The Tragedy of Homosexuality and Sexual Immorality

The only thing I'm going to say in response to this post is that I was never abused as a child.. and many of my gay friends weren't either.

Okay, I lied.. I'm gonna say something else.

I appreciate the concern many Christians have for homosexuals like me, but I will resist.. completely and constantly.. your attempts to legislate your interpretations of morality. I also will not be dictated to and judged by anyone.

The more you push, the more we push back.. and the end result will not be to your liking, because nothing will change.

The more you push, the more we push back ... nothing will change.

Mark, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that homosexuals are a politically powerful and unified group who would go to any extent to fight for their right to touch each other erotically. If the battle escalates, then it follows that people would even die for their lifestyle, rather than accept change.

What Michael was saying is that homosexuals sometimes find themselves in a position of political power, yet struggle with their incapacitating desire to touch each other erotically. Even if their behaviour leads to life-threatening health problems, they often continue to pursue their homosexual lifestyle rather than accept change.

"I appreciate the concern many Christians have for homosexuals like me, but I will resist.. completely and constantly.. your attempts to legislate your interpretations of morality. I also will not be dictated to and judged by anyone."

I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to do so. I really don't see it as wise to have the government telling consenting adults what they can do in private. I wish homosexuals shared that view, and just wanted to be left alone. Unfortunately, they insist on anti-discrimination laws that force printers to publish same-sex wedding announcements, and they insist that the courts force the states to recognize same-sex marriage.

I wish homosexuals really believed in their claims about a right to privacy, because then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with these issues.

DD: My "behavior" hasn't lead to life-threatening health problems.. and neither has it for many sexually active homosexuals.

CEC: I think what you'll find is a fair amount of diversity within the homosexual population. There are some who are exactly as you want; who share your view as outlined. There are also some who push for the things you detest.

I'm not really aware of any concerted effort to get the US Supreme Court to force states to recognize same-sex marriages. I am aware, though, of the over-reaction by the US Congress to MA's decision regarding same-sex marriage.. the end result of which was a silly and failed attempt to amend the Constitution. Individual states took up the issue.. and good for them.

There was a time, not so long ago, where I was much more of an advocate on these issues. That changed, though, and now I'm more pragmatic on the "gay" issues. Stories like this, though not exclusively directed at homosexuals, still sicken me however.

I agree that morality cannot be effectively legislated in a democratic society. However, there is a technical problem with the legal definition of marriage. The definition that appears in some law dictionaries is recursive -- it is often accompanied by a statement that the law defines marriage. So, a judge opens his law dictionary and it basically says "see the legal definition of marriage."

The legal issues are totally seperate from the internal battle for self-control faced by all people who worship sex.

I'd be curious to hear a rebuttal or defense of this statement Michael made:

Shocking and sickening, no doubt, but sadly such behavior appears to be pretty common among gay men.

Also, I don't think anybody is suggesting the government could or would "legislate morality". For one thing, Michael states upfront:

Alcoholism is not dismissed as a legitimate lifestyle, and perhaps homosexuality should be considered similarly; not made illegal, because such banning would be ineffectual, but socially condemned and usefully treated.

Are states that ban or allow gay marriage "legislating morality"? Does allowing or not allowing a couple to wed actually force a moral choice? I don't think so... As long as homosexuality is not actually outlawed, morality is not being legislated in any way.

Morality has been legislated for years though with no protest or controversy whatsoever in our laws prohibiting murder and theft. Killing and stealing are moral decisions, and the state legislates them with no protest.

That said, I would be interested to hear a moral argument against homosexuality without invoking the Bible. In other words, while it's easy to defend the immorality of murder and theft without invoking the 10 Commandments, can anyone give a good reason for why being homosexual is immoral without quoting from Leviticus, or Romans, or other books of the Bible?

The reason I ask, is that when we Christians attempt to advocate the kinds of things Michael is posting about, non-Christians are predisposed to resist it because they don't believe in the moral truth of the only source that calls it immoral...

Mark: I attend a liberal university in Massachusetts. I live less than six blocks from the location of the first gay marriage in the country. I live less than two blocks from a hugely popular gay club. I have lived with gay roommates.

I have met lots of homosexual males--enough to know that their behaviour (a nice word for ass-packing) leads to self-destruction both physically and spiritually. The ones who jerk each other off are probably more healthy, but I generally avoid asking for that level of detailed information.

Barry: I never said I thought the states deciding on same-sex marriage was a bad thing.. if you'll recall, I said "good for them".

David: I live in southeast Wisconsin.. have been to many gay clubs.. and have had my share of sex.. and I have no diseases and am not spiritually bankrupt. I use condoms, don't take drugs, and very often have lots of fun outside of what is typically called "the gay scene". Take the "southeast Wisconsin" out of that and you have a profile that many gay men fit.

Or, perhaps more to the point David, you're on the outside looking in.. even though you live in the middle of a very vibrant homosexual population (even if it's vibrant in only the stereotypical ways). Your perspective is that of an outsider; it's perhaps not the best case to make that your perspective is more valid than mine.

Correlation between childhood sexual abuse and adult homosexuality: I've mentioned before one survey that found 48% of lesbians and 28% of gay men reported having been sexually abused as children--and some of those had only recently recovered such memories. In a discussion over at Volokh Conspiracy, one commenter pointed to a number of studies that show such disproportionate correlations.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_05_07_archive.html#114721314724100886

I pointed out in a comment over here that sexual abuse of children and adult homosexuality are positively correlated, and this really shouldn't be any surprise, especially for lesbians. Not surprisingly, the homosexual law professor and law student brigade started calling me names. Another commenter put up a rather extensive list of abstracts from recent journal articles on the subject.

Sexual assault and alcohol abuse: a comparison of lesbians and heterosexual women. Hughes TL, Johnson T, Wilsnack SC. J Subst Abuse. 2001;13(4):515-32.

RESULTS: Lesbians reported more childhood sexual experiences, were more likely to meet the study definition for childhood sexual abuse (CSA), and were more likely to perceive themselves as having been sexually abused as children. CSA was associated with lifetime alcohol abuse in both lesbian and heterosexual women.

Sexual Orientation, Sexual Abuse, and HIV-Risk Behaviors Among Adolescents in the Pacific Northwest. Saewyc E, Skay C, Richens K, Reis E, Poon C, Murphy A. Am J Public Health. 2006 May 2

Conclusion. Sexual minority adolescents who attended school reported higher HIV risk behaviors, and higher prevalence of sexual victimization may partially explain these risks.

Victimization over the life span: a comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Balsam KF, Rothblum ED, Beauchaine TP. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Jun;73(3):477-87.

Compared with heterosexual participants, LGB participants reported more childhood psychological and physical abuse by parents or caretakers, more childhood sexual abuse, more partner psychological and physical victimization in adulthood, and more sexual assault experiences in adulthood. Sexual orientation differences in sexual victimization were greater among men than among women.

Lesbian survivors of childhood sexual abuse: community, identity, and resilience. Baker S. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2003 Fall;22(2):31-45.

Adult lesbian survivers of childood sexual abuse were interviewed using grounded and structured methods to explore the interaction between being, or coming out as, a lesbian and healing from childhood sexual abuse (CSA). A history of CSA was found to render coming out as a lesbian more complicated and often more difficult. Having or developing a lesbian identity caused significant changes in respondents' social support networks and spiritual beliefs and communities, afforded many opportunities for greater healing, and in the balance seemed to facilitate the healing process.

Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Tomeo ME, Templer DI, Anderson S, Kotler D. Arch Sex Behav. 2001 Oct;30(5):535-41.

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

Mark, so you're just talking about things like the Constitutional amendment?

Barry: Yes.. and stuff like what you see in the story I linked to in an earlier post.

Mark has been so courteous over this that I hesitate to post something that will offend him further, but something struck me about the way the article framed the issue:

McGreevey's struggle with his own homosexuality and his efforts to be a straight man

McGreevey's struggle with his own drinking and his efforts to be a non-alcoholic

This is like all addictions --you struggle to avoid one behavior. But so many people continue to insist on treating homosexuality as if the addictive behavior were the norm and his attempts to overcome his addiction were the oddity --as if a man who tried to replace drinking alcohol with drinking coffee (also harmful, but arguably less so) were struggling against his very nature as an alcohol drinker.

Of course many adicts refuse to believe that their behavior is outside the norm. But what is different about homosexuality is that so many others who claim to be on the side of the adict are willing to support them in this self-deception.

DR: Oh, I fully understand that homosexual sex and homosexual attraction are indeed abnormal. I'd be very surprised indeed if it were anywhere near as normal as heterosexuality. To me, though, the abnormality of homosexuality is irrelevant.

I know that most of the guys I see and meet are not homosexual.. and I'm perfectly fine with that. Their normality and my relative abnormality in sexual attraction and behavior doesn't affect my sense of what my attractions and desires are.

I think that part of what keeps these discussion so confused is the word 'homosexuality'. It's a combination of very different ideas that the language pushes us to assume go together. But they don't go together, and we don't have the words to separate the ideas bound up in it.

Let's unbundle some of the connotations that 'homosexual' suggests:
Not interested in sex with the opposite sex.
Not interested in reproduction.
Not interested in the challenge of connecting emotionally with the opposite sex.
Interested in sex with the same sex.
Profoundly interested in sex to the point that it becomes a major basis of self-identification.
A hedonistic outlook on life; nothing is more important than sexual pleasure.
Opposed to sex roles specifically and tradition generally.
Opposed to any restraints on sexual pleasure, social or legal.
Feels persecuted; enjoys a sense of righteous victimhood.
Enjoys making others uncomfortable with talk of sex.
Adopts non-traditional gender roles.
Victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Promiscuous.
At risk for diseases.
Artistic.

Obviously, not every one of those applies to every person who might call himself 'homosexual'. But using that word activates all of those association. If the debate is: "Homosexuality, Good or Bad?" then each participant in the debate will focus on a different subset of those associations. So rather than debate the whole self-contradictory package, we should scrap that silly word and focus on more meaningful ideas.

The aspect of homosexuality that bothers me the most is its obsession with sex and resulting militant hedonism. I think that people should be more than their genitals.

But that isn't limited to homosexuality. People can be obsessed with sex regardless of how they like to do it. I know a man who had sex near-continuously from about age 16 to 30. It was obviously connected with some ugly childhood issues. The fact that he had sex with girls instead of boys was irrelevant. The tragedy was that he saw the purpose of life as nothing more than screwing the next girl.

I think that there are lots of people who choose for various psychological reasons to reduce themselves to their genitals. It's probably like overeating: Life is painful, so you turn to a reliable source of pleasure. But frequent sex with the opposite sex is tough, especially for men. This guy I know apparently had the looks and charm to pull it off, but most guys don't. So they take what they can get.

Does that fit every person who is attracted to the same sex? Obviously not. To me, the same-sex attraction is one of the least important aspects of the bundle of associations that make up our word 'homosexuality'.

I think that it's generally unfortunate when people are sex-obsessed, or militantly hedonistic, or can't connect emotionally with the opposite sex, or choose not to reproduce, or hate major aspects of our traditions. And if you disagree with me, then let's talk about those topics. But let's not throw sand in each others' eyes with that confusing word 'homosexuality'.

Barry asked a crucial question that did not get answered: Why is homosexuality immoral? (Other than "Because the Bible says so").

It is fairly easy to argue that being addicted to sex is dangerous. For example, condoms don't protect against all STDs, excessive sex can lose the meaning it should have when it's shared with someone very special, bad things can happen to one's self-esteem and self-image, etc.

But why is any of this more true of homosexuals than it is of heterosexuals? If you want to say people are having too much sex and not thinking enough about it, then write about sex addicts, not about homosexuals. The fact that a person is sexually attracted to people of the same gender does not prevent that person from having a healthy love life ("love" meaning both "sex" and "meaningful committed relationship").

Sure, it may be the case (or it may not) that a higher percentage of homosexuals engage in damaging sexual behavior than the percentage of heterosexuals who do. But the problem is still the damaging sexual behavior, not the homosexuality.

I'm going to be honest: The thought (let alone the sight) of two guys having sex, or making out, or just kissing, is pretty disgusting to me. I also don't enjoy, in the least, things like gay pride parades, men dressing in drag, or people in general being flamboyant, histerical, or overly dramatic.

However, any sexual behavior that heterosexuals do in public (like kissing), homosexuals should be able to do in public, whether or not I like it. (I think smoking is disgusting, but apparently it's OK to do that in public). More importantly, I think two consenting adults behind closed doors should be able to do whatever they want, and I recognise that homosexuals can have meaningful relationships just like heterosexuals, so I don't see why they should not be able to get married like heterosexuals can.

So, I ask again, why is homosexuality immoral?

I could also point out evidence that suggests that sexual orientation is caused by hormone distributions (and the gene expression they trigger) in the brain during pre-natal development, which essentially cause some embryos to develop "male brains" and some "female brains". Male embryos that get "female brains" (or vice versa) become homosexuals, and this is not really "curable" (unless the person was bisexual all along). I'm no no expert on this, so that's not a debate I think I can win, but I thought I'd bring it up.

In fact, some more recent research finds that the brain starts differentiating between "male" and "female" even before the embryo's genitals are formed - even before the embryo can make the hormones previously thought necessary for this differentiation. I don't know what to make of this, other than to see that it confirms that sexual identity probably develops prenatally and is probably hard-wired into the brain.

Apparently, while I was writing my comment, Ben made some of the same points. Sorry if it seems like I was repeating what he said; His comment was not up when I wrote mine.

And when I wrote that I think homosexuals can have healthy relationships like those of committed heterosexuals, I should make it clear that I know homosexuals cannot have children. Now, whether or not they should be able to adopt is an entirely different issue. I have heard someone try to argue the point that a child brought up by a man and a woman will be better off than a child brought up by two men or by two women. I don't think this point is very persuasive (especially given how many kids are brought up by just one parent, or how many kids brought up by a mom and a dad still grow up to be a-holes). I will not rule out the possibility that there is something to this "Other things being equal, it is better for a child to have parents of different genders" argument, but right now I am unconvinced of its validity. It's not like one can perform controlled experiments where all other things ARE equal.

Still, the bottom line is: Why is homosexuality immoral?

Bernando, the question should be reframed: why is anything immoral?

It's unlikely that your position on homosexuality is going to make sense outside of an articulated moral framework.

In my experience I've typically found homosexual activism to be unconcerned about moral philosophy writ large. There is no framework by which to make sense of their claims. The genetic determinist fallacy is just one example of a thoughtless perversion of science to promote an underdeveloped moral imperative.

The arguments might be available, but they're not being employed. The face of homosexual activism is an ugly one to most Americans, and it would be a political error for the left to dismiss the moral majority as backward in the name of a cause which has so little intuitive moral appeal.

This is interesting.. and perhaps I will note it on my calendar later.. but I think this is the first post of Ben Bateman's in which I can find nothing significant to disagree with.

I whole-heartedly agree that we need to break apart the stereotype associated with homosexuality.. and as much as I have enjoyed it, television shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" don't help. There was a show that did, in my opinion: "Queer as Folk" (the US version). It explored pretty much the whole spectrum of topics.. everything from hedonistic and unabated sex, drugs, etc. to committed relationships, adoption, and surrogate mothers. It was realistic.. to a fault, perhaps.. in its exploration of each individual aspect. I suggest you watch it.. but you'd probably want to skip the erotic stuff (of which there's plenty).

My own preferences have cost me quite a bit when it comes to my attractiveness to many of my peers. Unlike them, I'm not into going to gay bars or clubs all the time, taking recreational drugs, having sex all the time with just about anyone, I don't particularly care about waxing, tanning, or living and dying by the latest in fashion trends. In many respects, I'd be an ideal husband in a heterosexual marriage.. and have been approached by females on more than one occasion.. but I don't want that either. I'm me.. and that's all there is to it. I'd rather be disliked for who I am than liked for who I'm not.

If there's one thing I'd be an advocate of among my peers, at this stage, it would be for an appreciation of self; a recognition that they are who they are and don't need the approval of anyone. Much of the vitriole and arguing about "gay issues", on both sides, stems.. I suspect.. from a lack of this appreciation of self. I'd also wager that this concept applies to discussions about many other issues as well.

Okay. I think we can all agree that an act is "immoral" if it causes undeserved harm or suffering, to others or to those committing the act. I don't see why "immoral" would be defined as anything but "an act causing (or potentially causing) more suffering or harm (especially undeserved suffering or harm) to someone else / to humanity / to you than the benefits it brings you are worth".

Why is it immoral for a person to have consensual sex with another, if these two people are responsible, reasonable, mature individuals who only have sex with those they love? What harm or suffering does that cause? Even if it is hard to measure the value of having sex, and even if it is hard to define what "undeserved" harm/suffering is, it should be clear that two adults (who are not addicted to sex) having consensual sex as part of a meaningful relationship harms no one. Most importantly, it should be clear that consensual sex between two adults of the same gender is not more or less "immoral" than consensual sex between two adults of different genders, especially if both pairs of adults are not addicted to sex, use protection, and are in meaningful relationships.

"In my experience I've typically found homosexual activism to be unconcerned about moral philosophy writ large."

That's because they don't see "morality" as part of the issue. Why not? Because no one has yet explained why homosexual sex is any more immoral than heterosexual sex. If anyone made some kind of halfway-reasonable argument for why homosexual sex is immoral - even as part of a responsible, committed relationship between two healthy, honest adults who are not sex addicts - then maybe this so-called "morality" problem would become a real issue. Which is why I keep asking what is so immoral about homosexual sex.

Wow, I had no idea that this post would get so much attention.

First, as I've written elsewhere, I think heterosexual promiscuity has caused far more damage to our culture than homosexuality, by weight of pure numbers. Which is why near the end of the post I made sure to point out that sexual immorality as a whole is the problem, and that homosexuality is just one component.

Bernardo: It's impossible to make a compelling moral argument for or against anything without some framework, as Sybil said. If your only criteria is "does this hurt other people?" then you can pretty much get away with anything. "Does thsi hurt other people?" is generally a good foundation for a legal system, but as most people agree, law and morality do not always intersect. Many things are immoral that shouldn't be illegal (lying), and many things are illegal that aren't immoral (speeding on an empty road). Law is just a matter of finding a set of rules that everyone can live with, but morality is a different beast.

As a Christian, morality is defined by God, not by man. The question isn't what hurts other people, but rather what hurts God and goes against his desires for each of us as individuals and us together as a society. The Bible clearly condemns sexual immorality (and homosexuality as a subset thereof), therefore it is wrong, QED.

It is possible to make a practical argument against sexual immorality and homosexuality without turning to the Bible, but it devolves into mere opinion and interpretation, which may not be convincing to everyone depending on their starting points. For example, see Dennis Prager's excellent treatise on Judaism's Sexual Revolution.

MW said: "I had no idea that this post would get so much attention."

Liar! :) Come on, you can't possibly expect us to believe that you didn't think your post on this would get the kind of attention it has.

Michael; The Bible also condemns eating shellfish, eating cheeseburgers, touching pig-skin footballs, trimming your sideburns, wearing clothes of 2 different fibers, and touching anything touched by a woman within 7 days of her menstruation. So, while I really do think that there's a whole lot of great stuff in the Bible, some of it simply goes against my common sense (a facility that some Christians believe to be the most important of God's gifts when it comes to interpreting the Bible). So I tend to not be persuaded by the "The Bible clearly condemns it, therefore it is wrong, QED" argument. I would be more interested in "a practical argument against ... homosexuality" made based on "mere opinion and interpretation".

For the sake of argument, I will not disagree with the idea that there is probably harm in having sex with people with whom one does not have a meaningful, monogamous, mature, committed relationship. But I still don't understand why this is more true of homosexuals than of heterosexuals, or especially why homosexual sex is bad even within a meaningful, monogamous, mature, committed relationship.

And Mark's right. I am glad you posted this, since it has led to this discussion, but I find it hard to believe that this was not what you intended. I mean, you seem to be familiar with how online boards work.

Something something Nazis Hitler something something!

Bernardo-

I hope you realize that there is a difference between what was commanded of people prior to Christ's fulfillment of the Law and what people are commanded to do after said event.

Those requirements you listed make much more sense in biblical context and aren't as ridiculous as they might at first sound to the modern ear.

"Those requirements you listed make much more sense in biblical context and aren't as ridiculous as they might at first sound to the modern ear."

I agree. That's because they were written at a time when our knowledge and abilities regarding health and medicine were not what they are today. Things observed to lead to poor health - like touching dead pigs, eating crustaceans and mollusks, having anal sex - were forbidden, for the sake of health. But now I think we have the knowledge and technology necessary to safely enjoy these potentially-unhealthy things, since dead-animal meat is cleaner now, condoms (and other, um, technologies) prevent the more serious dangers of anal sex, and medicine is effective in fixing problems that still occasionally come up from these activities.

I realize that a lot of you guys view the origins and legitimacy of the Bible (and thus the relationship between people, Jesus, God, and the Bible) in a way that is different from how I view them. But still, I think you realize that God cannot expect people to still follow Old Testament law to the letter.

So if the reason why homosexuality is immoral is "Because it clearly says so in the Bible", then you have to admit that this is not a very good reason. I say that because, by saying "there is a difference between what was commanded of people prior to Christ's fulfillment of the Law and what people are commanded to do after said event" you have rationalized away some things the Bible says very clearly (like the things from Leviticus that I mentioned in my previous comment).

It's funny: I've heard lots of people condemn those who disapprove of homosexuality on Biblical grounds. But I very rarely actually hear people condemn homosexuality on Biblical grounds.

AUTHOR: Bernardo
EMAIL: airshowfan@gmail.com
IP: 24.130.112.134
URL: http://AirShowFan.com
DATE: 05/23/2006 04:25:05 PM
AUTHOR: Bernardo
EMAIL: airshowfan@gmail.com
IP: 24.130.112.134
URL: http://AirShowFan.com
DATE: 05/23/2006 04:25:05 PM

It's funny: I very rarely actually hear people condemn homosexuality at all, and when I do, I ask them why, and they can't give me a good answer (or a good answer to my objections to their answers).

The only answers I have so far are "It's not what God wants for people" (How do you know?), "It says so clearly in the Bible" (But the Old Testament clearly says all kinds of things we feel (for different reasons) are ok to ignore), "It's immoral" (What harm does it cause?), and "It's associated with harmful promiscuity and child abuse" (Then it is harmful promiscuity and child abuse one should condemn, not homosexuality, since responsible people can make homosexuality part of a healthy life).

Go to almost any pride event and you'll see plenty of people condemning homosexuality on Biblical grounds.

Or you can listen to Jerry Falwell after 9/11.. or "Reverend" Fred Phelps just about anytime and you'll get more of the same.

At the risk of generating even more comments, I'll list some of the Biblical references against homosexuality. These references were given to me by a converted lesbian who was quite comfortable sharing them.

OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES

Genesis 1,2: God makes people male and female and tells them to "be fruitful and multiply", as well as giving them other indications of their purpose on the Earth.

Genesis 13,18,19: God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah because "the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD". The men pressed against Lot's door in an attempt to "have relations" with his two male visitors. It's not clear whether their offense is any better or worse than the alternative of raping Lot's daughters.

Judges 19,20,21: A male Levite traveler stays in an old man's house in Gibeah. Men from the city want to "have relations" with the traveler. He passes off his concubine to the men, and they rape and kill her. In response, the Levites attack the city and kill nearly everyone. According to 20:23, the LORD approved of the battle, but in 21:25 we see that "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" in the aftermath.

Leviticus 18:22: [The LORD ... to the sons of Israel] "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:10-16: This is a list of sexually-related laws. "If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES

1 Corinthians 6: This is the main reference. Read it here. The "effeminate" probably refers to young male prostitutes, and is sometimes translated as such.

1 Timothy 1:8-10: "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching..." So, homosexuality is said to be contrary to sound teaching, and listed along with immorality, murder, etc.

Romans 1:20-27: This final passage presents homosexuality in a historical Biblical context. It also makes a connection between idolotry and sexual immorality. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

In summary, God made people with a plan, and those who reject God also reject His plan, which leads to all sorts of sins. Sins are symptoms of the central problem--worshipping something other than God Himself.

Matthew 19:4-6: "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

If Jesus regards marriage as an explicitly heterosexual union, and if Jesus is the fulfillment of a law which regards nonmarital sex as sinful, one cannot deduce a favorable or neutral position toward homosexuality within Christianity.

Bernardo: Hey, you had been attending our small group Bible study of Hebrews, so you should know all about the difference between the Old and New Testaments and why/how they're different!

This might be an oversimplification, but I understand that the New Testament teaches that compassion and love are more important than following rules.

So since it seems to me that homosexuality does not do any harm (beyond what any other sexual activity does), I don't like the idea of condemning it, since homosexual sex and love are a big part of what brings happiness to gay people.

My interpretation of the Old Testament versus New Testament thing is this: The rules were made for a time when people could barely think for themselves, and had to be told what to do. They did not have the perspective to be able to make tricky moral choices, so they were told "Just follow these rules, stay on the safe side, and you'll be fine". Now that we know about compassion and love, about ways to think about what is best for everyone, it is more important for us to use those abilities (and try to figure out what is best for everyone) than to follow those primitive rules.

I think condemning homosexuality is not what is best for everyone. Especially not for homosexuals. They need homosexual love in order to have happy, full lives, and this harms no one (not any more than heterosexual sex/love issues do). So even if homosexuality is "curable", I don't see the pain of "curing" it as worthwhile, especially not for homosexuals who do not wish to be "cured" (which I am sure is the majority of homosexuals - any homosexuals who wish to be cured, hey, best of luck).

That Matthew passage that Alan quotes here seems to be more against divorce, and against staying single, than against homosexuality. It says a man should have a wife. In which case single men are deviating from their intended path more than homosexuals are.

Why are Christians not campaigning to make divorce illegal?

The bottom line is, no one can show that homosexual behavior does any more harm than any other sexual behavior. You only think it's immoral because the Bible says it's not what God wants people to do. But the Bible says God wants people to do some things we are currently happy to ignore, AND the Bible tells us to be loving and compassionate rather than following old rules. All this (plus scientific studies that show that homosexuality is probably the result of having brain structures similar to those of the opposite gender) seems to add up to "Homosexuality is ok". It seems to me that, if you add it up differently, it's because you're putting the OT rules ahead of the NT love and compassion.

Why are Christians not campaigning to make divorce illegal?

Bernardo: Are you asking a serous question here? Surely there are some Christians who take either side of any issue. For example, John Calvin ruled over a society that criminalized everything from dancing to divorce. However, in modern times there are good reasons why Christians should not criminalize every immoral action.

First, divorce is a great example of something that is immoral, yet rightly legal. If an immoral man says to himself, "I'm either going to sleep around, or kill my wife, or leave her!" then it is best for society to let him leave her. Jesus addresses the issue in Matthew 19:7-9: "They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a cirtificate of divorce and send her away? He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." In historical context, the cirtificate of divorce was for the woman's sake, so that someone else might take her in.

Second, we know that our nation is not unified under the authority of the church. That's important, because moral judgement is only for those who claim to be brothers (or sisters) within the church. Corinthians 5:9-14: "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." Therefore, Christians are expected to remove immoral members from the church, but not to judge outsiders by the same standards.

Finally, I want to remind you that Christians are not trying to make homosexuality illegal. It is the gay-rights groups who want government benefits that have typically been reserved for male-female marriages. Most of all, they want their relationships to be legally defined as marriage, because that would automatically give them thousands of court precedents to appeal to.

While I agree that Christians aren't trying to make homosexuality illegal, per se, they certainly are doing their share of overreacting.. voting for state Constitutional amendments in spite of the fact that many of the states with such amendments don't have organized groups of homosexuals pushing for same-sex marriage. In Wisconsin, for example, there's an amendment on the issue being proposed and will be voted on this November. There is no group in Wisconsin pushing for same-sex marriages. There are no lawsuits in WI's court system that seek it and there aren't any really organized gay rights groups in the state that have any real influence. And yet, our state legislature.. in true "activist legislature" form.. proposed an amendment that defines marriage in a state that really even toying with the question of it. The wording in this amendment is quite vague in terms of whether or not it applies to exclusively the state government.. and many are questioning its impact on the ability of private businesses to offer domestic partner benefits, etc. It also rules out civil unions, which some insiders believe may end up killing the amendment when it is put to the voters. I can only hope it dies.. but the cynic in me envisions it passing easily.

Oops.. "And yet, our state legislature.. in true "activist legislature" form.. proposed an amendment that defines marriage in a state that ISN'T really even toying with the question of it."

I have been asked what my single best argument for same-sex marriages or civil unions would be.. and though I don't really make this argument anymore, given the futile nature of its aims (and my overall sense of pragmatism on this and other issues), I'll make it once more here.. if only for the sake of discussion:

If, as many believe, one of the government's roles is to provide opportunities for the betterment of our society, the opportunities of marriage that the government gets involved in.. whose primary goal is to foster an environment for the proper development of children.. should be extended to homosexuals. Society benefits from homosexuals who are in committed, monogamous relationships. Society does not benefit from the status quo of "gay life"; drugs, sex parties, etc. and yet, at the same time, it provides no really compelling alternative that homosexuals.. who identify strongly with their same-sex attraction and its idiosyncrasies.. are willing to live with.

If the goal of government recognition of marriage for heterosexuals is the social goal of children who are raised properly, cannot the goal of government recognition of same-sex relationships be to provide homosexuals with a compelling alternative to the wastes associated with their lifestyle?

The idea that society can simply sweep homosexuals under the rug by pigeon-holing them into the roles that it would have them play is idiotic. The denial of recognition for the homosexuals who are in stable and monogamous committed relationships.. who don't abuse drugs and have decadent sex with a multitude of strangers.. is an attempt at it.

Surely, there will be a considerably number of homosexuals who wouldn't take this opportunity even if it were afforded to them.. just as there are a considerable number of heterosexuals who do not utilize it, but that does not make the opportunity itself worthless.

In some ways, the "homosexual lifestyle" has evolved on its own away from the stereotypes that almost always shape, and are at the root of, the political debates of issues surrounding it. Many homosexuals are moving, themselves, away from the sex and club culture that, for a very long time, was all there was for homosexuals. And so, what we have now is a lot of homosexuals in monogamous relationships, some with children, without any welcome from the government or society.

The ultimate question is: what would the government and society prefer and welcome as a positive change? The hedonism of the past or the love and committment of today and tomorrow? Homosexuals aren't going to go away and neither is homosexuality. The most practical approach is to deal with them for who they are.. not who you want them to be.

People are imperfect. People come in all shapes and colors. People are all born different which makes us all unique. Non of us is without fault. At some point in all of our lives we have hurt others. Instead of spending time judging others don't you think we should use that energy and time on how we can be a better person. Think for a moment. When was the last time you did something for someone else without getting anything in return. Try it!

My name is Martin, and I will be the first to state that this homosexuality issue is more complicated that either the religious right or the gay rights lobbies dare to state.

I should know. I am a man who didn't have any same-sex attraction until I was 18 years of age ... not an ounce, not a single fantasy, not even a hint. Then, around 18, I suddenly began to notice men, and it bothered me intensely, and to a degree, it still does.

I'm now 34, and I am still not sure if I fit any particular label. I feel very "gay" at times, but I've been able to find women attractive at others. Most would call this bisexual, and perhaps they are right.

The bigger point here: Sexuality is complicated, and it involves nature, nuture and self-identity choices. To state that one can never change is foolish ... folks change all the time. To state that everyone can change is also foolish, many cannot.

The simple truth is that our lives in general, to include our sexuality, is really quite fluid, and all the dogmatism of the left and the right is not helpful, not even one bit, and the time has come for academia to step up and start doing some non-polemical, sincere research that addresses the causes and possible "cures" more clearly.

Lastly, the idea that there are plenty of monogomous homosexual men is a myth. There are some, but they are in the minority - the vast minority - and any serious reading of gay literature written by homosexuals will back up that statement in full. Homosexual men are exponentially more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, and the sexually-active homosexual lifestyle is nothing short of deadly in our current society. So please don't pander this deadly message that the homosexual lifestyle is very similar to that of a heterosexual. It's a deadly lie bought by too many young homosexual men.