Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 12 of 20 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 19 20
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
W
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
In response to you Sigma, since I don't have the Biblical authority that you do, nor will I pretend to, I will copy and paste something I think you will find to be an interesting read. This is from the Christian Research Journal and can be found at www.equip.org. The first one that I copied confronts many of the arguments you just used, and Part II, or the third article I pasted will answer many more questions. I pasted Part I just so you get an overall picture. By the way, I removed the notes from the end of the articles to save space, so just click on the links if you want to read the articles with notes included.

Homosexuality is wrong, and Leviticus were laws put forth by God to protect us, not to harm or hurt us, but rather to protect us, but that's a whole other topic.

What does the Bible say about Homosexuality?
http://www.equip.org/free/CP1307.htm

Originally posted by www.equip.org/free/CP1307.htm:



CRI PERSPECTIVE CP1307

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

The Metropolitan Community Church claims to be an evangelical Christian church. There??s only one problem: they endorse homosexuality. What does the Bible have to say about homosexuals?


Those who advocate homosexuality use passages such as 2 Samuel 1:26 to support their position. It states that David and Jonathan had a relationship that surpassed the love of women. This is not referring to sexual love, however, but to a special friendship they had which exceeded or was different from any kind of sexual relationship. David and Jonathan would have been stoned under Levitical law had they been homosexuals (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).


God also condemns homosexuality in Genesis 19. Pro-homosexuals respond that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but rape. However, the Sodomites did not initially force Lot??s male guests to have sex with them, but just by them mentioning it, Lot urged them not to do such a ??wicked? thing (19:4-8). Other ancient sources such as Josephus and the New Testament (Jude 7) confirm that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.


Additionally, Romans 1:21-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly condemn lesbianism and homosexuality (cf., 1 Tim. 1:9,10). Homosexual advocates reply that Romans 1 refers only to phallic cults who committed idolatry. Along with 1 Corinthians 6, they claim that God is simply condemning excessive and promiscuous sex, not a dedicated relationship between two homosexuals.


First, let me say that if it were true that God is only condemning promiscuity, 90 to 99 percent of all homosexuals would fall into this category! According to recent studies, only about 1 out of 7 homosexuals have had fewer than 50 partners in their lifetime, and 99 percent of the male homosexuals interviewed have had sex with complete strangers! Nevertheless, the context of Romans and Corinthians affirm that homosexuality is completely unnatural (Rom. 1:26,27). When categorized with the other sins mentioned in these passages, there is no such thing as a moderate form of homosexuality any more than there could be moderate form of murder or adultery. Finally, the Bible condemns all types of fornication which would therefore include homosexuality (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20,29: Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Thes. 4:3; Heb. 13:4).






Part I
http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm

Originally posted by www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm:

STATEMENT DH055-1
HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)

by Joseph P. Gudel
Summary

If homosexuality is neither a normal nor a healthy lifestyle ?? as I believe this article demonstrates ?? then the most loving thing we can do is to help homosexuals realize this and offer them our help and encouragement. But millions of people in our society believe that homosexuality is a healthy and acceptable alternative lifestyle. This debate over the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture is one that has been clouded with many misrepresentations and inaccuracies. These misrepresentations include the assertion that ten percent of all Americans are gay (the figure is actually closer to one or two percent), that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists believe homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle (the majority do not), that homosexuals are born that way (most therapists disagree) and cannot change their sexual preference (disproven by numerous accounts where gays have converted to heterosexuality). It is the Christian's task to point out that while homosexuality is a sin, we are all sinners and there is forgiveness and deliverance for all who turn to Jesus Christ.



"People should live and let live!"
"To each his own, let them live as they wish."
"Let the gays have their freedom."
"Whatever makes you happy, live with it."1



Comments like these are commonly heard when the topic of homosexuality comes up for discussion. The debate over homosexuality and homosexual rights has steadily grown over the past two decades and will only continue to do so.


In the course of this debate, however, numerous inaccuracies, half-truths, fallacies, and overt propaganda have been disseminated to the public as uncontested truth. It is the purpose of this article to examine these claims and separate fact from fiction. Before anyone can give intelligent and compassionate answers, the questions must be clarified and brought into focus. I believe that when this is done the impartial reader will be able to agree with the analogy made by Dr. James D. Mallory, a psychiatrist and the director of the Atlanta Counseling Center: "A physician would be guilty of malpractice if he didn't warn a diabetic of his condition because he didn't want to hurt his feelings. Simply letting the person continue eating excessive carbohydrates without proper treatment condemns him to a worsening physical condition. The most loving act one can do is point out that an abnormality exists, and offer help. This needs to be done ?? but not in a spirit of condemnation ?? with homosexuality."2



HOMOPHOBIA?


Homophobia is defined in The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex as the "fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals."3 The Greek word phobia denotes an "irrational fear." The word homo literally means "same," but the word is frequently used as a shortened form of homosexual ?? one who is sexually attracted to his or her own sex. Thus, strictly speaking, homophobia denotes an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. However, the gay rights movement (and, by-and-large, the media) places this label on anyone who opposes any of the movement's goals and objectives; specifically, anyone opposing the full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as healthy and "normal."



While indeed there are many people who hate or irrationally fear homosexuals, to say that anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle or disagrees with the gay rights political agenda is a homophobe is simply not true. This tactic is clearly intended to divert attention from the argument and onto the person. As we will see below, there are many who oppose homosexuality on psychological, sociological, medical, and moral grounds.



TEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION?




Perhaps the most fascinating statistic cited (constantly and confidently) in research of homosexuality is that ten percent of the United States population is homosexual. The implication is that this is probably just as true in most other societies as well. I say this is fascinating because virtually nobody knows (or at least cites) where this statistic comes from.



The Family Research Institute asks, "How many homosexuals are there? USA Today said '25 million gay men and lesbians' (11/13/91) [i.e., about 10% of the US population]. The Washington Times said '10 percent of American men are homosexual and 5 percent of women are lesbian' (11/19/91). The American Psychological Association assures us that homosexuality is 'an orientation found consistently in about ten percent of the male population and approximately five percent of the female population' (2/6/89)."4




Just this week, as I was preparing to put this article together, I watched "Teen Connection," a public broadcast program.5 Its topic was "Sexual Orientation" with a panel consisting of a homosexual teenage boy, the boy's mother, a young lady who is a lesbian, and an adult homosexual "counselor." Within the course of an hour the ten percent figure was cited three times, being adduced as evidence of just how many people out there need our encouragement and understanding. They had a panel of phones for those who had questions or needed counseling themselves. I called in and asked them where the ten percent figure came from. The lady I spoke with did not know, and neither did another phone counselor she asked.


The truth is that this ten percent statistic comes from a report published more than 40 years ago ?? the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey.6 The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population.7



Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, "who by the nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison.8 This was hardly a representative sample of the American population.


But there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. This alone would make a major difference in his findings.9


In addition there was clearly a "volunteer bias." In attempting to select a representative group to work with, one does not merely run an ad and accept anyone who responds. Research has shown that those responding to a study as intimate as the one Kinsey was doing would not be representative of the general population. In fact, the widely renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow pointed this out to Kinsey before his findings were published, but he refused to listen.10


To make matters worse, the people who refer back to this old and flawed study do not quote it accurately. Kinsey did not say that 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was homosexual. Rather, he affirmed that ten percent of white American males were "more or less" exclusively homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 65. The statistic for females was five percent. The actual percentage of those thought to be exclusively homosexual for their entire lives was only four percent of men and two or three percent of women, all based on his allegedly representative sample of the population.11


What are the real figures as far as we can tell today? One recent study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England), found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had homosexual intercourse.12 An even more recent study, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1989 and reported at the 1990 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, resulted in a figure "less than 1% exclusively homosexual."13


Are these results significant? Well, they are significant in at least setting the record straight as to the actual scope or parameters of the debate. There is quite a difference between one or two percent of the population being homosexual as opposed to ten percent of the population. Obviously, the higher the percentage cited as being homosexual, the more influence those in the gay rights movement can wield.





IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?


An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior. Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as "normal" as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people."14



Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.


Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?


I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.15 Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.


In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.


At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."16


These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.


Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides ?? who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years ?? described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."17 Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."18


Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."19


But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."20


One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition. Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.





BORN GAY?


Perhaps the most dangerous myth disseminated today by the pro-homosexuality movement is that modern science has proven that homosexuality is innate and immutable. That is, homosexuals are born gay, much like being born left-handed or with blue eyes. The inference, of course, is that if they are born that way, then homosexuality cannot be considered immoral or unnatural; the homosexual is just following his or her genes. However, as Congressman William Dennemeyer put it, "if homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural, then homosexuals must look at their own conduct in an entirely different light and explain it in less satisfying terms."21


It is well beyond the scope of this article to summarize all the findings concerning the genesis of homosexuality. However, the scientific evidences for its origins are usually classified in terms of either biological causes (i.e., genetic/hormonal) or environmental factors (e.g., psychological causes, volitional, and so forth).



(1) Biological Causes. The most recent research suggesting that homosexuality may be caused by biological factors came out in 1991 with the publication of some preliminary findings of Dr. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. His research consisted of studying the brains of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. He found that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."22



This study was seized upon by many as "irrefutable evidence" that homosexuals are born gay, something the homosexual community has been proclaiming for many years. However, "instead of resolving the debate," a Newsweek article suggests, "the studies may well have intensified it. Some scientists profess not to be surprised at all by LeVay's finding of brain differences. 'Of course it [sexual orientation] is in the brain,' says Johns Hopkins University psychologist John Money, sometimes called the dean of American sexologists. 'The real question is, when did it get there? Was it prenatal, neonatal, during childhood, puberty? That we do not know.'"23


Other problems with his findings include: (1) all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences; (2) there was no way to know the sexual history of the "heterosexual" men; (3) there is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexuality; and (4) Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, admitted that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor.24


(2) Environmental Factors. There are probably just as many, if not more, psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality arises from various environmental factors. The majority of these say that homosexuality's root causes are psychological, not biological. But these people are not cited nearly as often by the media as the others ?? perhaps a pro-homosexual bias by the media? And they are virtually never even acknowledged by the homosexual community, because most homosexuals want to believe that they were born that way and had no choice (conscious or subliminal) in the matter.


In any case, some of the most noteworthy and respected researchers and therapists in the world deny that homosexuality is determined by biological factors. For example, therapists helping homosexuals who are unhappy with their condition can cite one case history after another showing that negative early childhood experiences are the one common factor found in almost all their patients. The vital factor here is that these people were raised in a very unloving home environment, never knowing love or acceptance from their mother or their father, or in some cases both. According to these studies, the child's reaction to this rejection and lack of nurturing is formulated at a very early age, usually before five years old. The following references illustrate these findings.


William H. Masters (codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute), Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."25



Robert Kronemeyer, in his work Overcoming Homosexuality, writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'"26


John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality, expressed the same view in a 1989 USA Today article: "'The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,' says John DeCecco... Homosexuality, he says, is 'a behavior, not a condition,' and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."27


One thing is clear: it is hardly an established scientific fact accepted by the entire medical field that homosexuality is solely or even primarily caused by biological factors. This brings us to the question just raised above: Can those who are homosexual change?



IS CHANGE IMPOSSIBLE?


The question of whether or not one should want to change his or her sexual preference will be addressed shortly. But before looking at the desirability of changing, we need to ascertain whether change is even possible. I say that this is important to investigate because a host of individuals concerned with homosexual issues deny that this is a possibility.


Those in the gay rights movement, as well as numerous researchers, psychotherapists, and so forth, decry any attempt to change the homosexual's sexual orientation or preference. Rick Notch, a homosexual man who at one time claimed to have become an ex-gay, stated on The Geraldo Show: "The only choice we have is to learn to accept ourselves and to find a way to live a responsible, moral life."28 Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist who heads the APA's committee on gay issues, likewise asserted: "The core orientation in a gay man cannot be changed."29


But even a perfunctory examination of the available testimonies and case studies shows that this simply is not true. First of all, do all of the other psychiatrists and psychologists agree with the assertion that change is not possible? By no means! In fact, most believe that change is possible. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, hardly homophobes, write in their work Homosexuality in Perspective: "Providing therapeutic support for the homosexually oriented man or woman who wishes to convert or revert to heterosexuality has been an integral part of the practice of psychotherapy for decades."30


Likewise, in the Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex (1990) we find the statement that "sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not readily changed by any type of intervention" (emphasis added).31 Thus, while it is not easy, changing one's sexual orientation is nonetheless possible ?? which could not be the case if homosexuality was innate and immutable.


This was confirmed on a recent segment of ABC's 20/20, which had a story dealing with a Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi is a psychologist and psychotherapist who has been helping homosexual men convert to heterosexuality for a number of years now. 32


I already referred above to the work of Dr. Robert Kronemeyer. If the interested reader pursues this work, he or she will find eight case histories cited ?? true accounts of people who sought relief from their lives of homosexual bondage (their own description of their lifestyles) and were converted to heterosexuality 33


Another area where we see the fruit of changed lives is in the numerous Christian ministries reaching out to homosexuals desiring help. Space limitations will not allow me to go into great detail. Those interested can find the references in the endnotes.


Are there really changed lives? There is Darlene Bogle, a woman who "struggled with lesbianism" for 17 years.34 She was raised in an environment where she was sexually abused by different men and boys, the first at the age of three. Her parents divorced when she was only five. Her new stepfather frequently abused her, both verbally and physically. In her own words she was raised in "a home that lacked nurturing, that was void of positive role models and void of love."35 Today, through the grace and mercy of God, she has been completely free for 15 years from her former lifestyle and is currently a counselor at Paraklete Ministries in Hayward, California.


There is Frank Worthen, a practicing homosexual for 25 years. In 1973 he turned back to Jesus Christ, who delivered him from that lifestyle. Since then he has remained free, without once falling back into his old secular behavior. Today he and his wife Anita are missionaries in the Philippines with Exodus International.36


There is Andrew Comiskey, a former homosexual who is now the director of Desert Stream Ministries.37 There is Joanne Highley, a lesbian from the ages of 13 to 23, who has now been freed from that lifestyle for the past 35 years. She has been married to the same man during those 35 years, is a mother and grandmother, and City.38


Are there really changed lives, people who were exclusively homosexual and became heterosexual? Yes. Have there not been those who have fallen back into their old lifestyles? Again, the answer is yes, which is to be expected. Just like in Alcoholics Anonymous, the road is rarely easy and involves a tremendous commitment by the individual seeking recovery and healing. Sometimes individuals stumble and never get back up again. Sometimes they stumble, get back up, and continue on in the process of recovery. And occasionally, individuals are healed instantly and never turn back again. But the fact remains that there are many former homosexuals, ex-gays, who have been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.





A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE?


As noted above, those in the gay rights movement constantly assert that they are both normal and healthy individuals. We have already discussed the "normality" of homosexuality. The question of whether or not it is a healthy lifestyle can be addressed in two areas: promiscuity and actual sexual practices.


(1) Promiscuity. If one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practiced must be termed extremely unhealthy. Homosexualities, an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous." Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.39


Just a few years after the publication of this report, Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months."40 In contrast with this, "the average heterosexual male has ?? throughout his life ?? from five to nine sex partners."41


What about lesbian relationships? Are homosexual women less promiscuous than homosexual men? While less research has been done on lesbians, the data shows that they are much more monogamous than homosexual men. However, their relationships are still not very secure. Yvonne Zipter, a lesbian writing in Chicago's gay journal Windy City Times, in an article entitled "The Disposable Lesbian Relationship," notes that the "lasting lesbian relationship" is a "mythic entity."42


(2) Sexual Practices. A second item that cannot be avoided in a discussion of the health aspects of homosexuality is the actual sexual practices of homosexuals. Are these healthy? Once again, the vast preponderance of medical evidence is resoundingly negative.


Many different medical sources document the physical aberrancy of homosexual sexual practices. The following information comes from an article entitled "Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue." It was written by Dr. Bernard J. Klamecki, a proctologist (rectal specialist) for more than 30 years.


Dr. Klamecki states in this article that when he began his medical practice in 1960, only one percent of his patients were homosexuals. By 1988 this number had grown to 25 percent of his patients, the majority being referred by a local gay free clinic. The following material comes from one who is known and respected by the homosexual community, a medical professional who has care and compassion for all his patients and who donates a good deal of his time to their service.


I know well the medical and surgical pathology directly related to the sexual practices typical of active homosexuals, particularly anal intercourse (sodomy) and oral intercourse (fellatio)....

Sexual practices typical of homosexuals can affect the oral cavities, lungs, penis, prostate, bladder, anus, perianal areas outside of the rectum, rectum, colon, vagina, uterus, pelvic area, brain, skin, blood, immune system, and other body systems.... While none of the following practices is unique to homosexuals, they are nonetheless typical....

Most common is anal intercourse (sodomy)....Foreign objects are often used in order to produce a different erotic sensation or to instigate a more violent sexual activity (sadomasochism). Objects that I have removed from the rectum and lower bowel include corn cobs, light bulbs, vibrators, soda bottles, and varied wooden sticks.

"Fisting" is when a fisted hand is inserted into the rectum, sometimes as far as the elbow, which produces varied sexually exciting sensations, strongly linking eroticism with pain....

Oral intercourse (fellatio) is when the tongue is used to lick or tickle the outlet of the rectum for sexual excitement, arousing, or foreplay. Needless to say, bacteria may contaminate and infect the mouth. One other sexual practice is "Water Sports," in which urinating into the mouth or rectum is used as a sexual stimulant.

Physical damage to the rectum may occur because of some of these practices....There is an antinatural activity being performed when the rectum is the recipient of a penis or foreign object. Because of this activity, cracking of the tissue (fissuring), open sores (ulcers), boils (abscesses), and other infections can occur in the skin of the surrounding tissues....

Persistent anal-rectal sexual activity can lead to various pre-cancerous lesions such as Bowen's disease and Kaposi's sarcoma. Whenever tissues are traumatized, cracked, or abraded, they are vulnerable to bacterial infection.43


Dr. Klamecki then continues, discussing the various bacterial diseases and viral diseases he regularly encounters with his homosexual patients ?? the most prominent being AIDS (the current figure is that 70 percent of Americans with AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals). In addition, he asserts that up to 86 percent of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation.44

Is the homosexual lifestyle a healthy one? The information presented above just scratches the surface showing the pathological nature of these sexual practices. Much more could be shared (e.g., the homosexual is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual; a recent study shows the life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS being about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual; and so forth),45 but space will not permit it. I believe that any unbiased reader would have to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one.

In the next issue of the JOURNAL I will deal briefly with the gay rights movement's political agenda. I will also examine their considerably successful attempts to change the outlooks of both Christians and Jews towards homosexuality.




THE CHRISTIAN'S TASK

Before closing I need to clarify that while I believe that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant, psychologically deviant, and morally bankrupt, it is also just as true that we are all sinners. The Bible states that we have all turned our backs on God and gone our own way. As Martin Luther once put it, we each "sin often and daily."

Except for the grace and mercy of God, each one of us would be left in our own little world of sin, alone and helpless. The good news, though, is that God has reached out to us, coming down to become one with us in our humanity, dying and rising again ?? that we may be free from the bondage of sin.

For anyone struggling with the bondage of homosexuality, or the bondage of any other sin, there is freedom available at the cross of Calvary. Our task as Christians is to lovingly reach out to all people with the gospel of Jesus Christ.


For Help or Further Information:

Exodus International
P.O. Box 77652
Seattle, WA 98177
(206) 784-7799 or
Toll Free: (888) 264-0877




PART II
http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-2.htm

Originally posted by www.equip.org/free/DH055-2.htm:



STATEMENT DH055-2





THAT WHICH IS UNNATURAL:
Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture
(Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)


by Joseph P. Gudel





Summary

The gay rights movement does not just want the right to privacy and to be left alone. Attempting to promote their cause as a civil rights instead of as a moral issue, they want special legal protection for, and cultural acceptance of, their lifestyle. Even many Christian churches have condoned or are sympathetic to homosexuality, ignoring the Bible's teachings concerning our sexuality. In the Old Testament we find heterosexuality to be proclaimed as God's natural order of creation, a teaching Jesus upheld in the New Testament. Biblically, homosexuality is described as both an "abomination" and "unnatural." God calls us to reject sin, but to love and value all people.


How can anyone dare to speak out against another person's lifestyle? Especially within the church, are not Christians called to be loving and inclusive? Does not the Bible itself tell us that we are to reach out to people instead of being judgmental and self-righteous?

Questions like these come up whenever the Christian or the church takes a stand on a moral issue, especially homosexuality. I realize that it is not "politically correct" to speak critically concerning any person or group. Nonetheless, true Christian love does not ignore immorality and the lives ruined by it, but speaks out in the hope of helping those individuals.

This is particularly true when militant pro-homosexual groups, both within society and the church, have attacked the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of this important issue. Thus this article is written, not as an attack on homosexuals, but in defense of the biblical teaching on this topic and to help those ensnared in this lifestyle.




THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT'S POLITICAL AGENDA

In Part One of this series (Summer 1992) I went into some detail showing that even from a secular perspective the unbiased reader is forced to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy nor a natural lifestyle. However, over the past 20 years or so there has been a growing gay rights movement within America. This movement has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority."

Concerning the demands of the gay rights movement, gay spokesperson Jeff Levi in a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington stated: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right ?? as heterosexual Americans already have ?? to see government and society affirm our lives."1

As far back as 1975, in an article entitled "Gays on the March," Time magazine quotes gay activist Barbara Gittings: "What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise ?? is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality."2 In response to this, Time wisely reflected: "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive" (emphasis added).3

In view of their stated goals, it is extremely significant that today there is legislation pending in the United States Congress which proposes to do just what the gay rights movement has demanded: fully legitimize homosexuality as an acceptable and sanctioned alternative lifestyle. The Senate version, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, is bill S. B. 574. The House version, sponsored by Representative Barney Frank (an openly avowed homosexual), is measure H. R. 1430.

For most Americans it is shocking simply to have a bill like this being considered in the halls of Congress.4 What is even more amazing is that already it has approximately 140 congressional sponsors, as well as the full support of President Bill Clinton.5

If passed this bill would make it illegal for any organization, including Christian businesses and churches, to refuse employment to practicing homosexuals. It would legalize same-sex "marriages," something not now recognized in any U.S. jurisdiction. Homosexual "couples" would have the right to adopt children. And every school system would have to include homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle in any sex education course offered.

Concerning the radical gay rights agenda now being advanced, Fr. John F. Harvey ?? a nationally known professor of moral theology at De Sales School of Theology and someone actively involved in counseling homosexual persons for over thirty years ?? writes:


Homosexual activists...are not requesting merely the right to live their lifestyle in private, to be left alone; to use their own words, they want to convince all elements of society ?? even children ?? that "gay is as acceptable as straight."....I think that gay-rights legislation would harm children at an impressionable, malleable, and gullible age. There is plenty of evidence for the position that homosexual propaganda can sway young people into homosexual activity and, perhaps, permanent orientation in that direction.6


As evidence that influencing children at a very early age is part of the gay rights agenda one need look no further than New York City's public school curriculum. Included in the curriculum materials are four pro-homosexual books aimed at very young children.

One, Heather Has Two Mommies, is a children's book about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Daddy's Roommate, describes a boy with divorced parents who visits his father and his father's new male roommate (obviously his lover). In a third book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, part of the text reads: "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."7

The rationale for these books is found on page 145 of the city's "Children of the Rainbow" first-grade curriculum which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household."8

In an article describing this, John Leo writes in U.S. News and World Report: "A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life)."9

It is clear that the gay community wants much more than simply the right to privacy. But what about their civil rights? Are new laws really essential to protect those in the gay community? In answer to this Roger J. Magnuson, a nationally renowned trial lawyer, states: "Homosexuals have all of the same rights heterosexuals do. They are protected by the Bill of Rights, by federal and state statutes, and by common-law decisions. They have the same status before the law as do other citizens....The issue is not whether rights have been infringed. The issue is whether new rights, not previously recognized, should be created."10

There is no question about the homosexual's right to practice whatever deviations he or she wants to in the privacy of his or her own home. There are many questions, however, about their attempt to codify their behavior as acceptable and good, to force their lifestyle on the rest of society, and to influence those too young to understand the moral implications of this issue.

It is simply an emotional ploy to attempt to portray this issue as involving civil rights for an oppressed minority. No one would ever say it is a sin to be black or Hispanic, just as no one would say it is a sin to be female or to be physically handicapped. But God's Word does say it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, as we shall see below.




HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH

Very few churches today come right out and affirm homosexuality as official church teaching. There are a few, though, which do. Foremost among these is the Metropolitan Community Church, founded by Troy Perry in 1968, largely for practicing homosexuals.

The only mainline denomination that has actually called for affirming and fully accepting homosexuals is the United Church of Christ (UCC). As far back as 1975 they voted to end any "discrimination" based on sexual preference and left it to individual UCC congregations to decide for themselves what they believed on this matter. In 1983 the UCC General Synod passed a resolution stating that "a person's sexual orientation is not a moral issue."11 Finally, in 1991 the UCC General Synod approved the call for its congregations to "boldly affirm, celebrate, and embrace the gifts for ministry of lesbians, gays, and bisexual persons."12

Many other denominations are close to this view. Some, such as the Episcopal Church, have openly practicing homosexual clergy, with the full knowledge of their church's governing bodies. Others, such as the United Methodist Church (UMC), have officially rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with the Christian faith. However, at least 44 UMC congregations "have formally opened their doors to homosexuals" and called on their bishops to bless "same-sex union ceremonies."13 Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's 1991 study guide on sexuality affirms that "no absolutistic judgments can be drawn" concerning homosexuality.14 However, the guide then goes on to promote "committed" homosexual relationships.15 A new gay magazine which describes itself as a "journal for gay and lesbian Christians" has a 10-page listing of "Christian" churches and organizations that "welcome gays and lesbians into full membership and participation."16

Very few Christian denominations today have remained faithful to the Bible's clear affirmation that homosexuality is a sin. Among these would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Greek Orthodox Church.




THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Authority of Scripture

It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God. Of the above mentioned denominations which have accepted homosexuality or are sympathetic to it, none of them believe that we have God's inerrant Word in the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject ?? or even ridicule ?? the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Three different lines of attack on Scripture are found in the various pro-homosexual literature. The first is simply to ignore the biblical writers on the grounds that they were men who oftentimes made mistakes, and thus to reject what Scripture says as being morally authoritative. Thus John Barton states that "the Bible is not a code at all; it is a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike."17 And elsewhere, in John Boswell's widely cited work, we find: "In considering the supposed influence of certain biblical passages...one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative."18

A second attack relates to the first ?? that is, the biblical writers were ignorant about homosexuality. They did not know all that we do today, it is argued, and so we must judge and interpret the Bible with our modern understanding of biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. "With the quantum leaps that have been achieved in biology, psychology, and sociology, minds in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries must subject traditional religious arguments about nature to more thorough and critical analyses."19

It is not within the purview of this article to give a detailed defense of the inspiration and reliability of the Bible.20 However, the simple response to these attacks is that both Judaism and Christianity have always held to the full authority of Scripture, as did Jesus Himself. In speaking of the Old Testament, for example, our Lord succinctly declared: "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Parts of Scripture cannot be accepted while other parts are rejected. And in speaking of the guidance His apostles would receive, including guidance on their future writings (i.e., the New Testament), Jesus told them: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

It is ludicrous to believe that the Creator of the universe, in guiding the biblical authors, was ignorant concerning the things we now know about homosexuality through modern biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. To deny scriptural statements about homosexuality on these grounds is to completely deny God's superintendence in the authorship of Scripture.

A third type of attack is to state that it really does not matter what heterosexuals think the Bible says about homosexuality, because homosexuals must interpret Scripture in view of their own experiences. Hence, in the book Building Bridges we find the statement that "the scriptures contain some insights that can be made known to the Christian community only through the testimony of lesbian and gay people." Thus homosexuals must "interpret the scriptures in the light of their own experiences."21

The problem with this is that a person could justify any type of behavior by saying that Scriptures pertaining to a particular behavior can only be understood by those who engage in such behavior (e.g., incest, adultery, fornication, and even bestiality). Those who believe this should remember the words of our Lord: "Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness" (Luke 11:35).




Human Sexuality

Genesis 1-2

For those who believe that statements of the Bible are normative for our daily lives, the most important question to consider regarding homosexuality is: What was God's purpose in creating human sexuality? The answer to this question is more important than any other area of discussion.

From the very beginning of His revelation to humankind, God has revealed His order of creation, especially as it relates to sexuality. In Genesis 1 we are told that one purpose in creating the two sexes was procreative ?? through the sexual union of male and female we could reproduce the race: "Male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:27b-28).

More detail is provided in Genesis 2, however, where we are told that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship: "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'" (Gen. 2:18). Then, after God created Eve and presented her to Adam, Adam rejoiced in his God-given companion. The chapter concludes: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24-25).

In this second chapter several items emerge. First, man has need for companionship: "It is not good that man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18); second, God makes provision to meet this need: the creation of woman (2:19-23). Concerning this, Samuel Dresner, Visiting Professor at Jewish Theological Seminary, states: "Woman is formed and becomes his partner. In her, man finds completion."22 And third, God ordains the institution of marriage. We are told that the man would (1) "leave his father and mother," (2) "cleave to his wife," and (3) "they shall become one flesh." Thus we find that heterosexuality is proclaimed to be God's natural order of creation.

In the New Testament, whenever the subject of sexuality comes up, the heterosexual norm of marriage is always upheld. For example, Jesus, in answer to a question, quoted Genesis 1 and 2: "Have you not read, that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:4-6).

In addition, the apostle Paul reaffirms the norm of heterosexuality in several of his letters, also quoting the Genesis passages (e.g., Eph. 5:25-33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:2-3, 10-16; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). And while some protest that we cannot take Genesis 1 and 2 as modern scientific treatises,23 these chapters nonetheless teach us spiritual truths concerning God's intended order for His creation.

It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive. However, pro-homosexual writers argue that while homosexual activity in and of itself cannot be procreative it can still fulfill the unitive role of Genesis 2. In response to this Harvey writes:


Consider the three common forms of sexual activity between homosexual persons. Mutual masturbation in no way constitutes a physical union.... Among female homosexuals some form of genital massage is used to bring the partner to orgasm, but this is not a physical union. In anal or oral intercourse between males the intromission of the penis in an opening of the body not meant to be used for the genital expression of sexuality cannot be called a true physical union....By way of contrast, the heterosexual union aptly symbolizes the psychological and spiritual union that ought to exist between a man and a woman.24


One does not need a Ph.D. to realize that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant; that is, there is a created biological order intended in our sexuality. As an editorialist at Harvard's Peninsula journal writes: "How can (homosexual) people be happy when they're persistently deceiving themselves, believing that it is just as natural for sperm to swim into feces as it is to swim into eggs?"25

"The true religious goal of human sexuality can be seen, not as satisfaction, but as completeness."26 This fulfillment is unattainable in homosexuality.

Now that we have considered God's positive purpose in creating human sexuality, we are ready to look at biblical texts which explicitly address homosexuality. Space precludes a detailed response to pro-homosexual interpretations of these passages. The interested reader can check the resources listed in the endnotes for further reading.




Leviticus 18 and 20

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13)


Although these prohibitions explicitly condemn homosexuality as an abomination before God, we are told that they are not relevant today. Why? First, the pro-homosexual interpretation is that since these condemnations are contained in the "Holiness Code" of Israel, they were only applicable to ancient Israelites, to keep them separate from the pagan practices of their neighboring tribes.27

Second, parts of this code are not kept today. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott assert that "consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."28

Much effort need not be expended answering these objections. First, God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).

Other prohibitions listed in Leviticus include incest and adultery (Lev. 18:6ff; 20:10). Were these too only condemned because of the Canaanites? To argue in this fashion is dishonest and denies that there are eternal moral absolutes.

What of the fact that other parts of the Holiness Code in Leviticus are not kept today? Again, the answer is simple. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.




Romans 1:18-27

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. (Rom. 1:26-27)


If there were no other passage than this which condemns homosexuality, those engaged in this lifestyle would still be, in Paul's own words, "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Paul's intent in Romans 1 - 3 is to show that all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike, and turned from God. It is not an accident that the apostle begins his argument with a reference to the Creator and His creation (1:16-20). His Jewish/Christian audience would immediately have connected this with Genesis 1 - 2, which, as we have seen, tells us not only about God's created order, but also about the complementary design of male and female within that order.

In his catalogue of sins (Rom. 1:18-32) Paul lists homosexuality and lesbianism first after idolatry

not because they are the most serious sins, but because they are warning signs that a violation of reason and nature has occurred. Men have inverted God's order by worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and as a signal of this error, like the blinking red light on the dashboard of a car which is functioning improperly, God has given them up to "dishonorable desires" in the inversion of their sexual roles.29


Two main arguments are raised against the historic understanding of this passage. The first is that Paul was not referring to true homosexuality here because he stated that they exchanged "the natural function for that which is unnatural." It is argued that for those with a true homosexual orientation, that is their "natural" sexual expression. Hence he could only mean heterosexuals who were leaving their heterosexual relations for what was against their natures.30

This argument involves an amazing anachronism. That is, those saying this are attempting to place a very recent twentieth century understanding of homosexuality back into the first century mindset of Paul. People in the first century did not think in terms of "sexual orientation." It is inconceivable for Paul to have even attempted to make a psychological differentiation such as this. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."31

The second attempt to refute Paul's clear condemnation of homosexuality argues that his words "unnatural" or "against nature" do not refer to a certain created order, but rather use "nature" in the sense of "current convention" or "current custom."32 While "nature" is sometimes used in this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:14), the context of Paul's argument in Romans 1 clearly is that of creation and the natural order established by the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:20, 25). Thus Paul is asserting that homosexuality is a gross violation of God's natural design for His creation. In addition, it should be noted that the phrase "against nature" was used in connection with homosexual intercourse by both Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul.33




1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders... (1 Cor. 6:9, NIV)


In both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 the apostle Paul states that those guilty of sexual immorality will not inherit the kingdom of God. At the time Paul wrote his letters there was no word in classical, biblical, or patristic Greek which corresponded with our English term "homosexual." Instead, homosexual behavior was described (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27). The words Paul uses here ?? malakoi ("male prostitute") and arsenokoitai ("homosexual offenders") ?? have been translated in different ways. Because of this those condoning homosexuality have tried to lessen the impact of these verses, saying that all Paul was condemning was either homosexual prostitution or pederasty (i.e., men having sexual relations with boys).34

Virtually every Greek lexicon, however, including all of the standard English ones, has understood these words (especially arsenokoitai) to be referring to homosexuality.35 Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon says malakoi refers to persons who are "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."36 Likewise, arsenokoites means "a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite."37

We also find these terms in classical Greek literature (e.g., Lucian and Aristotle) "sometimes applied to obviously gay persons."38 As well, if Paul were only condemning certain types of homosexuality he would certainly have specified this. Instead, he used a term directly based on the Greek Septuagint translation of the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus:

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten
gynaikos (Lev. 18:22)
koimethe meta arsenos koiten
gynaikos (Lev. 20:13)39


Paul, a rabbi thoroughly trained in the Torah, was certainly mindful of these Levitical condemnations and the Septuagint translation of them when he chose his wording in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.




Law and Gospel

Is homosexuality natural and healthy, as the gay rights movement wants us to believe? The answer from Scripture is no, and as Christians we must not be involved in homosexuality nor be among those who, as Paul warns, "approve of those" who are engaged in it (Rom. 1:32). The Roman Catholic church is correct in stating that hom


www.geocities.com/jesusfr7282000 Biblical principles work, there are no exceptions. 99 Suburban 03 Silverado 70 Skylark 79 Electra
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
W
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Sigma,

If you didn't read all that I posted, I'm sorry, it is really good stuff. And for everyone that would like to believe the drivel that Sigma posted, please read the articles that I posted. It includes Biblical truth and basic common sense. No Bible scholar that I know of rejects the knowledge that homosexuality is a sin.

Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is one of the many reasons that SODOM was destroyed and the reason that Lot had to leave the city. Homosexuality is responsible for the explosion of the AIDS virus, regardless of the origins. Yes, those in NORMAL relationships can get aids, but the number of cases pales in comparison to the number of cases in the "gay community."

Unfortunately our highest court in the nation has determined that sodomy is no longer a crime, but rather a "privacy issue." I find that disturbing and just one more step in the downfall of our great country.


www.geocities.com/jesusfr7282000 Biblical principles work, there are no exceptions. 99 Suburban 03 Silverado 70 Skylark 79 Electra
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
It??s easier to copy and paste using Google. Type in the keywords. Copy and paste the whole article. No typing, thinking, or time is required. You can have a article thousands of words long and edited in only seconds. Its so easy anyone can do it. Just select, copy, and paste.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
S
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
The only argument confronted by any of that is in response to Genesis 19. And whether or not they simply wanted to have homosexual sex or they wanted to rape them. They article claims they simply "mentioned" sex with them. Well, I dunno what you read when you read this but when I read this:

Quote:

19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

19:5
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

19:6
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

19:7
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.




I see a whole bunch of men surrounding a house asking Lot to bring out two Angels so that they can essentially gang-rape them.

Again, the passage is in regards to rape, especially that of two holy angels; it has nothing to do with homosexuality.


First off, I'd like to just mention that this articile is itself 12 years old. And many of the 'sources' that it uses are far older than that. Most came from the early to mid 80's. A time when the medical perception on homosexuality was considerably more biased and the conclusions totally different than it found today. However, I will still address it...


Secondly, this "article" is quick to make-up their own statistics, but quick to dismiss statistics that have been long quoted as reality.

I especially like this one:

Quote:

only about 1 out of 7 homosexuals have had fewer than 50 partners in their lifetime, and 99 percent of the male homosexuals interviewed have had sex with complete strangers!




Complete, total, utter, [censored]. Especially when you read further on and it claims that less than 1% of the population is homosexual. You can't have sex with hundreds of people if they don't exist. Do the math, it's just not possible unless every gay man in the US lives in San Francisco; or every gay man makes roving pilgrimages to surrounding towns to screw more guys, making that is full-time job. Of course, the people who write this crap are probably likely to believe that.

Any article that attempts to counter serious biblical discussion with such crap and obiviously made-up figures is stretching for a stick to fight with.

Yes, Promiscuity is a sin. Yes, homosexuals as a whole are likely more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But that's an issue with promiscuity, not with homosexuality. Unless you want to banish heterosexuality because of all the heterosexual adulterers out there.

Quote:

William H. Masters (codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute), Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."




Masters and Johnsons is one of those sick "hospitals" that basically tortures and brainwashes homosexuals into believing that they're sinful, immoral, and "converts" them to heterosexuality. At which point the patients usually live unhappy lives or just kill themselves.

They are heavy on the Bible quoting, and are most definently NOT a source of non-biased information on homosexuality. They always have, and always will believe, that homosexuality can be "cured". Their business depends on it.

It's one of the few "doctors" that Christian theologians and homophobes can get to say that homosexuals are categorically not born that way.


And then they follow it up with a couple quotes from Doctors that have LONG believed that homosexuality is a sickness and nothing will ever persaude them otherwise. Both Kronemeyer and DeCecco have been around a long time on the anti-homosexual lecture circuit. They're hateful, spiteful, and any psychologist who calls his patients "fools" is not worth a damn thing in my book. You might as well be quoting Adolf Hitler to support your stance.




Then it goes on to discuss "Sexual Practices". I really love this part. Because Sex between two men is "dirty" (in the literal sense) and can be "painful", it obviously is wrong.

Well, I hate to burst their little spheres of innocence, but LOTS of heterosexual couples participate in anal intercourse, both giving and receiving. Not saying that makes it right, that's obviously sinful too, but just that anal intercourse is far from limited to gays only.

Any form of intercourse can be dirty, painful, and spread disease. Anal sex can be none of that if done properly.

And the argument that you can't receive pleasure that way (as the receiver - male or female), so God did not intend intercourse that way, has just not tried it themselves. Go ask a real Doctor, someone versed in sexual anatomy, and they'll tell you that the human body, both male and female, is extremely receptive to anal intercourse if done properly, and because of our physiology will likely result in greater pleasure for both partners.

Quote:

I believe that any unbiased reader would have to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one.




Yeah, like this article should be commenting on "biasedness".

But, anyways, as a whole, heterosexuals are far likely to have "unhealthy" and "unnatural" sexual lifestyles. Everything that 2 gay men can do, a man and a woman can do. But there's lots that a man and woman can do that 2 men cannot. And when one starts discussing both anal and vaginal intercourse, the "healthyness" of intercourse decreases exponentially. It's not exactly a totally a healthy thing to do but millions of men and women are having anal, vaginal, and oral sex every night -- Being just as sinful as the average gay man.



It goes on to bring in the possibility of change. However, it's key "sources" are Kronemeyer and Nicolossi. The Goebels of the Anti-Homosexual world. Their tactics are nothing more than brainwash, with far more disastrously failed cases than "successful conversions". If I seclude someone long enough and punish them hard enough, I can get anyone to do anything. I could even make you renounce Christ, 99SESport. The things they do are sick, twisted, and far more sinful than any Christian would claim homosexuality to be.

Maybe if they could get someone to support their article who lifestyle and carreer didn't depend on saying that Homosexuals are Diseased, maybe their argument would have more weight. But this article was not meant to educate homosexuals, it was meant to "educate" Christians that just needed support for their arguments.

Quote:

Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.




Do me a favor and just do the math on this.

It's not farking possible!

1,000 lifetime partners?! Holy [censored]. I'm jealous.

That's 28% with more than 1,000. Again, unless every single gay man lived in San Francisco and they all [censored] 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in one big huge orgy of *ahem" "Homo sex" (love that phrase), it's just not possible.

I mean, damn, if you're going to make up numbers, at least make up something that makes sense. But then, if Christians used a little sense in their reasoning, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



And I'm not even going to refute the second article. There's enough bias, hate, and ignorance in the first one to start our own "Endlosung". And if you don't know what that is, look it up. Maybe it'll hit a chord.


2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
I've always wondered if homosexuals started aids. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word AIDS is homosexuals. Do you think homosexuals are to blame for AIDS?

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
S
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Quote:

I've always wondered if homosexuals started aids.




Of course not. It came from Africa. It's the result of what happens when you screw around with Mother Nature too much -- you're going to run into diseases as nature attempts to fight back.

Quote:

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word AIDS is homosexuals.




You can thank the Media for that.

I'm not saying your racist or discriminatory at all, but the comparison is the same as if you said "The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about gang-rape is blacks."

It's not your fault. It's the Media.

Quote:

Do you think homosexuals are to blame for AIDS?




For the proliferation of it? They probably are more to blame than heterosexuals. Unprotected sex is more common amongst homosexuals than heterosexuals.

But it would still be around one way or another.

If you want to make the leap saying that Homosexuals are to blame for AIDS, one could just as easily say that the sheer number of cases of AIDS has pushed the rapid development of drugs to help cure/alleviate the symptoms.

If it had stayed relatively small there would not have been the push for dugs that there was. And now people with AIDS can live relatively normal and long lives. It's not the 'oh-so-powerful-STD" that it once was. It's still bad, but not a great deal worse than some of the others out there that are far more common -- especially amongst heterosexuals.


2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
I have never had a STD. I am lucky with all of the wild women that I have had relationships with when I was young. What STDs are worse than AIDS?

I'm just curious. I have only heard of a few (herpes, syphilis, and gonorrhea).

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 200
A
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
A
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 200

Quote:

Of course not. It came from Africa. It's the result of what happens when you screw around with Mother Nature too much -- you're going to run into diseases as nature attempts to fight back.




Im afrid I dont know exactly what your trying to say here, could you clarify.


Last edited by blitzkrieg53; 07/04/03 05:38 PM.

Currently: 1991 Civic, ZC swap w/ SI trannyblitzkrieg53@hotmail.com
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
Originally posted by blitzkrieg53:

Quote:

Of course not. It came from Africa. It's the result of what happens when you screw around with Mother Nature too much -- you're going to run into diseases as nature attempts to fight back.




Im afrid I dont know exactly what your trying to say here, could you clarify.






Here's a link to the story:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/990211/990211-1.html

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
D
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
D
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Originally posted by sigma:


Quote:

I distictly remember my vows including "we are gathered here together UNDER GOD"..fairly typical in a Christian wedding. Not all weddings are Christian but short of the quick trip to Vegas or a Justice of the peace a religious reference is typical.




Gay weddings have those same things too, ya know.

There's lots of Christian homosexuals; very devout ones some of them. And they can get married in a great many churches (and no, I'm not talking about some little tiny made-up ones either).

Quote:

The lack of religion in marriage is not solely responsible for the degradation of the insitution but may be a component. Basic Religious values tend to be a good thing in marriage.




What, do you think gays don't have religious values?

etc.etc.etc.........................blah blah...etc.






You have misunderstood my posts.
Obviously there are plenty of Christian homosexuals, and IMO it is not logical to say it a contradiction. Despite some literal interpretaion of biblical text, as I said, homosexuality is genetic (ie..the way God designed the DNA) and it is not reasonable to preclude worship of his/her creator or a creator bias against his own creation!. I was refering to a general downgrading of oaths before God (ie the school pledge) that are now under fire and impling in a somewhat sarcastic note that God may be erradicated from weddings as well. No relationship to homosexuals but a relationship to marriage degradation.

On some reflection (this is not an issue I think about) I do not really care about this issue. If it is a legal document, so be it. The institution of marriage and the family unit does indeed have bigger problems (that I outlined). I think one can just hope their own family values are intact and not worry about the next persons so much..laws & words will not really have much effect.


1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
Page 12 of 20 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5