Let’s face it: we are prone to quickly view “rules” and “laws” that we don’t like as unnecessary and overly controlling—to be despised, eliminated, or, at the very least, ignored when possible. With very little deeper investigation, we will reject the oftentimes well-thought-out ordinances that govern our land, the instructions of a parent, or even the rules of God in Scripture. Rarely does it occur to us that we might be ignorant about the wise purposes behind various restrictions. Instead, we are quick to arrogantly assume that we know better than the authorities to which we are charged by God to submit (Romans 13:1-7; Hebrews 13:17; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13; Matthew 22:17-21).⁶

It is true that, as the American government and society at large moves ever farther from making laws that are based on biblical principles, those laws will become more unwise, irrational, and even evil. God’s rules, however, are guaranteed to be perfect: rational/reasonable, wise, just, and for our ultimate good. “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 6:24). God’s laws are not random or pointless. While human laws are not guaranteed to be for our good or to extend our lives, God’s laws are always for our ultimate good, and will, therefore, tend to improve our lives. And so it is with God’s rules about sexual behavior—in this case, specifically, homosexuality.

God implemented clear and decisive regulations against homosexuality—sexual relations with another person of one’s own gender:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27, ESV).

“Do 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,⁷ nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you…” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Again, when God outlaws a certain behavior, it must be for our ultimate good, regardless of whether or not we understand why or how that might be true in every case.⁸ As regards homosexuality, the rationale for God’s directives are abundantly clear.

As we have documented elsewhere,⁹ homosexuality is a toxic lifestyle that is both physically and psychologically detrimental to one’s health—not to mention the collateral damage caused for others in the process.¹⁰ Based on the statistical evidence, there can be no debate that the homosexual lifestyle is characterized by highly increased levels of sexual violence, substance abuse, psychological issues, shortened lifespans, suicide, and diseases such as Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV, anal cancer, and HIV/AIDS. That truth is once again being highlighted by monkeypox, the latest worldwide outbreak of another disease that is undeniably associated with homosexual behavior.¹¹ If we would but listen to the sexual commandments given by our loving God for our good, things would “go well” for us (Deuteronomy 4:40). Sadly, all too often, we refuse.

“Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, “We will not walk in it”’” (Jeremiah 6:16).¹²

Endnotes

¹ Bradford Betz (2022), “Biden Administration Declares Monkeypox a Public Health Emergency,” Fox News on-line, August 4, https://www.foxnews.com/health/biden-administration-declare-monkeypox-public-health-emergency.

² “Monkeypox Declared a Global Health Emergency by the World Health Organization” (2022), United Nations: UN News, July 23, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1123152.

³ Jason Arunn Murugesu (2022), “Monkeypox Emergency,” New Scientist, 255[3397]:7, July 30; “Monkeypox: Signs and Symptoms” (2022), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 5, https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/symptoms.html; Tina Hesman Saey (2022), “Monkeypox Is a Global Health Crisis,” New Scientist, 202[3]:7, August 13.

⁴ Murugesu, emp. added.

⁵ “Take a temporary break from activities that increase exposure to monkeypox until you are two weeks after your second dose” [“Monkeypox: Safer Sex, Social Gatherings, and Monkeypox” (2022), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 5, https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/sexualhealth/index.html].

⁶ Excepting, of course, any restrictions that violate God’s Law (Acts 5:29; Ephesians 6:1—“in the Lord”).

⁷ Or “catamites”—the individual in a homosexual relationship on the receiving end of the act.

⁸ While a small child may not understand why his parents require him to eat his vegetables, not play in the street, or touch the electrical socket, he should trust his parents to have good reasons for their rules.

⁹ Jeff Miller (2021), “Homosexuality: Society, Science, & Psychology [Part 3],” Reason & Revelation, 41[2]:15-20, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2102-web.pdf.

¹⁰ E.g., those who are passed diseases by others, the effect of unbridled sexual behavior on societies, etc. [Jeff Miller (2015), “God’s Word: Right About Sex,” Apologetics Press, March 22, https://apologeticspress.org/gods-word-right-about-sex-5138/.]

¹¹ Specifically, men having sex with other men.

¹² For a thorough study of the biblical, scientific, and psychological data regarding homosexuality, see Jeff Miller and Dave Miller (2021), Homosexuality: Scripture, Society, Science, and Psychology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post Monkey Pox: Homosexuality Is Bad for You, and God Called It Again appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan was slain in your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me; your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women (2 Samuel 1:25-26).

The Hebrew word for “love” in verse 26 carries a variety of meanings, but the primary meaning is the care and concern that one has for one’s fellow man (whether male or female). Hence, it is used as the opposite of hate,² friendship (Proverbs 17:9: 27:5), as well as God’s love for His people (Hosea 11:4; Isaiah 63:9; Jeremiah 31:3; Zephaniah 3:17) and vice-versa (Jeremiah 2:2).³

It is true that the term can be used to refer to sexual lust, as in the case of Amnon. After raping his half-sister, the text informs us: “Then Amnon hated her exceedingly, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her” (2 Samuel 13:15). The term “love” in this context refers exclusively to sexual desire—nothing more. The Song of Solomon uses the word to refer to the married love between a man and a woman (2:4,5; 5:8; 8:6,7; cf. Proverbs 5:19).

However, a significant difference exists between the comradery, friendship, and close connection sustained between two men who are lifelong friends, and the sexual relationship shared by two men. The former relationship has no hint whatsoever of sexual attraction, while the latter relationship is largely defined by the sexual connection. Indeed, it is the sexual activity that differentiates the two relationships. It is true that, like heterosexuals, two homosexuals can experience a variety of non-sexual feelings for each other, including friendship or a deep “soul-mate” connection. But this fact must not be allowed to obscure the real issue. The one has nothing to do with the other. The entire question comes down to whether two men have a God-given, God-authorized right to enact a sexual relationship with each other.

In the case of David and Jonathan, the circumstantial evidence suggests that they were simply close friends. They both were heavily involved in heterosexual marriages. They both had children from those marriages who received the priority that is typical of such marriages. For example, Jonathan desired a covenant between himself and David that would ensure the safety of his wife and family:

“And you shall not only show me the kindness of the LORD while I still live, that I may not die; but you shall not cut off your kindness from my house forever, no, not when the LORD has cut off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.” So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “Let the LORD require it at the hand of David’s enemies” (1 Samuel 20:14-16).

Jonathan’s concern was that the same kindness that David showed to himself be extended to his family. Was Jonathan requesting that David enact the same sexual relationship with Jonathan’s kids that David showed to him? Or, rather, was he referring to the friendship and close-knit care and concern for each other that the two shared? The latter is in keeping with the context. Jonathan later reminded David: “May the LORD be between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants, forever” (1 Samuel 20:42). Jonathan was concerned with sustaining, maintaining, and perpetuating his posterity through his marriage to a woman.

The fact is that no evidence whatsoever exists in the Bible that would lead one to believe that David and Jonathan sustained a sexual relationship with each other. In fact, a sober examination of the evidence leads even the defender of homosexuality to admit the fact, as in the admission made by a lesbian: “While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that David and Jonathan were lovers, Jesus himself did not say anything directly about homosexuality in the Bible either. Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships.”⁴ (For an examination of the validity of the claim regarding Jesus, see AP’s book Homosexuality: Scripture, Society, Science, & Psychology.)

Another factor to consider: The Law of Moses condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Indeed, it was a death-penalty offense. But if God readily condemned David for his violation of another Mosaic law pertaining to sexual contact, specifically, adultery (2 Samuel 11), why would He not have condemned David for homosexual contact as well? In fact, since Jonathan was married, he would have been “cheating” on his wife with David. Do homosexuals today who are in a “committed” relationship consider their partner as committing adultery if he has an “affair” with another man? To ask is to answer.

Endnotes

¹ For example, Kittredge Cherry (2020), “David and Jonathan: Same-sex Love Between Men in the Bible,” Q Spirit, December 29, https://qspirit.net/david-jonathan-same-sex-love/.

² Proverbs 10:12; 15:17; Psalm 109:4,5; Ecclesiastes 9:1,6.

³ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint), p. 13.

⁴ Cherry (2020).

The post David & Jonathan: Homosexuals? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is the third installment in a three-part series. Part I appeared in the December issue. Part II appeared in the January issue. Part III follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the second article ended.]

Homosexuality and Psychology

If They Can’t Help It, Then Why Can They Help It?

While a person born with certain conditions, like Down Syndrome or dwarfism, has no ability to change his condition, if a person can change his sexual orientation, it would be strong evidence against the inheritability argument. If “it’s in the genes,” then you cannot change it, and yet many can and have changed their sexual orientation, proving that a person is not genetically forced to be homosexual. That truth, besides being stated in Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), has been substantiated by experimental evidence.

In 1998, for example, psychologist Warren Throckmorton, in response to the American Counseling Association’s “resolution expressing concerns about conversion therapy,” conducted a literature review of the “effectiveness and appropriateness of therapeutic efforts to change sexual orientation.” The result of his findings was that “efforts to assist homosexually oriented individuals who wish to modify their patterns of sexual arousal have been effective.”¹

Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts surveyed 882 homosexuals who were dissatisfied with their orientation and had “sought and experienced some degree of change.”² After receiving therapy or attempting to change, the number of those who were previously exclusively homosexual dropped 88.4%, and

45.4% of the exclusively homosexual participants retrospectively reported having made major shifts in their sexual orientation. The exclusively homosexual participants also reported large and statistically significant decreases in the frequency of their homosexual behavior with a partner from before to after treatment or change. There was evidence that the changes in sexual orientation reported by many of the participants were long lasting. The average length of time that had elapsed since the participants reported the changes in their sexual orientation was 6.7 yr [sic]…. Twenty-three percent of the participants said that it had been 10 or more years since they had experienced the changes in their orientation.³

The number of individuals who previously identified as “exclusively” or “almost entirely homosexual,” or “more homosexual than heterosexual” dropped 61% after they attempted to change through therapy or self-help.⁴ “As a group, the participants reported large and statistically significant reductions in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies that they attributed to conversion therapy or self-help. They also reported large improvements in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.”⁵

Robert Spitzer was instrumental in the removal of homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of disorders. However, in 2001 he presented a historic report of a study at the meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, later published in 2003. He studied 200 predominantly homosexual individuals “who reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years” after reparative therapy.⁶ Spitzer found that,

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year…. For many reasons, it is concluded that the participants’ self-reports were, by-and-large, credible and that few elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.⁷

Before their therapy, the males were, on average, 91% interested in only other males (with 0% being completely heterosexual) and self-identified highly as homosexual (77%). The females were 88% interested in only other females and self-identified highly as homosexual (77%). After therapy, however, both males and females changed to being very highly heterosexual (males 23%, 8.5%; females 8%, 3%).⁸ In all 10 of the measures used to assess their homosexuality, “there was a marked reduction on all change measures.”⁹ Spitzer said, “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that’s untrue—some people can and do change.”¹⁰

In their 2016 extensive survey of the biological, psychological, and social science literature, Mayer and McHugh found the following about sexual orientation change:

Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).¹¹

One would certainly expect the homosexual community to vigorously contest the findings of Mayer and McHugh, since they so clearly refute the current dogma of the media and the bulk of the scientific community. Mayer and McHugh, however, were simply reporting the summarized results of hundreds of studies. Ironically, even lesbian activist psychologist Lisa Diamond agrees that sexual orientation is not fixed. In an interview for New Scientist, titled “Sexuality Is Fluid—It’s Time to Get Past ‘Born This Way,’” she stated that she believes people are “born with a sexual orientation,” but “also with a degree of sexual flexibility…. So there are gay people who are very fixedly gay and there are gay people who are more fluid, meaning they can experience attractions that run outside of their orientation.”¹² Bottom line: the research agrees with what Scripture and common sense say, and what even hostile witnesses acknowledge—one’s sexual orientation can change.

Homosexuality: Psychologically and Physically Bad for You

In the introduction, we briefly considered reasons why God would have condemned homosexuality in Scripture. Recall that, whatever His reason, it would stem from His love for mankind: His unselfish concern for the well-being of humanity, His children. In the same way that a parent’s rules are made for the benefit of his children, who oftentimes cannot fully grasp the importance and value of those rules, God’s rules are “holy and just and good”¹³ and “for our good,”¹⁴ always.¹⁵ Keeping those laws will bring us happiness,¹⁶ wisdom, joy, and enlightenment.¹⁷ Importantly, obeying God’s laws will lengthen our lives¹⁸ and keep us alive.¹⁹

I recall a conversation I had with a college-aged atheist a few years ago, wherein he expressed his disdain for Christians for their “hateful” condemnation of homosexuals and for not “accepting them for who they are.” I clarified the biblical position on the matter: biblical Christians’ confrontation of wicked behavior is not hateful, but loving. How loving would it be not to warn a person who is unwittingly running towards a cliff that is hidden behind some shrubbery? How loving would it be not to warn a child about an oncoming car or the danger of touching fire? “Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed” (Proverbs 27:5). That simple truth may be obvious to the spiritually-minded individual, but to many in the world (including the atheist to whom I was speaking), it is a new concept.

One proof of biblical inspiration is its scientific foreknowledge—its accuracy with regard to scientific and medical matters that were not discovered until centuries beyond the time they were written.²⁰ God’s prohibition of homosexual activity and subsequent statements that His laws tend to promote life are a good example. Even if homosexuality were genetically determined (which it is not), the loving individual should strongly discourage the practice due to its deleterious physical and psychological effects. Consider the following seven.

Sexual Violence

• In 2013, then Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tom Frieden announced the release of a report on interpersonal and sexual violence. He explained, “We know that violence affects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. This report suggests that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in this country suffer a heavy toll of sexual violence and stalking committed by an intimate partner…. While intervening and providing services are important, prevention is equally critical.”²¹
• The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey revealed that bisexual women are 1.7 times more likely than heterosexual women to report experiencing intimate partner violence and 2.6 times more likely to report experiencing intimate partner sexual violence.²²

Disease

• According to the CDC, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex [sic] of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.”²³ “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2017, adult and adolescent gay and bisexual men made up 70% (27,000) of the 38,739 new HIV diagnoses in the United States and dependent areas.”²⁴ Such statistics are particularly noteworthy when considering the fact that those who identify as “LGBT” make up only 4.5% of the population, according to a 2018 GALLUP poll.²⁵
• In 2014, Psychologist Christopher Rosik responded to the World Medical Association’s 2013 statement that “homosexuality does not represent a disease” and which condemned conversion and reparative therapy.²⁶ He cited studies that revealed an “overall 1.4 percent per-act probability of HIV transmission for anal sex and a 40.4 percent per-partner probability,” “roughly 18-times greater than that which has been estimated for vaginal intercourse.” While gay men represent “2-4 percent of the general population,” they made up “61 percent of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses” at the time.²⁷
• According to Nicolosi, “the Los Angeles Times reported that the rate of rectal gonorrhea among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco rose 44 percent during a recent three-year period, while in Los Angeles, new syphilis cases among gay and bisexual men rose more than 1,680 percent.”²⁸ Among gay and bisexual men, syphilis “has increased more than 365% since 2001, and is still on the rise” in Los Angeles.²⁹

Substance Abuse

• According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Web site, “LGBTQ people also face disparities in the physical medical context, including increased tobacco use, HIV and AIDS, and weight-related problems.” Lesbian and bisexual women are three times as likely as heterosexuals to have a substance abuse disorder.³⁰
• After surveying hundreds of relevant articles, Mayer and McHugh found that homosexuals have “1.5 times the risk of substance abuse” as heterosexuals.³¹

Shortened Lifespan

• With the above factors in mind, it should come as no surprise that several studies over the years have verified that homosexuals tend to live shorter lives: between 8 and 30 years less than everyone else.³²
• Those who have contracted AIDS (a condition which, again, tends to be associated with homosexuality) live an even shorter life (10%).³³

Psychological Issues

• Mayer and McHugh were “alarmed to learn that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.”³⁴ They explain, “Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes. Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression.”³⁵
• A literature study conducted by Neil Whitehead revealed that “a score of mental health conditions in almost every DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—JM] category are present in the general SSA [same-sex attraction—JM] population at rates three or more times greater than in the opposite-sex attraction (OSA) population. These conditions include bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, but more predominantly consist of mood disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality. All need particular attention from therapists. People reporting SSA have a more widespread and intense psychopathological burden than probably any other group of comparable size in society, though college-age people may have more substance abuse problems.”³⁶

Suicide

• According to the CDC, “Males in the United States are more likely to take their own life at nearly four times the rate of females and represent 79% of all U.S. suicides. Suicide is the seventh leading cause of death for males in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are at even greater risk for suicide attempts, especially before the age of 25. A study of youth in grades 7-12 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers.”³⁷
• Harvard University psychologist Mark Hatzenbuehler’s study of suicide attempts among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth revealed that, of the 31,852 students in the study, “Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth were significantly more likely to attempt suicide in the previous 12 months, compared with heterosexuals (21.5% vs. 4.2%).”³⁸
• According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Web site, “Alarmingly LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer/questioning] people also have a nearly three time [sic] higher risk of suicide or suicidal behavior.”³⁹
• Mayer and McHugh highlight from their extensive survey of the psychological literature that homosexuals have “nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide” as the heterosexual community.⁴⁰
  Note that the above suicide statistics were revealed among homosexuals at a time when homosexuality is, by and large, accepted in American society, and even where it is not accepted, it is tolerated, with those who would speak out against it being threatened with severe public backlash.

Although a 2002 study was conducted prior to the point at which American acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle passed the 50% mark, it further verified Hatzenbuehler’s high suicide statistics among homosexuals. According to Paul, et al., 21% of homosexual men had made a suicide plan in their lifetime and 12% had attempted it, most before the age of 25.⁴¹

Keep in mind that while substance abuse, psychological issues, and suicide would be expected to be higher among homosexuals in response to unacceptance or mistreatment by the society in which they live, Mayer and McHugh highlight that the evidence that “discrimination and stigma contribute to the elevated risk of poor mental health” for homosexuals is “limited,”⁴² though one would predict it to be prevalent if significant. Rosik highlighted that the “relationship is small” according to studies,⁴³ and “the incidence and type of psychological problems among gay and lesbian persons remains about the same whether they reside in tolerant and accepting environments or intolerant ones.”⁴⁴

Children of Homosexuals

Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin conducted a study in 2012 to assess the effect that having homosexual parents has on a child. After collecting data from roughly 3,000 people, the study found that children who were raised in homes with same-sex parents, as opposed to homes that were intact with a mother and father, were (as adults):

• Over two times as likely to be unmarried while cohabitating with someone;
• 2.3 (gay parents, G)-to-3.8 (lesbian parents, L) times as likely to be on public assistance;
• 2.5 (G)-to-3.5 (L) times as likely to be unemployed;
• 2.4 (L)-to-4.8 (G) times as likely to be suicidal;
• 2.4 times as likely to be in therapy;
• 1.9 (G)-to-3.1 (L) times as likely to have had an affair;
• 2.5 (L)-to-3.1 (G) times as likely to have had a sexually transmitted disease;
• 3 (G)-to-11.5 (L) times as likely to have been sexually molested;
• 3.1 (G)-to-3.9 (L) times as likely to have been raped;

Such children were also more likely as adults to be unmarried, unhappy, depressed, unhealthy, less educated, and have lower income, according to the study. They were more likely to smoke marijuana, be arrested, and have multiple sexual partners, as well as get drunk on purpose. They were also more likely not to identify as entirely heterosexual.⁴⁵

Summary

To summarize, in the words of Nicolosi and Nicolosi,

When the studies are taken as a whole, it is clear that a teenager who self-identifies as gay is at high risk for infection with HIV or another sexually transmitted disease; for psychiatric problems, including suicidal ideation; and for self-destructive behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse and prostitution…. The fact that these problems do not decrease in gay-friendly cities such as San Francisco and gay-tolerant countries such as the Netherlands supports the view that there must be factors at work that are intrinsic to the homosexual condition.⁴⁶

God’s laws are for our good. Love demands that the practice of homosexuality be confronted and condemned for the good of homosexuals and society at large. Over half of the people in the United States approve of homosexuality. Translation: over half of the people in the United States do not love the homosexual community. “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

If There’s No Gay Gene, Then What Causes Homosexual Attraction?

Some homosexuals are those who have so indulged the flesh that natural intercourse is no longer appealing to them. They need something else to arouse themselves. That form is likely what is described in Romans 1:24-28 and which is demonstrated in Genesis 18-19. Another category, however, involves those who have experienced or witnessed circumstances that have severely hurt them psychologically, who need compassion and assistance.

While there may be certain genetic traits that would make one more likely than another to engage in homosexual behavior if certain things happened to him, the fact that he must first have experienced certain circumstances in his life indicates that same sex attraction and homosexual behavior are ultimately results of “environmental” conditions—circumstances and experiences—many of which are out of the control of the individual, often having occurred when he or she was very young.

Gender Identity Disorder

The late psychologist Joseph Nicolosi of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in California, explained the condition known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. According to Nicolosi, GID can begin to show itself as early as two years old—long before the child’s brain has developed enough to even remember the experiences that led to his GID.⁴⁷ Nicolosi explained that, in males, GID arises due to a child not being drawn into his own gender, or being rejected by his gender, or things happen that cause him essentially to reject his own gender. Many times, such a boy has a mother that constantly berates men, especially his father, making the boy not want to be a male. Such a boy might not, for instance, be physically coordinated enough to fit in with other boys (which has a genetic component), so he is viciously and incessantly made fun of by other boys—his “gender” rejects him. Ultimately, experiences occur that lead him to begin to feel on the outside of his gender—that he does not belong with other boys. Instead, he feels that he fits in better with females.

Meanwhile, his mother welcomes him into the female gender, where he becomes her daily “sidekick,” learning the life of a female, and she encourages feminine behavior and condemns masculine behavior. If the boy also becomes distanced from the father, or the father distances him (his father being his primary source of a masculine image), his feelings of rejection will cause him not to want to be like his father—which causes him, according to Nicolosi, to surrender his “natural masculine strivings. Then, when other boys shun the gender-confused boy (as indeed they will), they become more deeply mired in loneliness, and this loneliness and rejection only confirms their belief in their not being ‘good enough.’ This leads to the problem of idolizing other boys’ maleness.”⁴⁸ When the hormones then hit in the adolescent years, in the words of one homosexual psychologist, “individuals become erotically or romantically attracted to those who were dissimilar or unfamiliar to them in childhood.” The “exotic becomes erotic.”⁴⁹ The boy, who has not been drawn into his own gender, who fits in better with girls, begins to view boys as the mysterious, opposite gender. He idolizes them and their masculinity. When adolescent hormones arrive, the idolization of the “opposite” that they have longed to be, coupled with the added erotic feelings that accompany hormones, leads to homosexual attraction.

Nicolosi explains that lesbianism results from “the girl’s unconscious rejection of her feminine identity. Women who become lesbians have usually decided, on an unconscious level, that being female is either undesirable or unsafe.”⁵⁰ So they reject their gender in response and try to become male. One can only imagine the kinds of traumatic things such girls have experienced. To deny that they need help and even attempt (successfully in 20 states⁵¹) to make it illegal to help homosexuals with therapy, is the epitome of calloused, unloving behavior.

Other GID Contributing Factors: Poor Fathers

According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2017 there were 74 million children under the age of 18 in America, and more than one in four of them live in single parent homes. Of those children, 84% live without a father. Translation: 23% of American children live without a father.⁵² And yet, sadly, Nicolosi highlighted the evidence that fathers play a significant role in causing and preventing GID.

Nicolosi emphasized, “In fifteen years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I have never met a single homosexual man who said he had a close, loving, and respectful relationship with his father.”⁵³ “The majority of fathers of prehomosexual boys I have known are simply uninvolved, emotionally distant, and disconnected, especially from their sons.”⁵⁴ He cites the published works of other psychologists as further support for that observation. Psychologists Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg said, “The reports concerning the male homosexual’s view of his father are overwhelmingly supportive of Freud’s hypothesis. With only a few exceptions, the male homosexual declares that father has been a negative influence in his life.”⁵⁵ So while there is some inconsistency in studies about mothers, “one virtually unchanging variable is the poor relationship with fathers.”⁵⁶ Fathers are often instrumental in causing GID and homosexual attraction.⁵⁷

Other GID Contributing Factors: Sexual Abuse

Statistics reveal that sexual abuse is a significant contributing factor in causing GID. A 1994 report on sexual behavior in the United States revealed that sexual molestation of a child makes him/her three times more likely to identify as gay or lesbian.⁵⁸ Mayer and McHugh’s 2016 report verified that sexual molestation is a common previous experience of homosexuals, stating that, “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”⁵⁹ A study that was reported in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of lesbian women reported homosexual molestation, compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women reporting homosexual molestation.⁶⁰ The study conducted by Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts revealed that 60% of the 882 homosexual participants “said they experienced homosexual contact when they were a child.”⁶¹ Sexual abuse—especially homosexual sexual abuse—clearly plays a significant role in shaping one’s sexual identity. Environment, not biology, is the primary cause of GID.

With that fact in mind, parents should be on guard and attentive to their children. According to studies by the Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center,⁶² “1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse.” Also according to one of the studies, over the course of their lifetime, 28% of United States youth, ages 14-17, had been sexually victimized. “According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report, 3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well.” No doubt, such statistics will continue to rise as the United States delves ever deeper into sexual anarchy—causing homosexuality to become more and more prevalent in our country.⁶³

Conclusion

In the same way that a parent gives a child rules for his own benefit—for his safety and happiness—God gave humans rules and guidelines that are for our good and happiness. No doubt, parents can be wrong in the rules that they give, since parents do not have perfect wisdom or omniscience. God the omniscient, Chief Psychologist of the Universe Who designed and created the human psyche, however, can be trusted to know the best way to live. Heterosexual behavior between one man and one woman for life is the biblically prescribed way to conduct ourselves sexually. If we wish to be safe and happy, we will abide by His instructions.

From the beginning, however, like the rebellious child who thinks he knows more than his parents, humans have rejected God’s way and put their trust in themselves instead of God and His Word. And still, our merciful God “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Homosexuals can “repent.” They can cease sexual activity that is prohibited by God and begin conducting themselves in the biblically prescribed way—the way that will lead to their happiness (Proverbs 29:18). “Do 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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). To our homosexual friends: we love you and plead with you to change, for your own good. Christian community: we plead with you not to “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:26-32), but love homosexuals enough to stand against the societal promulgation of their physically, psychologically, and spiritually toxic lifestyle.

 Endnotes

The post Homosexuality: Society, Science, & Psychology [Part 3] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The Bible certainly teaches very clearly that the mistreatment of one’s fellow human beings is sinful, and that God makes no distinction between humans on the basis of skin color, ethnicity, or nationality (e.g., 1 Samuel 16:7; Acts 17:26; Romans 2:11,28-29; James 2:1ff.; 1 Peter 1:17). However, behavior is a different matter. Homosexuality, by definition, entails acts that a person performs as the result of the exercise of human choice.

Notice that one’s ethnicity has nothing to do with behavior or choice. If a person’s skin is light or dark, the decisions that he or she makes is not the inevitable result of that genetic factor. Behavior is determined by non-genetic factors—including past experiences, parental and peer influence, education, and culture. A Hispanic is not more or less likely to behave in a certain way simply because of his or her genetic makeup. One whose gene pool is Hispanic is not more or less likely to prefer, say, a tamale, than one whose genetic makeup is Caucasian. Such persons will possess preferences that have arisen from sources and circumstances other than their genetic background.

In stark contrast, however, sexual appetites/preferences have nothing to do with genetic makeup. They are the result of environment, experience, culture, and other factors that can mold and shape individuals in their personal decision-making processes. The sexual inclinations and tendencies that a homosexual insists that he inherently “feels” are no different from the feelings and inclinations that a pedophile possesses in his sexual attraction to children, or that a murderer feels with regard to his violent tendencies. The “feelings” for all three are quite obviously real; but it is a mistake to assign those feelings to any underlying genetic cause. And it is biblically and morally unacceptable for the individual to act on such feelings. Here is the essential difference between ethnicity and homosexuality. African Americans and Caucasions cannot alter their skin color. But they can alter their behavior. And so can homosexuals.

The post Is It Racist to Oppose Homosexuality? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this three-part series appeared in the December issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Homosexuality and Science

Another powerful tool in the gay agenda toolbelt was invented in 1991. The search for a “gay gene” was in full force. After all, if there is a gay gene, then the homosexual cannot help being gay, any more than a person can help having blood. If they cannot help it, then they cannot change it. With such a potentially powerful argument for the acceptance of homosexuality on the horizon, obviously homosexuals and those who endorse their lifestyle would be very interested in proving the existence of a gay gene. “[T]hey did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10b-12).

In 1991, Simon LeVay’s study that sought the “gay gene” was released. The media’s interpretation and presentation of the study was that the gay gene had been found. Overnight, the public’s thinking on homosexuality was significantly altered. After all, “If homosexuals were born that way, it can’t be right to condemn them for it, right? They can’t help it!” Even Christendom was influenced to ignore Scripture on the subject. In 2004, Howard Dean (then Governor of Vermont) signed a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions in Vermont, stating, “The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to [homosexuality]. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.”¹ Americans are so biblically illiterate that the nation, by-and-large, fell for such transparent error.

Simon LeVay’s Search for the “Gay Gene”

Did LeVay find the “gay gene”? Didn’t he prove that there are brain differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men? That is certainly the word on the street, but it is not the truth. LeVay’s study claimed that clusters of certain neurons (INAH) in heterosexual men were much larger than that of women and homosexual men, but several problems with the study have been documented.

1. LeVay’s results could not be reproduced.² Reproducibility is a key component of scientific research. Another scientist should be able to follow the same steps you took in your study and achieve the same results. LeVay’s work could not be so verified.
2. The 19 known homosexual men examined in the study all had AIDS. AIDS is known to decrease testosterone levels, thus yielding smaller clusters of INAH.³ The size difference, therefore, may have simply been due to AIDS, not homosexuality.
3. Many scientists now argue that brain differences can be a result of certain behaviors, rather than the cause of them. Marc Breedlove, from Michigan State University, showed that sexual behavior affects the brain, rather than vice versa. “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it.”⁴ In the journal Nature, he explained: “It is possible that differences in sexual behaviour cause, rather than are caused by, differences in brain structure.”⁵ William Byne, writing in Scientific American, explained that, “Even if genetic and neuroanatomical traits turn out to be correlated with sexual orientation, causation is far from proved.”⁶ Ironically, Simon LeVay himself admitted the same truth about his study: “[T]he results do not allow one to decide if the size of INAH 3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual’s sexual orientation, or if the size of INAH 3 and sexual orientation co-vary under the influence of some third, unidentified variable.”⁷
4. LeVay is, himself, a homosexual, adding the real possibility of personal bias to the equation. In the study, he set out to find the gay gene, not to determine if it even exists, which would naturally lend to one finding “evidence” where there is, in actuality, none. LeVay admitted, “I felt if I didn’t find any [difference in the hypothalamuses], I would give up a scientific career altogether.”⁸
5. The most important point to be made about LeVay’s famous study comes from the “horse’s mouth.” Levay admitted, “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.”⁹
   Notice: the primary study to which most people point to prove that homosexuality is genetic—that a homosexual is “born that way” and does not have a choice in the matter—has been misinterpreted to say it proves something it did not prove.

A Summary of the Science of Homosexuality Over the Intervening Years

Many studies were conducted in the following three decades after LeVay’s study—from Bailey and Pillard’s paradoxical “twins” study,¹⁰ to unreproducible X Chromosome studies by Dean Hamer¹¹ and J. Michael Bailey/Alan Sanders,¹² to unsubstantiated, highly criticized, speculative models (not actual evidence) that homosexuality could be epigenetically caused (i.e., caused by non-DNA genetic factors rather than DNA).¹³ Even accounting for the blatant bias of many of the researchers, none have been able to substantiate the existence of a “gay gene” or even prove there is a genetic component that causes homosexuality.

To summarize the current state of the scientific search for a “gay gene,” consider the following quotes from the last few years:

• Geneticists William Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergy Gavrilets: “Although pedigree studies indicate a familial association of homosexuality in both males and females [which could suggest environmental influences, not genetic—JM], more than a decade of molecular genetic studies have produced no consistent evidence for a major gene, or other genetic marker, contributing to male homosexuality. Moreover, the most recent genome-wide association study using exceptionally high marker density found no significant association between homosexuality in males and any SNPs.”¹⁴ In other words, none of the markers which help identify genetic differences between humans has been found to distinguish homosexuals as genetically different from heterosexuals.
• Writing in Nature, Jonathan Lambert highlights a 2019 “massive study,” “the largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality” that indicates there is “no ‘gay gene.’” The study did identify spots in the human genome which the researchers hope are correlated with sexuality, but admit that “none of the markers are reliable enough to predict someone’s sexuality.”¹⁵ In other words, no genetic factor has been found that could be said to cause or force a person to be a homosexual—it’s a choice. Jessica Hamzelou, writing in New Scientist, authored an article on the subject titled, “There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Gay Gene’ Finds Largest Study of Sexuality.” “It’s time to throw out the idea of a ‘gay gene.’” Concerning the genes that are “hoped” to be influential in sexuality, she admitted, “It isn’t clear what these genes might do to affect sexuality [maybe nothing—JM]…. But crucially,…these genes only had a small effect and were far from being predictive of a person’s sexuality.”¹⁶ In other words, the largest study to date has further confirmed (1) that there is no “gay gene” and (2) there is no conclusive evidence that there is any genetic cause of homosexuality.
• In 2016, in the interest of helping “physicians, scientists, and citizens to address health issues faced by LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender—JM] populations within our society,” University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University and Psychiatric Epidemiologist of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute Lawrence Mayer conducted an extensive survey of the research that has been conducted concerning the LGBT community over the past several years.¹⁷ Their goal was not to conduct their own experiments on the “gay gene” or the genetics of homosexuality, but merely to carry out a “literature survey” that summarizes the current knowledge of the subject as gleaned from, especially, experimental evidence. The authors studied hundreds of scientific articles on the subject, surveying research from the scientific fields of epidemiology, genetics, endocrinology, psychiatry, neuroscience, embryology, and pediatrics, as well as the social science fields of psychology, sociology, political science, economics, and gender studies.¹⁸ Upon examining the available research to date, they summarized their findings:

Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence…. The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that way”—is not supported by scientific evidence. While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.¹⁹

• As stated on the American Psychological Association Web site:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….²⁰

In spite of the frantic efforts to find a scientific basis for the claim that sexual orientation is biologically pre-set, a gay gene has not been found. Instead, people just “think” different factors are at play. If homosexual orientation is not hereditary, it must be largely environmental and a psychological, rather than a biological, issue, in spite of the fact that the American Psychological Association has removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

What was once intuitively understood to be the case has now been verified through mounds upon mounds of experimental evidence by many of the very scientists who set out to disprove the obvious: homosexuality is not a genetically forced condition but, rather, an unnatural choice that is affected, to a large degree, by terrible and unfortunate environmental influences, many of which occur so early in life that they are not remembered by the victim (more on that later).

The testimony of hostile witnesses is powerful evidence in a trial, because a hostile witness would tend to be biased against that which he speaks in favor of. Similarly, it would be difficult to disregard such testimony from highly credentialed, hostile witnesses who testify that there is no gay gene, and yet you can be certain that that scientific discovery will not be accepted. We have elsewhere highlighted blind faiths²¹ that are held by many naturalists, like belief in the multiverse²² and the Big Bang Theory²³—theories which lack legitimate evidence to substantiate key tenets that undergird them. Both theories have been admitted by leading cosmologists to be unscientific because they are unfalsifiable: there is no discovery that could be made that would cause naturalistic cosmologists to disbelieve in the theories (because they blindly believe them to be true). Any discovery—even those which seem firmly to disprove the theories—will simply be interpreted in a way that keeps the theories alive. The search for the “gay gene” has been, and surely will continue to be, no different. According to this false way of thinking, there simply must be a genetic cause for homosexual behavior that will make it, not a choice, but a necessity, allowing such sexually immoral behavior to continue without guilt and without argument.

That Said…

Even if a “gay gene” were found—or a “pedophile gene,” “rape gene,” “murder gene,” “lust gene,” “liar gene,” or “theft gene,” for that matter—what would such discoveries ultimately mean? Would one argue that individuals with those genes have no choice as to whether or not they act on their predispositions? Should we allow murderers and rapists to roam the lands pillaging and plundering unhampered since their “genes made them do it,” or do we understand that they can control themselves? Are homosexuals to be viewed as animals—automatons that act purely on instinct with an inability to choose whether or not they may act upon their inclinations? In the words of Tina Saey, writing for ScienceNews, even if sexuality is linked to genes, it “doesn’t mean that genes control sexual behavior or orientation. ‘Same-sex sexuality appears to be genetically influenced, but not genetically determined,’ [University of Utah in Salt Lake City psychologist] Diamond says.”²⁴ Since I am not homosexual, but heterosexual, by implication, if there is a “gay gene,” then I would presumably have the “heterosexual gene.” Question: do I have a choice whether or not to act upon my inclinations every time an attractive woman happens upon my path? While many naturalistic evolutionists and atheists have followed their belief systems to their logical conclusion and argued that we do not, in fact, have free will, the bulk of humanity understands their arguments to be (1) irrational, (2) contrary to the daily barrage of evidence that refutes that assertion, and (3) even self-contradictory.²⁵ Humans have free will. So whatever such a “gay gene” would be if it existed, it clearly still would not force a person to act on his deviant proclivities and disobey God. He can control himself.

If, therefore, a genetic component to homosexuality were ever found, its effect would have to be something other than what many assume the effect of a “gay gene” to be (i.e., that a homosexual cannot help but commit sexual immorality). No doubt, there has been corruption and decay in our once pristine creation (Hebrews 1:10-12), certainly including corruption and degradation in our genetic makeup since Creation and the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19), and that could play a role in influencing human behavior.²⁶ We know that genetics can play a role in whether or not a person is more susceptible to alcoholism or losing his temper (both controllable behaviors) than others. Some behaviors and addictions tend to be family-connected. As far back as 1993, psychiatrists were acknowledging the possibility that homosexuality belongs in that vein. Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons of Columbia University surveyed the literature regarding the potential for biological factors being the “primary basis for sexual orientation,” and found “the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges,” highlighting the influence of hormones and environment in sexual development.²⁷ Saey, once again quoting Diamond, explained that sexuality “‘is not the only complex human phenomenon for which we see a genetic influence without a great understanding of how that influence works.’ Other complex human behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol use, personality and even job satisfaction all have some genetic component.”²⁸ In their enlightening book, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, psychologist and co-founder of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Joseph Nicolosi and his wife Linda highlight the futility of searching for a “gay gene” since none exists. They quote psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover:

“The real genetic question is—what is it in the background of people who become homosexual that opens that door for them, whereas the door is essentially closed for other people? In a nutshell, every behavioral trait in human nature has a genetic component. For example, basketball playing is clearly genetic…. But if you ask yourself what that’s about it’s clear that it’s NOT that there is a gene for basketball playing…. The reason there’s a genetic association is that there’s an intermediate trait which allows people who carry these traits to become basketball players in greater numbers than those who do not have those traits—namely, height, athleticism, and so on. So it’s not surprising that there is a growing number of studies that show a genetic association to homosexuality. But that is a far cry from saying that homosexuality is genetic in the way that eye color is genetic.” So, is it true that homosexuality really is an inborn and normal variant of human nature? For some people, there are no doubt genetic or prenatal hormonal influences that “open the door” to homosexuality, and those influences are likely those that induce a child to see himself or herself as gender-atypical. The answer to the question of inevitability, according to psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, is no—no one is “born gay.” There is no evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is genetically or prenatal-hormonally set in stone simply because that child has gender-atypical interests. In fact, none of the research claims that homosexuality is mandated by biology. Only the press and certain researchers do….²⁹

While a person might be more prone to certain behaviors or temptations due to genetic factors, do such factors control his behavior? No. One could envision a scenario in which a man was genetically predisposed to have, for instance, unusual testosterone levels or endocrine issues that,³⁰ given the “right” experiences in his life and environmental influences at the right time, could affect who attracts him (discussed later). In such a scenario, however, once again, the individual has the ability to decide whether or not to act upon his desires. Homosexual behavior is a choice and, as an “orientation,” changeable (see next part).

The bottom line is that in the three decades since the LeVay “gay gene” study, even the most biased scientists have not been able to find what they thought was inevitable: a gene that would explain the abnormal behavior of homosexuals, make it seem more “natural,” and subsequently justify their continuance in behaviors that God calls “abominable.” The pro-homosexual community predicted that, if homosexuals were “born that way” without a choice, a “gay gene” should exist that would prove it. The fact that they have not been able to find such a gene effectively falsifies their theory and speaks loudly to the fact that homosexuality is a learned behavior, caused primarily by environmental factors outside of the womb. If it is learned, it can be unlearned. If it is a physically and psychologically dangerous, as well as spiritually wicked, lifestyle, it should be unlearned, and those environmental circumstances that were factors that led to the unhealthy behavior should be addressed.

(to be continued)

 Endnotes

The post Homosexuality: Society, Science, & Psychology (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Among the many sins listed in Scripture, a handful are mentioned in conjunction with the downfall of a nation. If certain sins are accepted, approved of, and prevalent in a society, its demise is on the horizon. Among those sins is homosexuality: sexual intercourse between individuals of the same gender. In Leviticus 18, God, through the hand of Moses, delineates several sins that the Israelites were not to commit, including, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (vs. 22). God continued:

Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You 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 with you…, lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people (vss. 24-29).

Why is homosexuality spotlighted by God as a particularly heinous sin—an “abomination”? Scripture does not explicitly say. Is it because the sin of homosexuality is so obviously unnatural (Romans 1:26-27) that when a society en masse has irrationally accepted it as natural, the society has passed beyond the point where it can be reasoned with? Is it because homosexual activity is often more violent, and the lifestyle lends itself to violence¹ towards others (e.g., Genesis 18-19) and disease²? Regardless of the motivation, God would not outlaw a behavior without good reasons. He, being the essence of love (1 John 4:7-8), would have loving motivations behind His rules. God loves the homosexual, in the same way that He loves all sinners (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10), and He expects His followers to love them as well (Luke 6:31-36)—which is why we are writing this article. God’s commandments are “for our good always” (Deuteronomy 6:24³) and promote life (Deuteronomy 6:24⁴). Sadly, our society and the homosexual community are choosing death.

Homosexuality and American Society

The “Homosexual Manifesto”

In 1987, homosexual activist Michael Swift wrote an article in Gay Community News stating the goals of the homosexual movement⁵—what might be called the “Homosexual Manifesto.” Portions of the article were read during a congressional debate by former Congressman William Dannemeyer, and were entered into the Congressional Record. As you read the following excerpts, be amazed by how much of the gay agenda has been realized over the past 33 years.

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us….

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men….

[W]e shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men….

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles….

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you….

The family unit—spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence—will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic…. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man….

We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Notice how effective the gay agenda has been implemented since Swift’s article was written. One of the most alarming aspects of the homosexual agenda, as stated at the beginning of the article, is the overt targeting of children. Following in the footsteps of Hitler⁶ and other totalitarian regimes throughout history, their agenda was clearly to capture the minds of youth, so that the next generation would accept the sinful behavior, regardless of the beliefs of the adult population at the time. Subsequently, dozens of children’s books, from Jack & Jim, to King & King, to One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads, to My Two Uncles, to Heather Has Two Mommies were written to target children.⁷ As Eric Lyons documented in 2011,⁸ public education has been targeted as a tool for promoting the gay agenda to great effect. The Girl Scouts were targeted, changing their guidelines in 1980 to allow lesbian scouts and troop leaders. As of 1997, the staff was said to be 33% lesbian.⁹ Their goal is not merely to gain sexual access to girls—but to indoctrinate them.¹⁰ In 2015, the Boy Scouts followed suit and, in a 45-12 vote, ended the ban on homosexual leaders.¹¹ [Fast-forward to February of this year: the Boy Scouts declared bankruptcy after multiple sexual abuse lawsuits were filed against them. The number of sex-abuse claims has now surpassed 82,000.Z¹²]

If such information were not enough to cause concern, the activities of NAMBLA—the North American Man/Boy Love Association—should cause outright alarm. Beyond merely trying to indoctrinate children to be accepting of the gay agenda, many gay activists are seeking to gain legal, sexual access to little boys. Well-known child psychologist and author James Dobson, in his book Bringing up Boys, highlights the movement being spearheaded by the increasingly influential NAMBLA. It promotes, as its name implies, sex between adult men and little boys. Dobson notes that their motto is, “Sex before eight or else it’s too late.”¹³ According to the organization’s Web site, man/boy love is “the love of a man for a boy, and a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful.”¹⁴ Under the heading, “The Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name,” the organization (erroneously) likens its advocation of pedophilia to the love between David and Jonathan. “It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it.”¹⁵ Under the heading “Why NAMBLA Matters,” the organization states that it “has been, and continues to be, a beacon of moral support for all individuals who feel a natural love for boys,” including “incarcerated individuals who identify as boy lovers.”¹⁶

Dobson highlights the worldwide effort in which pedophiles are engaged to lower the age at which a child can legally consent to intercourse with an adult. The result has been to lower the age from 18 to 16 in England, to 15 in Sweden and France, to 14 in Canada, Germany, Iceland, Italy, San Marino, and Slovenia, and even 12 in Spain, Holland, Malta and Portugal. At many of these ages, of course, the child has not yet reached puberty, and yet as Dobson notes, he can give his “consent” to older men who want to use him sexually. Since the activity is legal, as long as it is “consensual,” the parents of those children cannot legally prevent it. Why, might you ask, would homosexuals be feverishly trying to lower the age at which kids can consent to sexual activity? Such a move is certainly in step with the Homosexual Manifesto: “We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms…, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms…. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding.”

The Progression of the Homosexual Movement in America

From the inception of the nation, sodomy was illegal in every state and subject to punishment; all 13 colonies originally advocated the death penalty for homosexuality (several states followed in that tradition, including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia). Thomas Jefferson even advocated castration for homosexuality. The country, by in large, remained staunchly anti-homosexuality for nearly 200 years until the 1960s—the “sexual revolution” in America—when sexual exploration was encouraged and engaged in by young people across America, laying the groundwork for the commencement of gay acceptance in the 1970s. The 1964 Civil Rights Movement helped the gay agenda gain traction, as the homosexual community was able to “ride on the coattails” of the legitimate fight against racism. Many mistakenly equated the fight against racism to be the same fight as the one against homosexuality. Consider a timeline of subsequent major events in the homosexual movement in America over the last five decades:

• June 28, 1969: Police raid a gay bar (Stonewall) in New York, sparking violent riots in response. The event is considered to be the spark of the gay liberation movement.¹⁷
• June 28, 1970: First Gay Pride marches take place, in commemoration of the Stonewall event.¹⁸
• 1971: “All in the Family” becomes the first TV sitcom to depict a gay character.¹⁹
• 1972: “The Corner Bar” becomes the first prime time TV sitcom to have a regular, recurring gay character; “That Certain Summer” becomes the 1^st major TV movie to deal sympathetically with homosexuality.²⁰
• 1973: The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.²¹ [The current CEO of the APA is now homosexual Saul Leven.²²]
• 1975: The American Psychological Association removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.²³ According to its Web site, “Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations.”²⁴
• 1981: First cases of AIDS discovered in America, found at the time to be linked primarily to homosexual activity (159 cases are recorded the first year). [Today, homosexuals make up 70% of all new HIV infections.²⁵]
• 1982: President Ronald Reagan implements a defense directive stating that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” and that homosexuals/bisexuals are discharged from the military.²⁶
• 1983: Gerry Studds becomes first openly gay person elected to Congress. [He “came out” as a result of an investigation into his relationship with a 17-year-old page.²⁷]
• April, 1986: Becky Smith and Annie Afleck of California become the first openly lesbian couple to be granted legal, joint adoption of a child.²⁸
• June, 1986: Bowers v. Hardwick—Supreme Court upholds (5-4) a Georgia sodomy law, prohibiting homosexual activity.²⁹
• February, 1987: Michael Swift publishes the “Homosexual Manifesto.”
• September, 1987: “America Responds to AIDS” campaign launched by the Department of Health and Human Service’s Center for Disease Control, attempting to raise awareness about AIDS.³⁰
• 1991: Simon LeVay’s “gay gene” study completed; Media incorrectly reports that a gay gene has been discovered.³¹
• October 1, 1993: President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy implemented in military, effectively allowing gays to serve in the military, but prohibiting them from disclosing their sexual orientation or being asked about it.³²
• January 14, 1994: Movie “Philadelphia” released to U.S. theaters, about a homosexual who contracts AIDS (Tom Hanks; Denzel Washington); grosses over $206 million worldwide. Nominated for four academy awards, wins two.³³ Movie significantly raises endorsement of homosexuality in America.
• 1996: President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage, defining marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”³⁴
• 1997: New Jersey becomes the 1^st state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.³⁵
• 1997: Ellen DeGeneres, comedian, popular talk show host, and the most well-known gay or lesbian public figure, publicly announces that she is a lesbian.³⁶
• January, 2003: AIDS becomes an epidemic in the U.S. In the State of the Union address, George W. Bush announces his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.³⁷
• June, 2003: Lawrence v. Texas—U.S. Supreme Court (6-3) strikes down all state sodomy laws that had been in force since the inception of the country.³⁸
• 2004: Massachusetts becomes first state to legalize same-sex marriage; first homosexual couple in America married.³⁹
• 2006: “Brokeback Mountain” movie about the love between two homosexual cowboys released in theaters; nominated for six Academy Awards, wins four others;⁴⁰ 15^th highest-grossing romance drama film of all time.⁴¹
• 2010: The number of Americans who consider homosexuality morally acceptable climbs above 50%.⁴²
• February, 2011: The Obama Administration instructs the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA in court.⁴³
• September 20, 2011: Repeal of DADT policy in military, allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military.⁴⁴
• September 30, 2011: The U.S. Department of Defense issues new guidelines allowing military chaplains to perform same-sex ceremonies.⁴⁵
• May 9, 2012: President Barack Obama endorses same-sex marriage—the first such statement by a sitting president—arguing that the legal decision should be left to the states to determine. President Obama: “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”⁴⁶
• May 31, 2012: The 1^st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rules that DOMA discriminates against gay couples.⁴⁷
• July, 2012: Macklemore and Lewis’ “Same Love” song is released (first top 40 song to promote and celebrate same-sex marriage).⁴⁸
• August, 2012: California becomes first state to sign a ban on homosexual to heterosexual conversion therapy.⁴⁹
• October, 2012: The 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.⁵⁰
• June, 2013: The Supreme Court rejects parts of DOMA (5-4); same-sex spouses legally married may receive federal benefits; overturns California’s voter-approved ballot measure to bar homosexual couples from marrying.⁵¹
• August, 2013: The U.S. Treasury Department rules that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for tax purposes, even if they live in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage.⁵²
• June, 2015: Obergefell v. Hodges—The Supreme Court (5-4) legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, overturning constitutional amendments or state laws banning same-sex marriage in 36 states.⁵³
• June, 2020: Bostock v. Clayton County—The Supreme Court (6-3) adds protection for gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.⁵⁴

Motivation

Why have Americans so quickly flipflopped in their thinking on a behavior that was (and is) so clearly sinful, physically and psychologically dangerous,⁵⁵ and scientifically irrational⁵⁶? Why have so many Americans (in and out of Christendom) jumped on the bandwagon to, not only approve of and legalize all forms of homosexuality (in direct defiance of Romans 1:32), but even encourage the lifestyle? No doubt, there are many different reasons to consider, but the fact that even many so-called Christians who would be predicted to oppose the behavior (due to the clear teaching of Scripture⁵⁷) are jumping on the bandwagon should be noteworthy.

One unarguably influential factor has been the gradual desensitizing of the American mind to the abnormal/unnatural (Romans 1:24-28) and “abominable” nature of the sin of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). The homosexual movement has been effective in increasingly barraging the public with homosexuality since the 1960s, manipulating the population into feeling tolerant, then comfortable, then sympathetic, and then celebratory of the lifestyle. If you hear something a thousand times, it must be true, right? Television has clearly been a, if not the, most effective hammer in the gay agenda’s toolbelt to that end. At least four shows featured homosexual characters (or cast a positive light on the lifestyle) in the 1970sii⁵⁸; seven in the 1980s⁵⁹; and 23 in the 1990s (especially after the “gay gene” study was released and the “Homosexual Manifesto” was written).⁶⁰ By the 2000s, virtually every show would be included in the list, and the shows became more brazen in featuring homosexuality (e.g., “Queer as Folk,” “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” “Modern Family,” “Shameless,” and “The New Normal”⁶¹). Hollywood has shoved homosexuality down the public’s throat for decades through entertainment venues, and our love of entertainment has caused Christendom to turn a blind eye to the dangers of gay influence, rather than taking a stand. Should it surprise us that the bulk of our siblings, children, and grandchildren (Baby Boomers, Generations X, Y, and Z) do not see the problem with homosexuality, any more than they see the problem with fornication, adultery, or divorce? We have been brainwashed.

One tactic used to manipulate the American mind by the homosexual movement has been to play on our sympathy and compassion for those who are suffering (with, for example, AIDS—“Philadelphia” movie) or who are just “a little different,” but not so different from even the toughest among us (“Brokeback Mountain” movie). Christians are to have sympathy for all who are shackled by sin, but that compassion should lead us to teach them about the destructive nature of sin—to warn (“admonish”) them to cease sinning (“repent”) and, in some cases, even “rebuke” them for brazenly defying God (e.g., 2 Timothy 4:2; Ezekiel 33:8-9; Acts 17:30). That, however, is not the sympathy being promoted by the homosexual movement. The gay agenda wishes to make the world have a tolerant, “live and let live” attitude towards homosexuals—to accept homosexuality as normal and natural, rather than warn them and encourage them to change. “Don’t be judgmental! They can’t help it,” we are told. Gaining sympathy is one of the most effective ways of pushing an agenda.

(to be continued)

 Endnotes

¹ Cf. Luca Rolle, et al. (2018), “When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence,” Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1506, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113571/; “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation” (2010), Center for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf.

² Cf. “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” (2016), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 9, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm, accessed July 8, 2020; “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men” (2019), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 12, https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html, accessed July 8, 2020.

³ Cf. Deuteronomy 10:12-13; Proverbs 29:18; Psalm 19:7-8.

⁴ Cf. Deuteronomy 11:18-21.

⁵ Michael Swift (1987), “For the Homoerotic Order,” Gay Community News, February 15-21, emp. added; Note: While some have alleged that Swift’s article was intended to be satirical, the introductory sentence of his article seems to preclude that claim. Regardless, it is clear from the following timeline that the features of Swift’s “fantasy” have played out in reality over the past three decades—which is not funny, satire or not.

⁶ Cf. November 6, 1933 and May 1, 1937 speeches in William L. Shirer (1990), Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster).

⁷ See also, Daddy’s Roommate, King & King & Family, Daddy, Papa and Me, It’s Perfectly Normal, Who’s in a Family?, Molly’s Family, Uncle Max, The Sissy Ducklings, and Tango Makes Three, Oliver Button is a Sissy, Best Best Colors, etc.; Note: see Apologetics Press’ children’s book written in response to the gay agenda: Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies?

⁸ Eric Lyons (2011), “Homosexuality and Public Education—Recent Happenings,” Reason & Revelation, 31[11]:110-119.

⁹ Kathryn Jean Lopez (2000), “The Cookie Crumbles,” National Review, October 23, https://www.lifeissues.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3_girl_scouts_cookie_crumbles.pdf.

¹⁰ James Dobson (2001), Bringing up Boys (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House), pp. 124-125.

¹¹ Michelle Boorstein (2015), “Boy Scouts of America Votes to End Controversial Ban on Openly-Gay Scout Leaders,” Washington Post on-line, July 27, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/26/the-boy-scouts-are-slated-to-lift-ban-on-openly-gay-adult-leaders/.

¹² Mike Baker (2020), “Sex Abuse Claims Against Boy Scouts Now Surpasses 82,000,” New York Times Online, November 15, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/us/boy-scouts-abuse-claims-bankruptcy.html.

¹³ Dobson, p. 124.

¹⁴ “What Is Man/Boy Love?” (2015), Nambla.org: The On-line Voice of the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ “Why NAMBLA Matters” (2015), Nambla.org: The On-line Voice of the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

¹⁷ “The Stonewall Riots Begin in NYC’s Greenwich Village” (2010), History Channel On-line, October 18, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-stonewall-riot.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ See p. 140 for subsequent homosexual inclusions in television shows.

²⁰ Christine Sparta (2002), “Emergence from the Closet,” USA Today, March 11, https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-03-11-coming-out-timeline.htm.

²¹ “Working with LGBTQ Patients” (2020), American Psychiatric Association, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/best-practice-highlights/working-with-lgbtq-patients.

²² Previously, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders stated that “Sexual Deviation” included “pathologic behavior, such as homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism and sexual sadism (including rape, sexual assault, mutilation)” [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders (1952), The Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the American Psychiatric Association (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Mental Hospital Service), pp. 38-39, emp. added].

²³ Gregory Herek (2002), “Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health,” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.

²⁴ “Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality” (2008), American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation, accessed July 8, 2020.

²⁵ “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men.”

²⁶ “Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality” (1992), United States General Accounting Office: Report to Congressional Requesters, June, https://www.gao.gov/assets/160/151963.pdf.

²⁷ Damien Cave (2006), “Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman,” The New York Times, October 15, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/us/15studds.html.

²⁸ “LGBTQA Programs & Services: History Timeline” (2020), University of Nebraska-Lincoln Student Involvement, https://involved.unl.edu/lgbtqa/history.php.

²⁹ Melvin I. Urofsky (2020), “Bowers v. Hardwick,” Encyclopaedia Britannica On-line, https://www.britannica.com/event/Bowers-v-Hardwick.

³⁰ “A Timeline of HIV and AIDS” (n.d.), HIV.gov, Accessed 9/24/20, https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline.

³¹ Natalie Angier (1991), “Zone of Brain Linked to Men’s Sexual Orientation,” The New York Times, August 30, https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/30/us/zone-of-brain-linked-to-men-s-sexual-orientation.html.

³² The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2020), “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.

³³ “Philadelphia” (n.d.), IMDb.com, Accessed 9/24/20, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107818/.

³⁴ NPR (2013), “Court Overturns DOMA, Sidesteps Broad Gay Marriage Ruling,” CPR News, June 27, https://www.cpr.org/2013/06/27/court-overturns-doma-sidesteps-broad-gay-marriage-ruling/.

³⁵ Judith Havemann (1997), “N.J. Allows Gays to Adopt Jointly,” The Washington Post, December 18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/12/18/nj-allows-gays-to-adopt-jointly/7b031fcd-1338-4dff-b548-1e54eb196f12/.

³⁶ “Ellen DeGeneres Stands in Her Truth” (2011), Oprah.com, October 13, http://www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/ellen-degeneres-stands-in-her-truth-video_1.

³⁷ “HIV/AIDS: Snapshots of an Epidemic” (2020), amfAR: The Foundation for AIDS Research, https://www.amfar.org/thirty-years-of-hiv/aids-snapshots-of-an-epidemic/.

³⁸ “Lawrence et al. v. Texas” (2003), FindLaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/539/558.html.

³⁹ “Is Homosexual Marriage a Constitutional Right?” (2003), The Bill of Rights Institute, http://www.billobillofrightsinstitute.org/print.phpfrightsinstitute.org/print.php?sid=430.

⁴⁰ “Brokeback Mountain: Awards” (n.d.), IMDb.com, Accessed 9/25/20, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/awards.

⁴¹ “Top 25 Highest Grossing Romantic Dramas” (2018), IMDb.com, February 14, https://m.imdb.com/imdbpicks/top-25-highest-grossing-romantic-dramas/ls021965190/?ref_=m_ls_mv_close.

⁴² Lydia Saad (2010), “Americans’ Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold,” GALLUP News, May 25, http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx.

⁴³ Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (2011), “In Shift, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights,” The New York Times, February 23, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html.

⁴⁴ “Memorandum for See Distribution, Subject: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” (2011), Under Secretary of Defense Memo, September 20, https://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_dadt/USD-PR-DADT_Repeal_Day_Memo_20Sep.pdf.

⁴⁵ Charley Keyes (2011), “Military Chaplains Allowed to Perform Same-sex Weddings,” CNN.com, September 30, https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/us/same-sex-marriage-military/index.html.

⁴⁶ Rick Klein (2012), “Obama: ‘I Think Same-sex Couples Should Be Able to Get Married,’” ABC News On-line, May 9, https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married.

⁴⁷ Katharine Q. Seelye and Ethan Bronner (2012), “Appeals Court: DOMA Marriage Law Discriminates,” The Seattle Times, May 31, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/appeals-court-doma-marriage-law-discriminates/.

⁴⁸ James C. McKinley (2013), “Stars Align for a Gay Marriage Anthem,” The New York Times, June 30, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/arts/music/stars-align-for-a-gay-marriage-anthem.html.

⁴⁹ Geoffrey A. Fowler (2012), “California Bill Bans Gay-Conversion Therapy,” The Wall Street Journal, August 30, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444914904577622153696305504.

⁵⁰ David Ariosto (2012), “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act,” CNN.com, October 18, https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/new-york-appeals-court-doma/index.html.

⁵¹ Bill Mears (2013), “Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Provision on Same-sex Marriage Benefits,” CNN.com, June 27, https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-doma/index.html.

⁵² “All Legal Same-sex Marriages Will Be Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes” (2013), U.S. Department of the Treasury, August 29, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2153.aspx.

⁵³ Lauren Lantry (2020), “Commemorating the SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision 5 Years Later,” ABC News On-line, June 26, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/commemorating-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-years/story?id=71473138.

⁵⁴ Edward G. Sponzilli (2020), “United States Supreme Court Prohibits Terminating Employees Because of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” The National Law Review, June 22, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-states-supreme-court-prohibits-terminating-employees-because-sexual.

⁵⁵ E.g., “Sexually Transmitted Disease,” 2016; “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men,” 2019; Robert Paul Cabaj (2020), “Working with LGBTQ Patients: Fast Facts,” American Psychiatric Association, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/best-practice-highlights/working-with-lgbtq-patients.

⁵⁶ The biological study of species with sexual organs in nature reveals that sexual organs are, first and foremost, intended to be used for sexual reproduction. Even evolutionists acknowledge that basic truth. Homosexuality is, therefore, unnatural from a scientific perspective.

⁵⁷ Dave Miller (2012), “The President and Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=689.

⁵⁸ E.g., “All in the Family” (1971); “The Corner Bar” (1972); “Soap” (1977); “Three’s Company” (1977).

⁵⁹ E.g., “Dynasty” (1981); “Love, Sidney” (1981); “All My Children” (1983); “As the World Turns” (1983); “One Life to Live” (1983); “Brothers” (1984); “Thirtysomething” (1989).

⁶⁰ E.g., “L.A. Law” (1991); “Northern Exposure” (1992); “One Life to Live” (1992); “Melrose Place” (1992); “Roseanne” (1992); “Seinfeld” (1993); “Frasier” (1994); “The Real World” (1994); “Tales of the City” (1994); “My So-Called Life” (1994); “Ellen” (1995); “Relativity” (1996); “Profiler” (1996); “Chicago Hope” (1996); “Spin City” (1996); “General Hospital” (1996); “Friends” (1996); “Mad About You” (1996); “Dawson’s Creek” (1998); “Will & Grace” (1998); “Party of Five” (1999); “NYPD Blue” (1999); “Ally McBeal” (1999).

⁶¹ See also “Six Feet Under” (2001); “The Amazing Race” (2001); “The Wire” (2002); “Reno 911!” (2003); “Glee” (2009).

The post Homosexuality: Society, Science, and Psychology [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, his current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts.]

Justice Kennedy (who authored the 5-4 Obergefell opinion recognizing constitutional protections for gay marriage) strikes again authoring the majority opinion on the long-awaited Colorado baker and gay wedding cake case.¹ While many were looking forward to the Supreme Court addressing the issue of conflicting interests (gay rights versus free exercise of religion), the Supreme Court side-stepped this issue and resolved this particular case in such a way that it will have little impact on other cases in the future. Justice Kennedy was joined by six other justices with two justices dissenting, making the opinion a 7-2 split.

This case involved a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The gay couple filed a charge against the baker alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission found that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy recognized that this case raised a difficult issue regarding the balance of the protection of “the rights and dignity of gay persons” versus “the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.” Unfortunately, the Court did not resolve this dilemma. Yes, the ruling was a big win for a Colorado baker, but not a big win for the conservative right or liberal left as some had hoped.

The Court held that the Commission’s treatment of the baker violated the State’s duty to refrain from enforcing laws with hostility toward religion. The Court focused on hostile statements made toward the baker during the State Commission’s formal hearing to determine if the baker had discriminated against the gay couple in violation of Colorado law. The commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere. Another commissioner suggested that the baker can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business in this state.” This hostility was contrasted with the Commission’s inconsistent treatment allowing other bakers in Colorado to refuse service to patrons who wanted wedding cakes with an anti-gay message. As such, the Court held “the Commission’s treatment of [the baker’s] case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”

The unfortunate result of this ruling is that the Court found unconstitutional conduct in the manner in which the Commission implemented the law as opposed to the law itself. Rather than decide whether First Amendment rights must give way to the right to not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, the Supreme Court focused on the manner in which the Commission implemented this law. While this focus is disappointing, it is not surprising from a legal standpoint. Courts of appeal throughout this nation will frequently resolve an issue using the path of least resistance principle. For example if there is a threshold procedural issue (Did the party timely file their appeal?) and a substantive issue (Was their evidence to support the verdict of murder?), most courts will resolve the entire appeal on the threshold procedural issue without addressing the substantive issue. It is the simplest and cleanest way to resolve this appeal, and it would not be out of the ordinary for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this gay wedding cake appeal the way it did. Disappointing—yes; unusual—no.

This unresolved legal issue means it may be constitutional for a state to find that a baker discriminated by refusing on moral grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding so long as the state commission does not use “hostile” language in reaching its conclusion. Simply put, this opinion from the Supreme Court has very limited future application, especially when the state commission is smart enough to reach the religiously hostile outcome it desires without using religiously hostile language. The Court recognized the limited precedential impact of this opinion when it stated, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.” This is just another way of saying, “Sorry, folks. The decision you were waiting for was not reached. Feel free to try again and bring us another case in a few years.” However, the outcome of the next similar case that makes its way back to the Supreme Court may very likely be decided based on the justice who replaces Justice Kennedy.² And, the next time a similar case makes it back to the Supreme Court on a similar issue where the Court ultimately reaches the critical substantive issue, you can expect a 5-4 split.

Justice Kennedy definitely left the impression that this type of case would have a different outcome so long as the state does not use language that is hostile toward religion, while concluding that a business owner’s religious practices must give way to gay rights. For example, the Court stated that “any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no good or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”

There was one final concerning statement from the opinion in the gay wedding case opinion. Justice Kennedy commented that “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” Notice that religious “views” or beliefs are always protected (for now), but the “expression” of these views is protected in “some instances.” This is reminiscent of the language in Obergefell where Justice Kennedy similarly wrote that it “must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”³

This statement from the Supreme Court in Obergefell was pure dicta. “Dicta” is a statement made in a judicial opinion that is completely unnecessary to the resolution of the case. Therefore, it should be asked why this statement was made in light of the fact that it has no precedential value and was completely unnecessary to the resolution of the legal issues on appeal. It appears that Justice Kennedy was not trying to reassure the “religious right” that their First Amendment rights remain fully intact. Rather, this statement appears to be a veiled warning that simply holding religious views may be the only right remaining for those who oppose gay marriage, but don’t push it. In other words, the court is subtly telling those “religious” types out there to keep your opinions out of the public arena and don’t act on this belief that gay marriage is sinful. That is not just this author’s interpretation of Justice Kennedy’s dicta, but also that of Justice Alito.

Justice Alito, in his dissent in Obergefell, interpreted this dicta from Justice Kennedy with the following statement:  “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”⁴ This is consistent with Justice Kennedy’s comment in the Colorado baker case implying that religious beliefs may not be protected by the First Amendment when they transition from sincere convictions to external teaching and doctrine. This latest opinion from Justice Kennedy may mark the beginning of this shift in First Amendment thinking from the Supreme Court eroding the protections of the Free Exercise clause. This thinking highlights, yet again, the importance of the nomination of the justice who eventually replaces Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court justice who is often the swing vote in many controversial cases that impact our culture.

Here is a simple response that every follower of Christ can put into action today. As Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

ENDNOTES

The post Let Them Eat Wedding Cake: The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker (But Only Him) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church. WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

And:

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Sadly, many people who call themselves Christians are actively denouncing the truths found in the statement and contending that homosexuality and transgenderism are God-affirmed behaviors. Brandan Robertson, an LGBTQ activist and “pastor” helped put together a response to the statement called “Christians United.”¹ That response, endorsed by hundreds of people calling themselves Christians, states:

WE AFFIRM that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God and that the great diversity expressed in humanity through our wide spectrum of unique sexualities and gender identities is a perfect reflection of the magnitude of God’s creative work.

It includes other statements that claim that active participation in homosexual behavior is in-line with God’s will.

As could be expected, the Nashville Statement is being slammed by those in the LGBTQ community, along with many “religious” people who approve of such behavior, as being hate-filled, vicious, mean-spirited, evil, and unloving. These accusations, however, could not be further from the truth. The Nashville Statement is saturated with sentiments about God’s love and acceptance of all people, but not sinful behavior. Article 11 of the statement reads:

WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female. WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his imagebearers as male and female.

And article 14 reads as follows:

WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure. WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach.

In truth, the Bible explains that homosexual and transgender behaviors are sinful.² Since that is the case, the only truly loving approach is to kindly and gently, yet boldly and clearly, explain to our culture that such behaviors are sinful. Jesus Himself gave us this very example. In Mark 10:17-22, we read the story of the rich young ruler. He came to Jesus wanting to know how to be saved. Unfortunately, the young man loved money. The Bible explains, “then Jesus, looking at him, loved him.” Our society would claim that means Jesus must have changed His message to accommodate the young man’s behavior and accepted him regardless of his actions. That is not at all what Jesus did. He told the young man that if he wanted to be right with God, then he would have to give up his sinful behavior. The young man left Jesus with a sorrow-filled heart because he was not willing to give up his sin.

The story gives us a clear picture of the only truly loving approach. When people involve themselves in sinful behavior, if we love them, we will explain to them what God’s Word says they must leave behind in order to be right with God. If we really love people, we will gently tell them what the Bible says is right and wrong, regardless of how they respond. This was Jesus’ approach and He hung on the cross for it. We should expect to experience the same types of negative responses He experienced when we follow His example. As He said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Endnotes

The post Nashville Statement on Sexuality: A Loving Appeal to Truth appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Are Christians “homophobic”?

A:

The PC crowd regularly and incessantly levels charges of “phobia” against all those who disagree with them on any number of moral issues.¹ If you believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful, you are declared “homophobic” or “lesbophobic”; if you believe Islam is a false religion that endangers the American way of life, you are deemed “Islamophobic”; if you are concerned about the moral and spiritual impact on the nation of those who enter America illegally, you are labeled “xenophobic”; if you believe in the God of the Bible and consider atheism to be false, you are “atheophobic”; if you believe transgenderism is a mental illness, you are demeaned as “transphobic”; and the list goes on.

These charges are unfounded, inaccurate, and untrue. True Christians are not irrationally afraid of such things. Rather, they have given considered analysis to each issue, including a careful assessment of what the Bible teaches (and, generally, what once characterized American civilization), and concluded that these behaviors are immoral and harmful to society. Neither do they fear murderers, thieves, or fornicators. Rather they recognize such behaviors as sinful in God’s sight, unhealthy and detrimental to civil society, and actions that will ultimately cost the practitioner his soul for all eternity (Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 21:8). True Christians love such people and experience genuine sorrow over their self-destructive condition (Matthew 5:44; 23:37; Ezekiel 18:32).

Yet, error is always inconsistent, hypocritical, and actually guilty of the malady it decries. The same people who fill the airways with their cries of “intolerance!” and “judgmental!” are the very ones who are extremely intolerant, judgmental, and fearful (phobic) of anything or anyone who believes in the Bible and Christianity. Indeed, they are Christophobic—irrationally afraid of and bitterly opposed to the precepts of Christ and the biblical principles on which America was founded.

Satan has always been “slick” in his ability to divert attention away from spiritual reality and generate opposition against the truth—like the Wizard of Oz who said, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”² Sinful, wicked behaviors as defined by Deity are damaging to people physically and spiritually. They cannot be justified or dismissed as trivial simply because those who champion them mischaracterize the righteous as “phobic” or “hateful.” Those who speak against moral, godly principles—and those who defend them—are truly guilty of “hate speech.”

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). “But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:12-13).

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness…, evil-mindedness; they are…haters of God…, inventors of evil things…, who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).

Endnotes

¹ Tommy Christopher (2016), “Here’s the Full Context of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ Remark About Trump Supporters,” Mediaite, September 10, https://goo.gl/KivljF.

² The Wizard of Oz (1939), “Quotes,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes.

The post Are Christians “Homophobic”? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To see the extent to which the intellectual elite have fallen into line with political correctness, examine the following pages reproduced verbatim from the 1952 “Bible” of the American Psychiatric Association that depicted the psychiatric community’s assessment of homosexuality and transvestism at the time:

Title Page

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
Mental Disorders

Prepared by

The Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the
American Psychiatric Association

Published by

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
MENTAL HOSPITAL SERVICE
1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
WASHINGTON 6, D.C.
1952

Page 38

MENTAL DISORDERS
000-X60 Sociopathic Personality Disturbance

000-x61 Antisocial reaction

 …

000-x62 Dyssocial reaction

 …

000-x63 Sexual deviation

This diagnosis is reserved for deviant sexuality which is not symptomatic of more extensive syndromes, such as schizophrenic and obsessional reactions.

Page 39

The term includes most of the cases formerly classed as “psychopathic¹ personality with pathologic sexuality.” The diagnosis will specify the type of the pathologic² behavior, such as homosexuality, transvestism,³ pedophilia, fetishism and sexual sadism (including rape, sexual assault, mutilation).

These allusions to homosexuality and transgenderism were maintained until December of 1974 when the pervasive pressure of political correctness encroached upon the profession.⁴ These changes do not constitute moral progress; rather, they demonstrate moral dysfunction and degeneration. As Isaiah well-described the moral conditions of his own country 2,700 years ago:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!… Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 5:20-21,24).⁵

Endnotes

¹ “Psychopathology” is defined as “the branch of medicine dealing with the causes and processes of mental disorders; abnormal, maladaptive behavior or mental activity” (Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health (2003), seventh edition, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/psychopathology. “Psychopathy” is defined as “a personality disorder characterized by deceitfulness, manipulation, grandiosity, lack of empathy or guilt, and often aggressive or violent behavior. It is sometimes considered a subset of antisocial personality disorder” (The American Heritage Dictionary, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=psychopathy).

² “Pathological” is defined as “extreme in a way that is not normal or that shows an illness or mental problem” (“pathological,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathological).

³ The term “transvestism” refers specifically to “a person who likes to dress like a person of the opposite sex” (“transvestite,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transvestism). Transvestism is more commonly identified today with “transgenderism” which is defined as “of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person’s sex at birth” (“transgender,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender). Transgenderism is also referred to medically as “gender dysphoria.”

⁴ DSMII, published in 1968, continued to identify homosexuality and transvestism under the broad category of “Personality Disorders and Certain Other Non-Psychotic Mental Disorders” and under the specific category of “Sexual deviations.”

⁵ Make no mistake: genuine Christians possess true compassion for those individuals whose environment has been such that they have been drawn into aberrant sexual behaviors. Christians see as sinful all forms of “fornication” (sexual conduct that is out of harmony with the directives of the Creator)—including adultery, polygamy, bigamy, incest, homosexuality, etc. Hence, Christians possess the same loving regard that God has for everyone—“not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Indeed, the Christian posture was expressed by Paul to Timothy: “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

The post Sexual Deviation Prior to Political Correctness appeared first on Apologetics Press.

FRAMING THE ISSUE

A Brief Introduction to Transgenderism

In April 2015, Bruce Jenner, the gold medal men’s decathlon winner at the 1976 Montreal Olympic games, participated in a nationally televised interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer in which he explained that he had struggled with his gender identity since childhood. In his words, “My brain is much more female than it is male. It’s hard for people to understand that, but that’s what my soul is…. That female side is part of me. That’s who I am.”¹ A few months later, in July 2015, Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine dressed as a woman and announcing that he had changed his name to Caitlyn.² In the same month, he received ESPN’s prestigious Arthur Ashe Award for Courage, largely because of his very public “transition” from Bruce to Caitlyn.³ In December 2015, he was featured once again, this time in an extensive article in TIME Magazine.⁴

People like Jenner suffer from “gender identity disorder,” or “gender dysphoria,” and are referred to as “transgender.” Transgender people are biologically members of one gender but identify in their minds with the other. While Jenner is probably the most famous transgender person in the world, he certainly is not alone. For instance, Chastity Bono,the only child of Cher and Sonny Bono, explained in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that she felt that her body was betraying her and discussed her transition from female to male in the 2011 film, Becoming Chaz.⁵ According to a June 2016 report from the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law dedicated to research on sexual orientation law and public policy, approximately 0.6% of adults in the United States, or 1.4 million individuals, identify as transgender.⁶

A Brief Introduction to Sex Change Operations

A percentage of transgender individuals, including some youths, undergo sex change operations, or “gender reassignment surgeries,” each year.⁷ Generally, before undergoing surgery to alter the genitalia and other body parts, people must be diagnosed with gender identity disorder, procure a letter of recommendation from a therapist, begin hormone therapy, and live publicly as a member of the opposite sex for up to one year.⁸ Women desiring to live as men often have mastectomies and hysterectomies. Men transitioning to live as women can have procedures to alter the appearance of their eyes, noses, chins, and Adam’s apples, and to remove their male sexual parts. The full panoply of surgical procedures can cost well over $100,000.⁹

Efforts to provide legal and social support to transgender individuals have been underway for quite some time, but those efforts have recently erupted into the public consciousness in sometimes shocking fashion.¹⁰ For instance, the phenomenon of people claiming that their true gender is inconsistent with their physical anatomy has progressed so that there has been much public and political debate about which public bathrooms males and females should be able to use.¹¹ In April 2016, Target Corporation, the retail giant, issued a statement welcoming “transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”¹² In May 2016, the federal government threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools declining to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity rather than the gender listed on their birth certificates.¹³ These issues have been matriculating through the courts of law for several years now, and many have been alarmed and saddened by the aggressive advances of those presently seeking to legitimize transgenderism.¹⁴

CONSIDERING THE SCRIPTURES

While the Bible has much to say about human sexuality, it comes as no surprise that it does not specifically address the idea of having a sex change operation or gender reassignment surgery. The technology obviously did not exist in Bible times, and there is no reason to suspect that Bible writers would ever have contemplated a “sex change.” However, the Bible’s provision of “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3, ESV) includes principles that bear directly on matters relating to transgenderism.

What the Scriptures Teach about Determining Gender

As an initial matter, “[t]he hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”¹⁵ However, in light of recent efforts to define gender as a psychological construct, that is, the consequence of what one thinks or feels, one must consider the way gender is depicted in Scripture; it is consistently presented as a consequence of nature. God created Adam as a male, and He created Eve as a female (Genesis 5:1-2; Matthew 19:4). They were physically complementary beings capable of producing offspring together (Genesis 1:28), and their offspring were distinctly male or female as they were (Genesis 5:3-4). On the one hand, males had an anatomical design that included the ability to produce “seed” while  impregnating females (Genesis 38:9). On the other, females had an anatomical design consistent with bearing and nursing children (see, for example, Genesis 4:1-2,17,25; 3:16, 20; 21:7; 1 Samuel 1:23). So, then, since the beginning, each human being has been “fearfully and wonderfully made” in the image of God as either a male or a female (Psalm 139:14-16; Genesis 1:26-27; Isaiah 44:2,24).¹⁶

Notice that the determination of one’s gender did not depend on his or her individual thoughts or preferences. The classification was readily made at birth based on physical anatomy.  A Hebrew “man child” was to be circumcised on the eighth day following his birth (Genesis 17:12-14; Leviticus 12:3). Moreover, under the Law of Moses, a woman who birthed a male child was ceremonially unclean for seven days (Leviticus 12:1-2), but a woman who birthed a female child was ceremonially unclean for two weeks (Leviticus 12:5). The Bible clearly depicts ancient people, at God’s direction, making determinations regarding gender at the time children were born based on their anatomy, and proper classification depended exclusively on one’s physical characteristics at birth. The appropriate social roles and psychological constructs, then, flowed from a person’s anatomical design.

What the Scriptures Teach about Transvestism

Following diagnosis that a person has a gender identity disorder, i.e., that he or she identifies psychologically with the opposite gender, a transgender person desiring to undergo a sex change operation typically has to live publically as a member of the opposite sex. This would include efforts like cross-dressing or transvestism, i.e., dressing in a manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. While public sentiment regarding such behavior has changed rapidly in recent years, the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) classified transvestism as a “sexual deviation,”¹⁷ and it used to be commonly understood to be a psychological disorder that required intervention.¹⁸

The “sexual deviation” designation concurred with God’s Word. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:13-14 teaches that the natural differences in gender in a culture ought to be maintained. Also, in Deuteronomy 22:5, the Bible says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” The Hebrew word translated “abomination” refers to something disgusting and repugnant, whether ritually or ethically.¹⁹ These verses clearly preclude a woman from changing her appearance to look like a man or a man from altering his appearance to present himself as a woman, and they describe Jehovah’s feelings about men and women wearing clothing properly associated with the opposite gender.

What the Scriptures Teach about Elective Mutilation

As noted above, “transitioning” sometimes involves drugs and/or operations to alter one’s physical appearance so that one looks more like a member of the opposite gender.  In the Old Testament, self-mutilation is associated with idol worship (1 Kings 18:24-29) and mourning among those who did not know Jehovah (Deuteronomy 14:1-2). The Lord specifically prohibited His people from engaging in such cuttings of the flesh (Leviticus 19:28). In the New Testament, a demon-possessed man engaged in self-mutilation before he was healed by Jesus (Mark 5:2-5). Clearly then, the Scriptures depict self-mutilation as an indicator of underlying spiritual and psychological disturbances, and certain studies seem to confirm this observation.²⁰ For instance, a 2011 study of 324 Swedish transsexuals by the Karolinska Institute noted that “[p]ersons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”²¹

While amputations were sometimes prescribed as punishment (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) or inflicted during times of war in Bible times (Ezekiel 23:25), there are no instances of God approving elective amputations in Scripture. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that Christians’ bodies belong to God and must be used to glorify Him (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). There simply is no authority for elective mutilation without His direction or approval.

Concluding Observations

It is not surprising that the Bible does not speak specifically about having a sex change or gender reassignment surgery. Predictably, though, it does address each stage in the progression toward such procedures. First, according to the Scriptures, gender is determined by physiology rather than psychology. Second, attempts to present oneself as a member of the opposite gender are unnatural and condemnable. Third, elective mutilations of the body are indicative of an unhealthy mind that does not recognize and accept God’s ownership of the human body. In short, while the Bible never mentions the phrase “sex change operation,” it denounces every step along the way to such procedures, up to and including the procedures themselves.

A right-thinking person, one free from spiritual and psychological encumbrances, would nourish and cherish his or her body, rather than hate it enough to intentionally disfigure it (Ephesians 5:29). Hence, it is illogical and self-contradictory to recognize gender identity disorder as a mental disorder where the mind does not embrace the reality of one’s physical gender and then proceed to alter the healthy body to conform with the troubled mind.²² Those suffering from gender dysphoria need to change their minds rather than their bodies. Consequently, transsexuals, like everyone else, desperately need Jesus and the Gospel. There is forgiveness and healing in Christ, of course, but, like everyone else, they must submit to His lordship and repent if they want to be saved from the eternal consequences of their sins.

Endnotes

¹ “Bruce Jenner: The Interview,” (2015), ABC News, April 24, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/fullpage/bruce-jenner-the-interview-30471558.

² Buzz Bissinger (2015), “Caitlyn Jenner Talks About Her Mother’s Reaction and Transgender Fans,” Vanity Fair, June 2, http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-photos-interview-buzz-bissinger.

³ “Caitlyn Jenner to Receive Ashe Award” (2015), ESPN , June 2, http://www.espn.com/espys/2015/story/_/id/12992941/caitlyn-jenner-receive-arthur-ashe-courage-award.

⁴ Katy Steinmetz (2015), “Caitlyn Jenner,” TIME Magazine, 186[25/26]:144-150.

⁵ Sheila Marikar (2015), “Chaz Bono Talks ‘Becoming Chaz,’ Cher on ‘Oprah,’” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/chaz-bono-tells-oprah-cher-chaz/story?id=1356 1517; Jeremy Kinser (2011), “Because Chaz Bono is a Fortunate Son,” Advocate, 1050:24-31.

⁶ Andrew R. Flores, Jody L. Herman, Gary J. Gates, and Taylor N. T. Brown (2016), “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United-States,” The Williams Institute, p. 3, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many-Adults-Identify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf.

⁷ Erika Napoletano (2016), “Young and Transgender: Supporting Youth to be Their True Selves,” Chicago Health, http://chicagohealthonline.com/young-and-transgender/; “Sex-Change Treatment for Kids on the Rise” (2012), CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/.

⁸ Bethany Gibson and Anita J. Catlin (2010), “Care of the Child with the Desire to Change Gender—Part I,” Pediatric Nursing, 36[1]:53-59; Bethany Gibson (2010), “Care of the Child with the Desire to Change Gender—Part II: Female-to-Male Transition,” Pediatric Nursing, 36[2]:112-117; Bernd Meyenburg (1999), “Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescence: Outcomes of Psychotherapy,”Adolescence, 34[134]:305-313.

⁹ Mary Sobralske (2005), “Primary Care Needs of Patients Who Have Undergone Gender Reassignment,” Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17[4]:133-138; Alyssa Jackson (2015), “The High Cost of Being Transgender,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2015/ 07/31/health/transgender-costs-irpt/.

¹⁰ Kevin D. Williamson (2016), “The Transgender Culture War,” National Review, 68[10]:30-32.

¹¹ Michael Scherer, et al. (2016), “Battle of the Bathroom,” TIME Magazine, 187[20]:30-37.

¹² “Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity” (2016), Target Corporation, https://corporate.target.com/article/2016/04/target-stands-inclusivity.

¹³ Evie Blad (2016), “Feds to Schools: Don’t Restrict Transgender Access,” Education Week, 35[31]:1-14.

¹⁴ Charlotte Alter (2016), “Hundreds of Thousands Boycott Target Over Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Policy,” TIME.com, p. 1; Eva Marie-Ayala (2016), “Transgender Policy Altered After Uproar in Fort Worth Schools,” The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2016/07/20/transgender-policy-altered-uproar-fort-worth-schools; Karen Workman (2015), “Missouri Teenagers Protest a Transgender Student’s Use of the Girls’ Bathroom,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/teenagers-protest-a-transgender-students-use-of-the-girls-bathroom.html?_r=0.

¹⁵ Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:8, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016.

¹⁶ A discussion of hermaphroditism is beyond the purview of this article. Cf. Elizabeth Mitchell  (2009), “Feedback: Hermaphroditism,” Answers in Genesis, December 3, https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/feedback-
hermaphroditism/.

¹⁷ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-2 (1968) (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association).

¹⁸ Luk Gijs and Anne Brewaeys (2007), “Surgical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Adults and Adolescents: Recent Developments, Effectiveness, and Challenges,” Annual Review of Sex Research, 18[1]:182-183; Paul McHugh (2004), “Surgical Sex,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 147:34-38; Stephen I. Abramowitz (1986), “Psychosocial Outcomes of Sex Reassignment Surgery,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54[2]:183; John E. Bates, et al. (1975), “Intervention With Families of Gender-Disturbed Boys,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45[1]:150-157.

¹⁹ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. (2008),  A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 1072-1073.

²⁰ Mayer and McHugh, p. 9; Masahiko Hoshiai, et al. (2010), “Psychiatric Comorbidity Among Patients With Gender Identity Disorder,” Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 64[5]:514-519; Annelou L.C. de Vries, et al. (2010), “Autism Spectrum Disorders in Gender Dysphoric Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40[8]:930-936; Azadeh Mazaheri Meybodi, Ahmad Hajebi, and Atefeh Ghanbari Jolfaei (2014), “The Frequency of Personality Disorders in Patients with Gender Identity Disorder,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 28:1-6.

²¹ Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, et al. (2011), “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden,” PLoS ONE, 6[2]:1-8.

²² Colin A. Ross (2009), “Ethics of Gender Identity Disorder,” Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 11[3]:166.

The post What Does the Bible Say about Having a Sex Change? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For over 40 years, a host of forces have worked vigorously to normalize homosexuality in American society—culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous ruling that stipulated homosexual marriage as a constitutional right. These same forces have most recently turned their attention to transgenderism.¹ As is always the case, when human beings decide that they want to pursue certain behaviors that have always been considered deviant and illicit (particularly in God’s sight), they will do everything possible to bully and intimidate the opposition (cf. Genesis 19:9). A careful analysis of history demonstrates that the tactics that have been used the past several decades to advance sexual aberration in America are reminiscent of propaganda schemes that have successfully transformed other societies, including Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes.²

For all the bombast, coercion, venom, and widespread ridicule marshalled by the left³ and directed against Americans who have steadfastly remained unmoved in their conviction that homosexuality and transgenderism are immoral behaviors, it is refreshing and encouraging to hear the truth declared by credible scientists. In a special report titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh divulged their startling findings.⁴ Consider their qualifications and credentials.

Lead author Dr. Mayer is an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, a biostatistician, and a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. Currently a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, Mayer has been a full-time tenured professor for over 40 years, having held professorial appointments at eight universities, including Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and the University of Michigan. He has also held research faculty appointments at several other institutions, including the Mayo Clinic. He has held appointments in 23 disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics, and biomedical informatics, and has been published in many top-tier peer-reviewed journals. Co-author Dr. McHugh is arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century and one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He is the former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and is presently a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.⁵

These scientists found that the most frequently heard claims about sexual orientation and gender identity are not supported by scientific evidence. They found that the LGBT community suffers from “a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.”⁶ Regarding sexual orientation, they found: “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”⁷ “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”⁸

Regarding human sexuality as it relates to mental health and social stress, they discovered that, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes,” and are “estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.” Further, “members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population” with “the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.”⁹

Regarding gender identity, the research showed that “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”¹⁰ What’s more:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.¹¹

In view of the finality of such drastic surgeries and their impact on mental health, the report insists that

nearly all children ultimately identify with their biological sex. The notion that a two-year-old, having expressed thoughts or behaviors identified with the opposite sex, can be labeled for life as transgender has absolutely no support in science. Indeed, it is iniquitous to believe that all children who have gender-atypical thoughts or behavior at some point in their development, particularly before puberty, should be encouraged to become transgender.¹²

Conclusion

You see, if the Bible is, in fact, of divine origin, i.e., if there really is a God, and He’s the God of the Bible,¹³ then the information given in the Bible can be counted on for its veracity. If it affirms explicitly that homosexuality is “against nature” and an “abomination” (Romans 1:26; Leviticus 18:22),¹⁴ then we can know that such a behavior is not genetic.¹⁵ Knowledge of the truth regarding human behavioral proclivities pertaining to a host of actions is available from the Creator who created the human body and infused it with a spirit, a personality, a mind. We can know what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral.

Hence, Christians were not at all surprised to see some years ago the invention of junk science to allege a genetic source for homosexuality; nor are they surprised finally to hear some honest, legitimate, reputable, credible, scientific investigation that harmonizes with the Bible viewpoint. One can imagine the hostile response with which this latest research has been received by the anti-Christian forces of political correctness. Nevertheless, may the rest of the scientific community heed the admonition of Dr. Mayer when he urges colleagues to maintain impartiality and not allow political controversy and culture to taint their research: “May they never lose their way in political hurricanes.”¹⁶

Endnotes

¹ Vice-President Joe Biden ludicrously labeled transgender discrimination “the civil rights issue of our time”—Jennifer Bendery (2012), “Joe Biden: Transgender Discrimination Is ‘The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time’,” The Huffington Post, October 30, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html.

² William Allen (1965), The Nazi Seizure of Power (New York: Franklin Watts); George Mosse (1981), Nazi Culture (New York: Schocken Books), pp. 7ff.; J.P. Stern (1975), Hitler: The Führer and the People (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), pp. 35ff.; Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (New York: Vintage Books).

³ By “the left” I mean those who champion behaviors that throughout history have been deemed immoral by Christian standards. Sometimes alluded to as the “cultural aristocracy,” the primary instigators in America have been television networks and the leftist news media, university faculties, liberal mainline Protestant denominations, Hollywood, liberal judges, and various foundations that are dedicated to transforming the American way of life.

⁴ Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:10-143, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016. The authors explain their methodology: “This report offers a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of many of the most rigorous findings produced by the biological, psychological, and social sciences related to sexual orientation and gender identity. We examine a vast body of scientific literature from several disciplines. We try to acknowledge the limitations of the research and to avoid premature conclusions that would result in over-interpretation of scientific findings…. [O]ur focus is on the scientific evidence—what it shows and what it does not show” (p. 10, emp. in orig.).

⁵ The reasons for recounting the lengthy and impressive credentials of the authors is to demonstrate (1) that they would be considered by the secular community to be highly qualified to discuss the subject, and (2) that they are not “right wing radical” Christians or religious fanatics who are biased in their appraisals of the scientific evidence. Indeed, Dr. McHugh describes himself as a “politically liberal” Democrat—Erica Goode (2002), “Psychiatrist Says He Was Surprised by Furor Over His Role on Abuse Panel,” The New York Times, August 5, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/us/psychiatrist-says-he-was-surprised-by-furor-over-his-role-on-abuse-panel.html?pagewanted=all.

⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.

⁷ Ibid., p. 7.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ p. 8, emp. added. The authors note: “The prevailing explanation in the scientific literature is the social stress model, which posits that social stressors—such as stigmatization and discrimination—faced by members of these subpopulations account for the disparity in mental health outcomes. Studies show that while social stressors do contribute to the increased risk of poor mental health outcomes for these populations, they likely do not account for the entire disparity” (p. 59, emp. added).

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 9, emp. added.

¹² Ibid., p. 6, emp. added.

¹³ Abundant evidence proves these facts. See apologeticspress.org.

¹⁴ For further discussion regarding the biblical view of homosexuality, see Dave Miller (2012), “The President and Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=689&topic=36.

¹⁵ Four reasons why we can logically know that homosexuality is not genetically based: (1) The God of the Bible would not forbid or condemn a behavior, holding an individual culpable, if the behavior is in-born, endemic to a person’s being, or an act that the person cannot control or from which he cannot refrain; (2) In referring to homosexuals, when Paul said to the Corinthians, “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11), he demonstrated that practicing homosexuals can cease their illicit practice; (3) As a matter of fact, many practicing homosexuals have reformed, further proving that the practice is a choice; and (4) no scientific evidence exists demonstrating the presence of an alleged “gay” gene.

¹⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.

The post Homosexuality and Transgenderism: The Science Supports the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What, specifically, is PC? A working definition would be the belief that we should avoid language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to gender and race. For example, the word “fireman” is considered to be a “sexist” term that slights women; the politically correct term would be “firefighter.” Those who embrace PC seek to avoid any forms of expression or action that might be perceived to “exclude,” “marginalize,” or insult any group that is deemed “socially disadvantaged” or discriminated against. Hence, the PC advocate constantly uses terms like “inclusion,” “tolerance,” and “multiculturalism.”

Observe that the term “offensive” refers to the subjective feelings of the individual who deems the term to be hurtful. This definition implies that no objective standard exists by which all conduct, language, and behavior are to be measured. However, the fact is that if there is a God, and He is the God described on the pages of the Bible, then the only standard by which human conduct may be measured and evaluated legitimately is by the Word of God and the Christian moral framework depicted within its pages. If there is no objective, higher standard that transcends human opinions and to which all humans are amenable, then who is to say what is politically correct? Who can authoritatively define “compassion” and “offensive”? Suddenly, all of society is thrown into a confused hodge-podge of conflicting views on proper speech and behavior. Each person becomes a law unto himself and what offends one person is deemed by another as appropriate and valid.

Hence, PC is driven by two foundational presuppositions: (1) since no absolute truth exists, every person’s views are to be considered as equally valid and steps should be taken to facilitate his views and silence all those who disagree; and (2) the beliefs, values, and moral precepts of Christianity are to be rejected and aggressively opposed. This latter assumption explains why the PC people are so accommodating to the encroachment of Islam into American institutions (though Islam is categorically opposed to PC and those who promote it). It also accounts for the open and widespread hostility that exists in the media, Hollywood, and among liberal politicians against Christian morality. Even as Amos described his contemporaries in their quest to silence his righteous pleadings: “They hate the one who rebukes in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks uprightly” (Amos 5:10). In their campaign to banish “hate speech,” the PC proponent is hypocritically guilty of the same. The solution? “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9).

The irrationality of the PC crowd is on display in their frenzied efforts to silence candidates and their supporters who say anything that conflicts with the PC agenda. The expression of any Christian belief that labels certain human behaviors as immoral or sinful is deemed “hate speech” and “racist.” Even otherwise clear-thinking Christians can be caught up in the societal propaganda that redefines critical Bible concepts, twisting them to the service of PC, including “love,” “grace,” “hate,” and “racism.” Even if a Christian possesses deep love and concern for a person overtaken in the sin of homosexuality, or the gender confusion associated with transgenderism, merely to speak against the behavior and suggest homosexual acts to be immoral, sinful, and evil is to invite accusations of “hate” and “intolerance.” Sadly, such sentiments demonstrate the extent to which American civilization and the church itself have lost touch with Almighty God.

After all, under the Law of Moses (authored by God Himself), God required the death penalty for same-sex relations: “You shall not lie with a male as lieth a woman; it is an abomination…. lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean” (Leviticus 18:22,28, emp. added, ESV). Question: When God identified a particular human behavior as “an abomination” that would cause the land to expel its practitioners, was He guilty of “hate speech” and being “racist”?

Two chapters later, God again declared His view of homosexuality:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them…. You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them (Leviticus 20:13,22-23, emp. added, ESV).

Question: When God stated that he detested those who engage in same-sex relations, was He guilty of “hate speech” and being “racist”?

The psalmist called upon righteous people to possess the appropriate level of disdain for that which God defines as “evil”: “You who love the LORD, hate evil!” (Psalm 97:10). Solomon taught the same concept: “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil” (Proverbs 8:13). The prophet Amos articulated the same sentiment: “Hate evil, love good” (Amos 5:15). The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are not to hate anyone (e.g., Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 6:27-36). Question: When God issued these divine admonitions to hate specific actions committed by humans, was He guilty of “hate speech” and “racism”?

Have Americans, and even Christians, become so accustomed to the moral filth that is rampant across the nation that they no longer blush or possess the same revulsion that God Himself possesses? (Jeremiah 6:15; 8:12). Can we no longer identify with the psalmist when he said: “I hate and abhor lying, but I love Your law” (Psalm 119:163, emp. added)? The words of Proverbs 24:24-25 are extremely apropos: “He who says to the wicked, ‘You are righteous,’ him the people will curse; nations will abhor him. But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”

Rather than being caught up in the PC atmosphere of our day, Christians would do well to breathe in the Spirit of God by adopting the disposition, attitude, and thinking of Him who sits upon the throne: “[T]he cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8). Such forthright expressions arise from the very nature and character of deity. We would do well to adopt the same perspective, and approach our current moral and spiritual confusion with a firm reliance on the example of God. Indeed, Americans desperately need to reacquaint themselves with the God of the Bible. Failure to do so will inevitably result in national crisis and reproach—“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

The post Is God Racist? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

This idea of choosing sin but calling it God’s way is not new, but it is being seen in our culture in more obvious and perverse ways than ever before. Take the case of Trey Pearson, the lead singer of the contemporary Christian rock band Everyday Sunday. He recently explained to his fans that he has been gay for 20 years. He married and had children, but will no longer live a heterosexual lifestyle. He hopes that his fans will continue to follow him and buy his music. He claims that his homosexuality is perfectly in-line with Jesus and His teachings. He stated, “There is absolutely no conflict with accepting who I am and following Jesus. God wants me to be healthy, authentic, whole, integrated, and my truest self” (Weber, 2016).¹

Trey Pearson is correct about one thing. God does want him to be healthy, authentic, whole, and his truest self. He is sadly mistaken in making the sinful, perverse claim that leaving his wife to fulfill his homosexual lusts is somehow the fulfillment of God’s plan for his life. Jesus and the New Testament writers absolutely did, in no uncertain terms, confine God-approved sex to a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.² By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to, one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and another man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Now to the main point. Homosexuality is a sin that people can choose if they so desire. They can even claim that their behavior is completely in-line with Jesus and His teachings. But the fact that they claim this to be the case, does not make it so. In truth, Trey Pearson and all others who claim to be following Jesus, but continue to practice their sinful, unnatural, perverse sexuality outside of a God-approved marriage are just like those to whom Jesus’ said, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people drew near to Me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:8). Again, Jesus cut to the heart of such illogical thinking when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The only possible way for any of us to be true to ourselves and spiritually healthy is to repent of our sins, fall at the feet of our Lord, and obey His commands from the heart. Would to God that our culture would wake up to the reality and truth of the inspired apostle Paul’s statement, “Do 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 sodimites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). No adulterer, homosexual, liar, or the like is beyond the power of Jesus’ blood to forgive if that person will repent and turn from his or her sin. If our culture continues to cling to such sinful lifestyles as homosexuality, claiming that Jesus approves, then Jesus’ bold words will echo from the pages of the New Testament as a haunting reminder of God’s love and justice, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). People can choose to practice homosexuality, but they cannot be following Jesus if they do.

Endnotes

The post Can a Gay “Christian” Rock Star Follow Jesus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: Having received his J.D. from the South Texas College of Law, Kevin has extensive experience in medical and legal malpractice litigation and also maintains an appellate practice. A product of the distinguished Advocacy Program at South Texas College of Law, he won multiple national and state championships and many speaking and brief-writing awards. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, he holds professional membership in the State Bar of Texas and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.]

God is laughing at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this is not a good laugh; and He is not laughing with the Supreme Court. This is divine laughing originating from the throne of God, and it is not a good sign.

So, what exactly is God laughing at? The recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage is no laughing matter, but it is the object of this laughter. However, it is worthwhile to take the time to pinpoint exactly what God is not laughing about with regard to the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

God is not laughing at the argument that minor changes in the views of marriage justify recognizing gay marriage. The court argued that gay marriage today is protected by the Constitution because marriage has been changing for years; from arranged marriages, and the doctrine of coverture (wife is under the protection and authority of husband). However, none of these changes in marriage altered the fundamental nature of marriage as one man married to one woman—a consistent element throughout history. As Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, this so-called “transformation…did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman.”

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s heavy reliance on cases recognizing interracial marriage, and then using interracial marriage as an excuse to justify same-sex marriage. As Justice Roberts so eloquently stated, “Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was.”

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s argument that “personal choice” regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of “individual autonomy” as a means of self-definition where through the “nature of marriage…two persons can find other freedoms such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” Question: What in the world does that mean? This so-called “analysis” sounds more like a philosophy class than constitutional analysis. Justice Roberts recognized as much when he said the majority opinion “sounds more in philosophy than law.” Justice Scalia observed in his dissent, “Whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality…were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.” Justice Scalia’s attempt at humor notwithstanding, this is not what God is laughing at.

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s argument that “the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individual.” The majority opinion goes on to support this position by stating, “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.” So, let me see if I have this right, James Madison and Ben Franklin. You drafted the Constitution to ensure that people would not have lonely feelings? Really? I am sure Freud would agree with you, but not Franklin. But let’s follow that argument for a moment. If any marriage is justified and legitimate because it prevents people from being lonely, then why not adopt the “more the merrier” approach. If just two people marry, they will eventually be lonely when just one dies. But if three or four marry (a.k.a. polygamy), then the unconstitutionality of loneliness will be even further defeated. It only makes sense.

If we can change the fundamental nature of marriage by removing the restriction of one man married to one woman, why are we only allowed to change the gender makeup of that institution? Why can’t we change the numerical, bilateral nature of marriage? Justice Roberts recognized this logical conclusion in his dissent when he wrote, “from the standpoint of history, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some churches around the world…. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” Just wait. It will not be long at all before special interest groups and certain religious organizations will be petitioning for states to remove statutes criminalizing polygamy, and eventually, requiring states to recognize multi-party marriages (the same route gay marriage advocates took). It is just a matter of time under this laughable analysis. But that is not why God is laughing.

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s argument that gay marriage is now a constitutionally protected fundamental right because the right to marry “safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education.” That’s right; the Supreme Court is arguing that “childbearing and procreation” are a basis for extending constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Are not arguments based on childbearing and procreation typically found in the traditional positions against homosexuality? I never thought I would see the day when the argument that childbearing and procreation would be the argument used to justify gay marriage. Can homosexuals bear children or procreate with each other? By its very nature, homosexuality is impotent in such matters. Apparently, common sense has left the building.

God is not laughing at the argument that the law allows gay couples to adopt, which “provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving supportive families.” The basis of this argument has been used by denominations for years—if you have love in your heart, it doesn’t matter what you do. Therefore, if homosexuals appear loving and express care for adopted children, it must be okay to marry, right? Apparently, the ability to care for children is now the basis for constitutional recognition of marriage. However, we have all seen courageous dogs that protect and care for their young, but that does not give rise to the right to an interspecies marriage. But it would under this result-oriented analysis from the Supreme Court.

God is not laughing at the argument advanced by the Supreme Court that gay marriage is a fundamental right because otherwise, “their children [would] suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser…and harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.” This widely-used political argument is called, “What about the children?” When someone is trying to scare others to adopt their point of view, but has no legitimate argument or ammunition, they throw out an emotion-based hypothetical and proclaim, “What about the children?” At this point, women are supposed to swoon and delicate men faint at the thought that this may somehow harm our children. Again, the tyrannical evil that is being constitutionally thwarted here is the evil of hurt feelings. Which begs the question, “When did we become a nation of pansies?” Give me liberty or give me death, unless it might hurt some child’s feelings. That is apparently where we are as a nation.

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s ridiculous efforts to justify their position by arguing that “marriage is a keystone of our social order.” To that proposition we would all heartily agree (without adopting the conclusion that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected freedom). And history has borne this principle out over and over again. As the institution of marriage crumbles; as people become preoccupied with their own pleasure; as people become more decadent and obsessed with self-pleasure, sexuality, and gayety; as long-held notions of love and healthy sexuality are set aside; and as loose relationships, open love, and same-sex companionship flourish; history teaches us that the fall is never far behind. Not to be overly crass, but just look at any gay pride parade, and you can see where the “keystone of our social order” is headed; and that is no joke.

God is not laughing at the blatant hubris and condescension of the majority opinion in the Obergefell case. The majority opinion proudly proclaims that they have finally figured out what other legal morons in the past could not: “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.” Justice Kennedy describes the majority’s position as based on a purported “better informed understanding.” Rather than learn from history, the majority looks down on the thinkers of the past and proclaim themselves as the geniuses who overcame the stupidity of our ancestors.

This arrogance did not escape Justice Scalia who wrote, “The [majority] opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” He recognized the fact that the majority has “discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what “lesser” legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. God is not laughing at this prideful display that proclaims to be the first sober-minded legal minds to finally get it right.

So what exactly is God laughing at? The Bible holds the answer (a book that escaped the mention of any judge in the Obergefell opinion, neither in the majority opinion nor in any of the dissents).

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision (Psalm 2:1-4).

But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He sees that His day is coming (Psalm 37:13).

Rouse yourself to punish all the nations; spare none of those who treacherously plot evil. …But you, O Lord, laugh at them; You hold all the nations in derision (Psalm 59:5,8).

This is not God making light of this dilemma or teasing those who are lost in sin. God is trying to emphasize the folly and pointlessness of sin and the arrogance that ignores God’s simple instruction. God laughs to illustrate the vanity and futility of trying to resist His counsel and commands while thinking we know what is best for ourselves. If we continue to reject God, He will reject us when we need Him the most.

Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all My counsel and would have none of My reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call upon Me, but I will not answer; they will seek Me diligently but will not find Me. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, would have none of my counsel and despised all My reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices (Proverbs 1:24-31).

Does this instruction and warning from the wise pen of Solomon have greater meaning and significance in light of the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage opinion? God is laughing, and it should cause us to weep for our nation that is filled with so many lost souls that God sincerely loves. God’s laughter should stand out like a tornado siren warning us of the impending storm and whirlwind that Solomon described by inspiration, and reminding us to be ever vigilant and watchful to remain faithful as the world continues to drift further and further away from the truth. Now, more than ever, faithful Christians can be a light that stands out in a world utterly lost in darkness blinded by its own legal wisdom. That is no laughing matter.

References

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015).

The post The Supreme Court Decision On Gay Marriage: It’s Not A Laughing Matter, Or Is It? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[NOTE: The following uplifting words are based on a sermon by A.P. board member Frank Chesser preached on Sunday, June 28, 2015 in Montgomery, Alabama in response to the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriages.]

There are twin sins that could serve as bookends for all other sins—abortion and homosexuality. From a biblical perspective, these sins are so monumentally evil, that a nation’s embracement of them is a solicitation for divine judgment. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized the slaughter of babies in the womb. Forty-two years has witnessed human intrusion into the mother’s womb, the workshop of God, extracting from the hands of God a work in progress, and crushing it into pieces with brutal tools of death. This sin has resulted in figurative oceans of abortive blood, waves of scarlet, washing against the seashore of the mind of God with unceasing cries for divine vengeance. When God’s judgment befell Judah, one of the reasons cited was the rivers of innocent blood with which Manasseh flooded Jerusalem that the “Lord would not pardon” (2 Kings 24:4). Homosexual conduct is an abomination for which God demanded the death penalty under the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:13). It is vile and unnatural (Romans 1:26). Homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah were “exceedingly wicked and sinful before the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). They were pursuers of “strange flesh” and are “set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Legalizing such unspeakable sins is a call for the judgment of God. Hopefully, reflection upon the following points will prove helpful in this dark national hour brought about by the recent endorsement by the Supreme Court of homosexual marriages.

1. The Supreme Court’s decision was an expression of freewill. Freewill is a gift of God. It prevents man from being a robot clothed in flesh. It enables love to be a reality, the greatest of the triune traits of 1 Corinthians 13:13. But it is fraught with fearful consequences. A tragic choice of freewill made Genesis 3:6 an actuality and Calvary a necessity. Five Justices exhibited their freewill in the legalization of homosexual marriages. Some may question the value of our prayers for God to cast the deciding vote in this decision. It was God’s desire to cast His vote through one more Justice who would stand for righteousness, but it was not to be. We are haunted by God’s affirmation to Ezekiel, “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none” (Ezekiel 22:30). God cannot overrule man’s freewill.

2. Sin has an aggressive nature. Sin is the most aggressive thing known to man. It is not stagnant. It never stands still. It is constantly moving forward in search of its next victim. Its appetite is insatiable. Sin was not satisfied with Genesis 3:6. It devised the false worship of Genesis 4:5, the murder of Genesis 4:8 and the world-wide wickedness of Genesis 6:5. Sin was not content with the success of its bloody assault upon the womb. It moved on to tamper with the pattern of marriage, divinely instituted by God. The vote of five Justices on the Supreme Court has opened the door to a dark and foreboding world that will prove to be a national disaster of epic proportions.

3. We should not be surprised. The nation has been moving in this direction for several decades. This decision is simply the end result of years of decadent behavior that has unraveled the moral fiber of the nation. The pace was fairly slow leading up to homosexual marriages until recently when the executive branch of our federal government, with tacit legislative approval, placed its unequivocal sanction upon homosexual unions. The homosexual community, many in the entertainment industry, the music industry, and all supporters of this aberrant lifestyle, released a collective sigh of victory. The Supreme Court took the final step in endorsing this profligate lifestyle. Sin is an alien concept to the minds of many Americans. It is no longer a part of the vocabulary of the general public. The average person could not define sin if his very life depended upon it. A new glossary of terms has been invented to extract the sinfulness out of sin and whitewash sinful acts into respectability. Hence, homosexuality is now just an “alternate lifestyle.” Should we expect a world that hates Christ (John 15:18) and the truth that comes from Christ (which demands purity and holiness of life) to possess and exhibit repugnance for moral degeneracy?

4. We need to face reality. We are likely not going to be able to change the direction of this country. It will probably never again be what it once was. This has been proven by history when tracing the rise and fall of nations and empires. It is not possible to restore the moral and spiritual foundation upon which America was constructed. We have very likely gone too far in the wrong direction to reverse our national course. We may not like the thrust of these words, but it would be foolish to argue against them. The Bible and the whole history of man testify to the truthfulness of these sentiments. There will be no Jonah-like sign (Luke 11:30) to provoke America to repentance. Refusing to accept the reality of our national state of decline will only negate our resolve to make what difference we can by shining the Gospel where we are and taking essential steps to victoriously confront whatever difficulties face us in the future.

5. Our situation today is not new. Several thousand years of human experience and national history bear witness to this truth. Many nations have preceded ours and are now buried beneath the aging dust of the Earth, and they all followed the same course. “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17). God destroyed the nation of Israel in Assyrian captivity because of its sin (2 Kings 17). A spiritual remnant in Judah returned from Babylonian captivity, but their national glory was gone forever. Divine judgment could purge America in some sense, but it would be most unwise to base one’s hope on a restoration of its former moral national climate and greatness.

6. Trials are inevitable. Loving God and truth beckons the world’s hatred (John 15:18-19). Persecution is like a shadow to godly living (2 Timothy 3:12). Inspiration warns against viewing trials as something “strange” (1 Peter 4:12). No nation can declare war upon the most innocent of the Earth and put a legal stamp of approval upon what God calls vile, wicked, unnatural, and an abomination and escape the judgment of God. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Romans 1:18). There will be trials to bear under the hand of God’s wrath.

7. Trials are bearable. First Corinthians 10:13 should mightily comfort the spiritual mind with God’s promise that He will not allow His people to be tried above their ability to endure. He will aid us every step of the way. He is our “refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 41:1). There was one occasion in Paul’s life when all human assistance failed him (2 Timothy 4:16), but he hastened to affirm, “Notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me” (2 Timothy 4:17).

8. God is sovereign. The term “sovereignty” denotes supreme power and authority. God alone is sovereign. He is transcendent to all that is. He controls the universe. He is the “Almighty God” (Genesis 17:1) and the “possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:19). He is “exalted as head above all” (1 Chronicles 29:11). Jehoshaphat averred, “rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?” (2 Chronicles 20:6). Nebuchadnezzar learned this truth by bitter experience (Daniel 4:35). When Habakkuk expressed concern over what he viewed as a delay in God’s judgment upon Judah (Habakkuk 1:2-4), he was informed that Babylon was on its way with the sword of violence in its hand (Habakkuk 1:5-11). God is going to attend to the moral chaos in America in His own time and way, and in harmony with His own nature and will. Let us resolve to be among the righteous remnant and beseech Him for wisdom, courage and preservation in this dark and dreary hour.

9. The Supreme Court is not THE Supreme Court. Five Justices have declared war on God and His will for the sanctity of the marital state. They have declared “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). They are void of moral perception. Judah was unable to apprehend the folly of idolatry (Isaiah 44:9-20), and these Justices are incapable of discerning basic moral evil. “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:18). When time is no more, they will stand before the Supreme Judge of all the Earth and give an account for joining the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4) in mightily enlarging the chasm between America and God, and perhaps driving the dagger of death into its national heart.

10. This world is not our home. Abraham recognized that even the land of promise was a “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9). Many others joined him in confessing “that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13). It does not take long to get old and arrive at the point in life when the time of our “departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:6). There is an incorruptible, undefiled eternal inheritance “reserved in heaven” (1 Peter 1:4) for the righteous servant of every age.

11. What should be our response? Refuse to allow the spiritually deranged decision of three women and two men to unduly affect your life. Greet the dawn and dusk of each day with a growing love for God, truth and righteousness. Do not crack the door of your life and allow Satan to “get an advantage” (2 Corinthians 2:11) of you. Love the saved and the lost; all of them. Do not permit dark days to rob you of your joy. “Rejoice in the Lord always; and again I say, Rejoice” (Philippians 4:4). Never quit. Never give up. Do not allow the Devil to defeat you with the rod of discouragement. Let every heartbeat sing with ceaseless gratitude for dew drops of mercy from heaven, the cross of Calvary, and exult in every good blessing that flows from the loving and generous hand of God. Lean on God, your family, and your brethren. Fill your mind with the mind of God as revealed in the Bible. Pray fervently. “Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21). May God bless us to this end.

The post The Supreme Court is Not THE Supreme Court appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[NOTE: Auxiliary staff writer Melvin Otey served in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. as a Trial Attorney in the Review and Policy Unit of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, responsible for reviewing all RICO and VICAR prosecutions nationwide. He also taught at the University of the District of Columbia Law School. In addition to writing for Apologetics Press, Otey now serves as an Associate Professor of Law at the Faulkner University Jones School of Law in Montgomery and as an adjunct professor at Amridge University.]

There are watershed moments in the history of any nation, and America is no different in this regard. Critical turning points have included armed conflicts like the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. They have included speeches like Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” address to Virginia’s delegates in 1775 and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington in 1963. The course of affairs in America has also been decisively impacted by court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reached a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that will surely qualify as yet another watershed moment in American history.

WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE

With the Supreme Court’s mandate that all 50 states recognize homosexual “marriages,” American authorities have once again declined to restrain evil and decided instead to sanction what Jehovah clearly condemns (but see Romans 13:3-5). Make no mistake: whatever popular opinions may be in society today, whatever novel theories are bandied about in the halls of academia to explain homosexual conduct, and whatever laws are passed by men, this is sinful behavior. It is one of several behaviors for which unrepentant sinners will be eternally lost (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Jehovah, the Creator of mankind and marriage, is as clear on this matter as He is on any subject. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22, ESV). “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). While many today seemingly accept the notion that people are “born homosexual” (without any scientific support), homoerotic behavior is really a consequence of people turning away from Jehovah to worship themselves and lower aspects of His creation. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul explained:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committingshameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty fortheir error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (emp. added).

Of course, in the first century when Paul wrote, homosexuality was common and accepted in the Roman Empire, just as it is becoming more common and more accepted in America and Western Civilization at-large. Remember, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34; cf. Ezekiel 16:49-50).

The Court’s decision is merely the latest in a line of critical markers for the accelerated and abysmal moral decline of the United States. It follows on the heels of the introduction of the theory of evolution into school curricula, the legalization of abortion on demand, and the proliferation of no-fault divorce. Our society is at war with our God, and the Court’s decision once again crystallizes the stark contrast between God’s law and man’s law. This decline in our national morality does not bode well for our national future: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

WHAT CHRISTIANS MUST DO

More than ever before, it is absolutely vital that Christians in America grasp the reality of our circumstances. Whatever ideals one may hold about what America used to be, and whatever dreams one may have about what it will become, we must walk circumspectly in these evil and decadent days (Ephesians 5:15-16). We live in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is Babylon and Rome, and we must develop realistic expectations in order to prepare for what is forthcoming. All those who resist this latest ordinance of the State and speak against homosexuality as the Bible does should anticipate mounting aggression and increasingly overt hostility from his neighbors and the authorities. “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

Of course, aggression and hostility and persecution have been evident for some time now (albeit at a relatively lower level). Those who have dared to voice concern with their employers’ “diversity” campaigns, designed largely to compel acceptance of homoerotic behavior, have been sent to “sensitivity training” or fired. Business owners who have declined to sell flowers or cakes for homosexual wedding ceremonies specifically because of their religious convictions have been sued, fined and driven out of business. People from all walks of life are publicly excoriated and harassed if they even suggest that this particular sin is unnatural and unhealthy for individuals, families, and society-at-large. Increasingly, everyone is thought to have freedom of speech in America except those who disagree with homosexuality, and the tide is unlikely to change in the near future.

There is room to lament and decry what is occurring, but Christians cannot expend inordinate energy in this regard because we cannot afford to be inert any longer. We must move forward. In light of what is occurring in American society, in general, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding same-sex unions, in particular, Christians must consider how the church should proceed in the days to come.

Preach the Truth

We must preach and teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It will make us unpopular, but we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) and bear the consequences for preaching and teaching Christ (Acts 5:40-42). Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior is a “hate crime” in February 2013. It is seemingly only a matter of time before American courts do the same, and well-funded advocates of the homosexual agenda are aggressively marshaling their resources to ensure that they do.

Following their latest victory in the Supreme Court, these advocates will ramp up their focus on policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America. Consequently, the costs for teaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) on matters of marriage and sexuality will increase dramatically. People are going to be sued and convicted as criminals for merely saying what the Bible says; they will be fined and ultimately jailed. Still, we must not waver or compromise; rather, we must “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Protect the Church

Of course, being committed to speaking and living the truth does not mean Christians should be ignorant of or unprepared for the consequences. We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Those promoting acceptance of homoeroticism are doing it largely through the courts, and this means they will continue suing people. Consequently, church sermons and websites will be scoured for statements disapproving of homosexuality. Also, preachers and churches will increasingly receive inquiries from litigious individuals concerning their willingness to perform same-sex weddings, and they must take proper precautions.

In anticipation of inquiries like this, preachers should strongly consider adopting an announced policy of refusing to officiate wedding ceremonies where he has not personally provided pre-marital, Bible-based, spiritual counseling to those wanting to exchange vows. This is advisable for several reasons, but a consistent practice in this regard will require those seeking the preacher’s assistance for a homosexual union to submit to several sessions of counseling on what the Bible teaches about marriage. Those who are not interested in entering a union guided by the Scriptures are unlikely to participate in such a series. However, even if two men or two women participated in the series (which would be great), a preacher could still decline to officiate the ceremony if the parties are unwilling to repent of their sin, just as he would decline to officiate if he discovered that the union would be adulterous (e.g., Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9). The basis for refusal, then, would be the parties’ express intention of entering into a union that does not conform to the teachings of Scripture, which he is duty-bound to uphold.

Congregations should also be proactive and adopt insulating language and policies before trouble of this kind darkens its doors. For instance, every church’s bylaws should include a statement of faith regarding marriage, gender, and sexuality and clearly identify the Bible as the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. A church might also adopt a policy limiting the use of its facilities and grounds to the religious purposes expressed in its bylaws. If its buildings and grounds are to be used for weddings, the church should amend its bylaws to expressly state that weddings conducted by church staff or on church grounds are “religious ceremonies” (because they involve acts of prayer, singing hymns, reading Scripture, and an exchange of vows in which a man and woman enter into a covenant with God and one another; see Matthew 19:6 and Malachi 2:14-15) and limit the use of church facilities to ceremonies involving “members in good standing” (and perhaps “their children” or “immediate family members”). As long as the limitation is not based on sexual orientation and is consistently applied, the congregation is likely to either avoid a lawsuit or successfully withstand a legal challenge if it comes.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will certainly lead to increased pressure on the church. Those who support the homosexual agenda will target conservative preachers and churches (they have already been targeted in other countries), and the ones saying “no gay marriages” are surely going to end up in litigation, whether civil or criminal. Of course, this does not change our responsibilities one iota; we must stand with the Lord in speaking and teaching the truth. Along the way, we must be prudent and wise in protecting the church because, even if churches successfully defend against lawsuits of this kind, the drain on resources that comes with being swept up in litigation would distract its members and significantly undermine its work.

The post Now that Same-Sex Unions Have Been Legalized appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The only legitimate way to evaluate and regulate human behavior is to look to the Creator. He is the One Who, in the words of the Founders of the American Republic, “created” all men, “endowed” them with life, provides them with “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and who functions as “the Supreme Judge of the world” (Declaration of…, 1776). If human opinion becomes the standard for judging ethical behavior, nothing but confusion, contradiction, and inconsistency can result.

The latest glaring evidence of this sad circumstance comes from the highest court in the land (Chappell, 2015). In a 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has brazenly flaunted the definition of marriage that has prevailed throughout western civilization, and most certainly in America from the beginning. This definition did not originate with men or nations. It came directly from the Creator of humanity and the Universe. When God spoke the Creation into existence, he declared forthrightly: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ reaffirmed the same thing (Matthew 19:4-6). One man for one woman has been the bedrock of civilization for 6,000 years, with exceptions confined to an immoral and depraved minority. Yet, now, a nation noted throughout the world for over two centuries as a bastion of Christianity has stunned humanity with an unprecedented leap into the quagmire of moral corruption and unrestrained devotion to sexual insanity (cf. Miller, 2006).

This unhappy state of affairs most certainly saddens those who yet retain a sense of Christian morality. Yet those who still believe in the God of the Bible are undaunted and unmoved by the high court’s shameful stance. For you see, only the Creator has the right to define lawful marriage—and all other human behavior. Those who reject His will inevitably will suffer the consequences of their spurning of the Creator’s prescription for happiness and contentment in this life, and eternal security in the life to come.

Consider the similarity between our day and the social setting depicted for the Thessalonians, which speaks of the

unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

It gives Christians no comfort to be reminded of Jesus’ warning on those who are dancing in the streets with jubilation over the Court’s decision: “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25). The warning issued to Jeremiah’s contemporaries trumpets an eerie warning:

“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,” says the LORD (Jeremiah 6:15).

Whatever people believe, say, or do, the fact remains: The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Court. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah discovered—there will be a day of reckoning. “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” (Jude 7). God still declares: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:35, NIV).

REFERENCES

Chappell, Bill (2015), “Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal in All 50 States,” NPR, June 26, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages.

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post Only the Creator has the Right to Define Marriage appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How can we engage this subject and offer a reasonable approach to both sides of the issue? First, we must insist that Christians should behave in a way that represents the spirit of Christ. Simply because a person calls himself or herself a Christian does not mean that his/her views actually represent Christ and His teachings in the New Testament. Second, just because a person is offended by a statement does not mean the statement is mean-spirited or hateful.

With these ideas in mind, it would be helpful to establish a foundational truth from the Bible. God is love and He wants everyone to be saved. Any person who has read through the Bible understands that one of its greatest themes is love. The Bible also explains that God showed His love to us while we were still sinners. Romans 5:6-8 states:

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

In one of the most well-known “love” verses in the Bible, Jesus said: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s love for the lost world was shown before the lost believed in Jesus. John further explained this situation when he wrote: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). From these verses it is clear that God loves lost sinners, and proved that love by sending Jesus. God loves all people, even though people are sinners.

God’s love for sinners extends to all types of sins. God loves murderers. God loves thieves. God loves hypocrites. God loves those who are apathetic to His Word. God loves child abusers. God loves those who curse. God loves self-righteous people. God loves you, and He loves me. Now, when we look to the Bible, we can see that homosexuality is a sin. There is only one relationship in which God approves of sexual activity and that is between one man and one woman in a committed, covenant marriage (see Butt, 2012). If the idea that homosexuality is a sin comes across as offensive, there is simply nothing a Christian can say or do to change that.

In light of the fact that homosexuality is a sin, what is God’s attitude toward those who practice it? The answer to that was shown in Jesus’ death on the cross. Sin breaks God’s heart, because He loves all humans that He created (John 3:16). God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and He insists that sinners, for their own sake, need to turn away from their sins and come to Him (Acts 2:38). God loves those who practice homosexuality just as much as He loves those who misrepresent His teaching with mean-spirited, hateful language.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, we read a list of terms that describe sinful behavior that will keep people from being saved. Idolatry is on the list, as well as drunkenness and thievery. In addition, various sexual sins are listed, including those who engage in sex before marriage, those who have sex with people who are not their spouses, and those who practice homosexuality. All of these actions are sinful. At the end of the section, in verse 11, Paul explained to the Corinthians that they used to be involved in those practices. He wrote: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” The Corinthians admitted they were sinning, changed their sinful ways, and turned to the God Who loves them and died for them. God requires this repentance from everyone.

In light of the fact that God loves all sinners, including those who practice homosexuality, it is clear that Christians should have the same attitude as God. Christians who are following the example of their Lord Jesus Christ love homosexuals and want what is the very best for them. Loving Christians point out that homosexuality is a sin— not to be homophobic or mean-spirited— but because each and every soul is important. They do not want anyone to be lost. If homosexuality is a sin, and a person will be lost if he or she does not repent, then the only loving course of action is to kindly and gently explain this fact in the hopes that those who are sinning will repent and get to live forever in heaven with their God and Creator.

So, when we ask the very relevant question, “Does God love homosexuals?” we need to understand it is virtually the same question as “Does God love hypocrites?” or “Does God love those who look at pornography?” or “Does God love those who are mean-spirited?” The answer is a resounding, “Yes.” And God put an exclamation point on His answer in the form of Jesus dying on the cross to save the sinners that He loves, as long as they will repent and turn to Him.

References

Butt, Kyle (2012), “‘Jesus Didn’t Condemn Homosexuality,’” Apologetics Press, /APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1627&topic=36.

The post Does God Love Homosexuals? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Tim’s misunderstanding of God and His Word cannot be further from the truth. We have discussed in numerous other places the fact that homosexuality is a sin, just like other sexual sins such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, and pedophilia. And we have shown that there is no genetic link to homosexuality (Miller and Harrub, 2004). It is a choice—a sinful way of life. It is not something that a person is; it is something that a person chooses to do.

As an analogy, suppose that a person who practices bestiality were to contend that his sexual choice is a gift from God. His bestiality has put him in the minority and allowed him to see things from a minority perspective. His bestiality helped him to develop thick skin and made him a stronger person. In addition, he looks forward to the day when our country recognizes the rights of people to legally marry animals.

While those who practice homosexuality do not appreciate such comparisons, the same arguments can be made in favor of bestiality as are made in favor of homosexuality. A person could claim that there is nothing he can do about his sexual preference for animals. He was made that way. He loves animals, and that is his way to show it. He can’t believe people are so judgmental and unloving as to claim that his choice is sinful or wrong. He is being persecuted by “bigots” who hate minorities such as those who practice bestiality.

One could make the same case for pedophilia. The person who engages in this sexual practice could claim she can’t help it. God created her as a pedophile. She is glad that God made her this way, because it helps her understand other minorities such as those who practice bestiality or homosexuality. It has given her thick skin and helped her learn to be herself. She looks forward to the day when our country understands that 12 year olds know what they want and should be allowed to give their consent.

I hope that you can see the problem with Tim Cook’s statement. It is one thing to blatantly live a sinful life of rebellion against God. It is another thing to claim that God is “blessing you” by endowing you with a sinful behavior. That is the equivalent of a thief claiming that “being” a thief is the greatest thing God ever did for him; or a habitual liar claiming that He is thankful God made him a liar; or an adulterer claiming that God blessed him with three girlfriends in addition to his wife; or a teenage boy thanking God for making him promiscuous and giving him the chance to have sex with scores of girls.

Has our “Christian” nation wandered so far from what God actually says in the Bible that it can swallow the proclamation that a person’s homosexual lifestyle is a gift from God? Have even New Testament Christians lived so long outside the Word of God that they can’t recognize such a blasphemous statement for the twisting of the truth that it is? Homosexuality is a sin, like any number of other sins such as lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, fraud, malicious gossip, etc. God loves all sinners and wants them to be saved. “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 2:15). Jesus Christ died on the cross to save Tim Cook from his choice to be a homosexual, just as Jesus died to save each and every one of us from our sins. But Jesus commands, yes demands, that we recognize that we are sinning and stop—repent of—our sins. Jesus clearly said “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

It may be true that our culture no longer recognizes that sex before marriage is sin, or that adultery is sinful, or that homosexuality is a violation of God’s Law. But to claim that not only are these actions not sinful, but they are gifts from God, shows an ignorance of the nature of God and of His Will that is startling. As the apostle John wrote: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). The haunting words of the prophet Isaiah, written over 2,700 years ago remind us that Cook’s tactic is nothing new: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21).

REFERENCES

Cook, Tim (2014), “Tim Cook Speaks Up,” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/tim-cook-im-proud-to-be-gay.

Goldman, David (2018), “Tim Cook: Being Gay is God’s Greatest Gift to Me,” CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/tech/tim-cook-gay-apple/index.html.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1401&topic=36.

The post Apple® CEO Tim Cook Claims His Homosexuality Is a Gift from God appeared first on Apologetics Press.