & Narrow?” pg 107Several other studies have agreed and some given even more shocking numbers"Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.Bell and Weinburg study (in “Homosexualities”)In males74% reported having over 100 partners during their life41% over 50028% over 1,00075% reported that more than half their partners were strangers65% reported having sex with over half their partners only onceIn females60% reported fewer than 10 partnersOnly 2% reported over 100 partnersA. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See alsoA. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).Among heterosexuals a study found that Only 17% of men and 10% of women had more than 1 partner in the previous yearFrom – Thomas E. Schmidt, “Straight & Narrow?” pg 107A study in ScandinaviaWhere same-sex civil unions — essentially marriages in everything but name — have been legal for about two decades.Same-sex male couples in Sweden were 35 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couplesLesbian partners were over 200 percent more likely to divorce. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382154/will-gay-couples-divorce-more-straight-ones-and-will-we-even-be-allowed-study-it-jason http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16579209 2- Same-sex long-term relationships are not parallel to heterosexual marriagesRelated to promiscuity (cheating or infidelity) 1 – Frequency of sex outside of long-term relationships/extreme rarity of monogamous style relationshipsIn one recent study of gay male couples41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partnersOne-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 monthsNeilands, Torsten B.; Chakravarty, Deepalika; Darbes, Lynae A.; Beougher, Sean C.; and Hoff, Colleen C. (2010), “Development and Validation of the Sexual Agreement Investment Scale,” Journal of Sex Research, 47: 1, 24 — 37, April 2009.This was as cited at http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/ This is something that even the pro-gay theologians would call
“sexual immorality”The vast majority of same-sex relationships which do last longer than 5 years involve consent to cheat3- encouraging it will increase it and increase the afflictions associated with it”That’s not fair?”It’s not fair to limit pilots to those who have good vision, but it’s safe and healthyIt’s not fair to say a brother and sister can’t marry but it’s safe and healthy4- same-sex erotic relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships in several capacitiesIn producing childrenIn raising childrenChildren and same-sex marriage3rd reason from the supreme court “marriage safeguards children and family”Mark Regnerous, University of Texas, AustinIn a study published in “Social Science Research” Volume 41, Issue 4, July 2012, Pages 752–770http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 The quotes that follow are from an FRC article about this study (liked below)The best and most thorough one to dateWhich compared kids raised by two married biological parents To kids raised by a gay parent or parents (lesbian mothers or gay fathers)The kids raised by a gay parent did worse on 77 out of 80 outcome measuresAre much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)Have lower educational attainmentReport less safety and security in their family of originReport more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of originAre more likely to suffer from depressionHave been arrested more oftenMales and females raised by homosexual parenting have more opposite sex sexual partners that those raised by married biological parents“It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.” “But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.”“The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).”http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research To endorse same-sex marriage is to endorse same-sex parentingThis is why Catholic Charities adoption agency was forced to close their doorsIn 2006 in Boston MassachusettsA state that legalized same-sex marriageA state that had anti-discrimination lawsThey were committed to only placing children with married parents (a mother and a father)Later that year the San Francisco branch stopped their adoption services tooIn 2010 the Washington Catholic Charities closed their foster/adoption servicesIn 2011 Catholic Charities of Illinois closed downTheir lawyer famously said “in the name of tolerance, we are not being tolerated”http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services.cfm This denies them a mother or fatherInstead it says “two people” are needed to raise a childEssentially it says “a mother and father are not essential”Those who had a mother and father, which one was replaceable?To endorse same-sex marriage is to endorse same-sex parentingMarriage is about children more than romanceIn fulfilling man and woman’s gender rolesIn being foundational to human civilization5- It redefines marriage in a devaluing and unjustified wayWhen marriage can mean anything it means nothingAnd marriage is central to society’s healthSo, when marriage is devalued society is devalued as a wholeHomosexual behavior is UNHEALTHYMainstream media presents only a certain narrative of homosexual relationshipsBasically, they involve two highly attractive people who enjoy stable committed relationships of fidelityThe point is that typical homosexual relationships are just same-sex versions of typical heterosexual onesBut this isn’t the caseThere are at least three significant ways that homosexual relationships typically differ from heterosexual ones“opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to interracial marriage in the 1950s”Not true1- Racial differences are insignificant while gender differences are hugely significantThe idea that men and women are the same is falseBrain differences, body differences, role differencesAn important distinctionThis is not about “gay-marriage” but “same-sex marriage”Gay marriage would be gay people marryingi.e. – a gay man and a gay woman can get married, but 2 straight men can notTo ignore this distinction is to misunderstand what this is all about2- No great moral thinker in history has EVER supported same-sex marriageYet many fought against racismNarcissistic viewpoint Who cares about society, who cares about morals, who cares about harm to ourselves or children, who cares about the baseless redefinition of marriageWe want what we want and we will be offended if you don’t give itConstant misdirectionFrom truth to feelingsFrom details to generalitiesFrom homosexual acts to homosexual love
Statistics worth noting – before we get into the secular case against same-sex erotic behavior
“homosexuality is normal” (may be as much as 2 percent)How many people are exclusively homosexual?In a Gallup poll taken in 2015 Americans were asked “Just your best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are gay or lesbian?”The mean answer was 23%How many really?The largest survey so far puts it at 3.8% Not only self-identified homosexuals (male and female)Includes bi-sexual, and transgendered identified peoplehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx For the 23% and 3.8% answersIn the book “Straight and Narrow” author Thomas Schmidt compiled data from 5 different studies (American, British, French, Netherland)The statistics represented in more real life numbersIn random group of 300 adults2 of the men and 1 of the women have had a same-sex encounter in the past yearAs many as 4 additional men and two additional woman have the inclination, at least occasionally, but in the past year either they were not able to act on it or they chose not to act on it.An additional 6 of the men and 3 of the women tried same-sex relations at some point in the past but decided that the experience was not what they wanted to do on a refular basis. The rest of the crowd, 282 out of 300 adults, practice heterosexuality if they practice anything. In terms of EXCLUSIVE same-sex desire coupled with PREDOMINANTLY same-sex practice, as few as 2 or the 300 are homosexual22% of Heterosexual men had their first heterosexual experience prior to the age of 1675% of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of 16From D. P. McWhirter and A. M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop pages 269, 271Homosexuality in natureAnimals do it so humans should tooBut do they?Animals do practice it for certain reasonsDominance, perhaps experimentationBUTWhen they pass into adolescence and if there are opposite sex mates available they stop “born that way”Let’s try and understand this reasoning… Because I think it is something people often miss in the discussionBorn that way doesn’t just mean “I didn’t choose this” but “I’m this way by design/nature and it is therefore right and good that I express it”“I didn’t choose this” is often used to support the idea that they are born that wayBut being “born that way” is What if some people are born inescapably attracted to the same sex with no attraction to the opposite sexFrom a Christian standpointDoesn’t make sin okBecause the nature of God’s prohibition is against ALL homosexual sex regardless of other considerationsI may be born predisposed toward alcoholismThis doesn’t make it okIn fact I must now take extra measures to stay away from itMy compassion is aroused for them, my heart goes out to themBut it only says “wow, this is going to be really difficult for you to follow Jesus”But again, welcome to the clubModern preachers have sometimes ignored the call to repent Jesus’ first messageTurn from NATURAL inclinations toward sinNow, ARE people born stuck with same-sex desires?A lot of money and scientific research has gone into this…Gender identity among those surgically “shifted” from boys to girls at infancyWilliam Reiner, a psychiatrist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, explored the question of environmental influences on sexuality with a group that had been surgically shifted from boys to girls. These boys had been born with certain genital deformities; because it is easier to fashion a vagina than a penis, the boys were surgically made into girls at birth. In many cases they were raised as girls, kept in the dark about the surgery, and thought themselves female long into adulthood. Invariably, Reiner found that the faux females ended up being attracted to women. If societal nudging was what made men gay, at least one of these boys should have grown up to be attracted to men. There is no documented case of that happening.Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow?: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexual Debate, Pages 103-104 A 2011 study at the Carolinska institute in SwedenLong term study followed 324 people who had sex reassignment surgeryBeginning about 10 years after surgery they had greatly increased mental distressThe suicide mortality rose almost 20 times higher than the comparable non-surgically altered peopleAn example of how twin studies are over-stated by the pro-homosexual acts crowdBased on data from 192 pairs of twins, the new study found a concordance rate for autism spectrum disorders of 77 percent among identical twin boys and 31 percent among fraternal twin boys.The researchers then used mathematical models and the prevalence of autism in the general population to estimate that 38 percent of autism spectrum disorders are caused by genetic factors, and 58 percent by unspecified environmental factors.http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/experts-critique-statistics-conclusion-of-autism-twin-study it’s seen as a spectrum If this is the type of reasoning that is solid then what’s the spectrum for Homosexuality?It would be largely environment and free choices
TRANSGENDER
???Vanderbuilt University and London’s port clinic – when those who felt transgendered did not try and change genders 70-80% spontaneously stopped having those feelingsSome utter hypocrisySexual orientation is fixed but gender is not?They celebrate those who work with people to change genderBut demonize those who work with people to change orientationA 2011 study at the Carolinska institute in SwedenLong term study followed 324 people who had sex reassignment surgeryBeginning about 10 years after surgery they had greatly increased mental distressThe suicide mortality rose almost 20 times higher than the comparable non-surgically altered peopleThe “evil” church and it’s handling of homosexualityOnly five out of 100 people gave churches generally an A for their handling of "the issue of homosexuality" in the Public Religion Research Institute survey, while 28 percent said their own church handled it well.In Evangelical churches over 75% gave their church an A or BThe worst were Catholic ratings of their churchesSex change/gender identitySex/Gender is determined by DNA, not by feelingsThere are huge biological differences between men and womenOrgans, brains, abilitiesThere are HUGE differences between men and womenIt’s in every cellGender is not a matter of choiceGender is not a matter of feelingGender is not changeableGender change operationsAka sex-change operationsNO SUCH THINGYou can’t change your sexYou can only mutilate the body to appear less masculine or less feminine Jons Hopkins - they no longer do IT!Imagine a kidnapping where a person is taken and mutilatedEmperor Nero – saw a man who looked like his former wifeHad him castrated and married himThis is horrid!!!Imagine if the guy was a willing participantIs it now totally fine?Not in a Christian worldviewGod is the designer and we aren’t to try and change the imageIs there or is there not such a thing as DelusionPGs story of being stuck in a mental hospitalThere’s Jesus and a couple of the apostlesYou aren’t Jesus “But I am on the INSIDE”The non-biblical moral discussionAre their differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships?1- The inability to produce offspring, ever.2- The disparity in parenting health3- The disparity of physical healthMSM behavior accounts for 78% of new HIV infections among menMSM people accounts for only 4% of the population (likely less than 2% active in a year)So this 4% got, in 2010, 78% of the new HIV infectionsThat means men who engage in SS behavior are X more likely to get HIVof the population they represent 78% of new HIV infectionshttps://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/index.html4- The occurrence of promiscuity5- The impact on societyIncrease in homosexual behaviorDecrease in childrenIncrease in disease It is not only those engaging in homosexual behavior that get ill, they become carriersIncrease costs of health careRemember homosexual behaving men represent 7% of the population while they represent 75% of the HIV infected populationThe political issue of marriageSupreme Court DecisionWhat did it do?Did NOT give homosexuals a right to get marriedThey already had that! Redefined marriage to include same-sex relationshipsMarriage is not a legal conventionIt was discovered, not definedBut marriage is NOT a civil institution, it is merely acknowledged in the civil institutionThe supreme court acknowledged this!Justice Kenedy (who wrote the majority opinion)Recognized that marriage is at the center of not only the USA but all human civilizationAlso recognized that marriage is “by it’s nature, a heterosexual union”But said “this view is now obsolete”Justifications –4 main reasons1 – Marrying who you choose is a right. True-ish but irrelevant We don’t call that marriage for the same reason we don’t call a square a circleNot if they are already marriedNot if they are a parentNot if they are a person of the same-sex2 – Marriage is unique and wonderful to the coupleTrueSo3 – marriage safeguards children and familiesWha?!?4 – marriage is a keystone of our social order (really important in society)Meaning it should be respected not redefined It has evolved over timeCites – arranged marriages, polygamy These don’t change the nature of marriageWho arranges it is irrelevant Society has waffled from monogamy to polygamy but then BACK TO THE COREPhilosophically wrongLegally wrongNot their job to make NEW rights based on what they think the law SHOULD beJust to seek to say what it says (echo, not originate)The will of the people5 unelected lawyers made a new “constitutional right”And paved the way to punish those who disagreeGay marriage vs same-sex marriage A slippery slopeSlippery slope or principleSlippery slope – that one thing will lead to anotherPrinciple – that two separate acts fall under the same principleSS and Incest Both can have consent and loveIncestBut we love each otherBut we are adultsBut we consentBut we can’t have a babyBut we are brothersHow about gay brothers?BestialityBe we love each otherBut we are consenting adultsBe we can’t have a babyPedophilia But we love each otherConsenting?Yes, and some adult victims say “I love them and it is good, who are you to judge”NecrophiliaBut we discussed this when they were alive…Same reasoningThe same justifications can be used for ALL of theseAdvice to those who strugglePress onFor the false teacherExpose and avoid their teachingFor the “gay-Christian”Correct in lovePotentially disfellowshipFor the non-christian gayPreach the gospelLegal issuesA Moral RightNo judgmentNo negative reinforcement Moral Permission This doesn’t help because of what else is permitted. And then judgedA Legal Right/Endorsement
Homosexuality and physical health issuesWe don’t encourage alcoholism or chain smoking because these things harm people By the same reasoning, homosexual behavior should be discouragedIt is demonstrably harmful!Mental illnessSuicideSocial problemsSTDsCancerSubstance AbuseThe following info is available on the Center For Disease Control website (government “Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.” http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm “Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men” http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm An atheistic worldview and homosexualityWhere does it come from? What worldview supports this rationally?