Homosexuality from Several Viewpoints
There are several aspects to the cultural debate surrounding homosexual behavior. In this article we will summarize the key considerations.
- The Bible
- The Theology
- Sanctity of Marriage
- Born That Way
- Ravages of the Lifestyle
- A Loving Lifestyle?
- A Way Out?
In this article, we will address homosexuality from several viewpoints: theology, science, medicine, personal testimony, as well as common sense. Note: Many of the statistics for this article came from various books, including: What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George; Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality, by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey; Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, by Frank Turek. Other sources and links are noted throughout the article.
Top of page Fairness
Christians, especially, are sensitive to the issue of fairness. Most sincere Christians have the biblical attitude that we are all sinners and we all have our struggles, straight or gay. We are each one, not just a little bit sinful on the edges—we are deeply depraved, with sin touching every aspect of our being. So in terms of our sinful nature, we are all in this together. We humans are all broken. We all fall short of the glory of God and are in need of His grace. Thus, Christians recognize that people in a homosexual lifestyle are people, made in the image of God, who should be treated fairly by all.
Admittedly, it is not a perfect world and some may have an "us versus them" mentality which is decidedly unbiblical and wrong. Bigotry is to be condemned. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been the object of violent malice in speech or in action. To the extent that some people, in the name of Christianity, have fostered a hateful attitude toward any group of people, we sincerely apologize.
While it is very important to strive for fairness for everyone, it is equally important to consider an important concept: While all people are created equal, not all ideas or behaviors are equal. There is, in fact, a hierarchy of ideas. This is intuitively obvious, as well as biblically obvious. And it is the place at which we must begin. It is the key statement that must be made in this debate.
In the area of human sexuality, for example, adultery is not morally equivalent to fidelity. Prostitution is not morally equivalent to sex with love. Fornication is not morally equivalent to the virtue of chastity.
In this article we will show why one can oppose gay marriage and not hate gay people. In fact, we will address what true compassion demands.
Top of page The Bible
- What it says
There are claims that the Bible does not really condemn homosexual behavior or that Jesus would not condemn this behavior. But let's look at what the Bible actually says.
The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; and Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; and Jude 7). The passage in Romans, in particular is so clear that it seems to have been written by St. Paul in anticipation that people might challenge the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong (in case you don't get it, let me make it perfectly clear!). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13, 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8, 22:15.
Homosexual behavior is always discussed in the Bible as a serious sin. It is usually not singled out, but listed among other particularly heinous sins as examples of how depraved one can become. It is discussed in the context of idolatry. Idolatry is a most serious offense against God, and its seriousness helps explain why homosexual behavior was a capital offense in the Old Testament. Historical Christian interpretation has consistently viewed homosexual behavior as sinful. The modern word sodomy even comes from the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It should be pointed out that what the Bible condemns is not personality traits such as feminine feelings on the part of a man (or masculine feelings on the part of a woman). However, Jesus taught that sin runs deep. He said, "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28; compare Mark 7:15-23). But notice the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "such were some of you." This seems a clear indication that homosexuals can change. While our basest instincts of many sorts are difficult to control, we are not like animals in the forest; we can overcome our temptations to become blameless in God's sight (Philippians 2:15; Colossians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:7, 6:14; Titus 1:6; 1 John 3:4-10).
There are those who take some of the passages of Scripture above and attempt to show that they do not really mean to condemn homosexuality. But these arguments fall short, and upon investigation become an obvious ploy to distort the plain meaning of Scripture. As applies to other doctrines of the Bible, one must avoid trying to interpret Scripture in light of one's proclivities, and instead, interpret one's proclivities in light of Scripture. The Bible is its own grid. It is wrong to overlay your own grid on the Bible. For a more detailed look at this, see Biblical Interpretation.
- Is the biblical view still valid?
Christians are sometimes accused of being hypocritical on homosexuality because they ignore the death penalty for this sin as prescribed in Leviticus. This is a false charge based on a limited understanding of the Bible. It is helpful to understand the difference between CIVIL or CEREMONIAL LAWS versus MORAL LAWS in the Bible. While civil or ceremonial laws can and do change from country to country or time period to time period, moral laws do not change because they are rooted in the nature of man. The New Testament repealed Old Testament civil law (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) and Old Testament ceremonial Jewish laws (Acts 10:12-15, Romans 14:17; Colossians 2:11-16, 1 Timothy 4:1-5). So the Old Testament PENALTY for homosexuality (death) does not carry forward into New Testament times, even though the NATURE of the sin and its condemnation remains. The Bible is consistent throughout on moral law, which includes homosexual behavior.
This understanding is consistent with how Jesus deals with other sins. We see in John 8 how Jesus treats the adulterous woman. He condemns her actions, yet helps her escape the severe penalties common in their culture.
- What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
No specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5). There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this—any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman—demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.
Jesus was quite clear about his contempt for sexual immorality (Mark 7:21). Jesus' teaching on moral issues in fact toughened and strengthened them, such as in Matthew 5:27-30 when he expanded our understanding of sexual sin to even lusting in our heart!
Jesus didn't merely accept people as he found them—he turned people's lives around. After his encounter with Jesus, the tax collector Zacchaeus pledged to pay back his debts fourfold (Luke 19). And Jesus made it clear to the adulteress in John 8 to leave her life of sin.
Further, Jesus specifically said that he did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. To suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for political correctness.
The God of the Bible is not merely a God of love and forgiveness. God has characteristics of love AND justice (among others). Jesus, for example, warns about hell more than any other biblical figure! We must not underestimate the holiness of God, who demands right conduct—in fact, perfection (Matthew 5:48). For examples of the wrath and judgment of God, read: Genesis 2:17; 2 Kings 17:18; Psalm 74:1, 79:5, 90:11; Proverbs 10:16; Micah 7:9; Zephaniah 3:8; Matthew 5:29, 7:13, 25:46; Romans 1:32, 2:8, 6:23; Acts 3:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 6:7-8; Philippians 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; James 1:15; and Revelation 20:12-15.
There are those who suggest that God is merely a God of love and accepts people just as they are. Certainly that is incorrect. God does not accept us as we are. He demands repentance. We must not create a God to suit ourself. This is idolatry which is a violation of the Second Commandment.
Is the Bible out of date and out of step with society? Absolutely not, as we will see below. The scientific realities of homosexual behavior validate the Bible.
Here are links that sheds further light on what the Bible says about homosexuality and gay marriage:
Top of page The Theology
The theology of this debate is as old as Adam and Eve. In Genesis 3, when God tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the issue was whether Adam and Eve would abide by God's commands. Adam and Eve decided for themselves what was right when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Ever since that day, mankind has tried to decide for ourselves what is good or bad, in dangerous disregard of God's command.
Is it possible to be a gay Christian? Here is a link that explains: Gay Christian?
Top of page Sanctity of Marriage
The argument against same-sex marriage is by no means limited to Christian dogma. In fact, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is an ancient concept from across religious and non-religious philosophy (including Greek and Roman thought). The distinct bond that constitutes traditional marriage was not invented by the state, and the state has no right to change it.
Proponents of same-sex marriage have mis-characterized marriage. Marriage is not about companionship or its utilitarian benefits, not about taste or preference, or even about love.
Many in the culture have mistakenly concluded that marriage is merely an institution for the convenience of adults. The problem with most understanding of marriage today is the mistaken idea that marriage is about the rights and happines of adults, that two adults have a right to happiness for as long as they want. In actuality, marriage is not adult-centric, but is the bedrock institution for culture to sustain itself through having and nurturing children.
Marriage is about the rights of children. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice toward children.
Anal intercourse does not produce children. Further, there are complementary aspects to a man and woman that are important to the instutution of marriage which go beyond the obvious physical attributes. There are things that a man needs that can only be provided by a woman, and vice versa.
Many heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, misunderstand that the fundamental and intrinsic meaning of marriage is the raising of children and what is best for them. That is why that laws have historically discouraged adultery and divorce. Statistics are clear that children raised outside of a traditional strong family unit are much more likely to suffer social ills. (See Getting the Marriage Conversation Right.)
These complementary aspects are important to the relationship of the couple itself, as well as to the children. One does not have to appeal to religion to instinctively understand this. Yet statistics verify the structure of the traditional family as the approach to raising children that gives the best measurable results. The overwhelming body of social science research agrees that children do best when raised in homes with married, opposite-sex parents. Every child has the right to both a mom and a dad.
The most comprehensive study to date of psychological and social status of adults with homosexual parents is that of Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas (Study). Based on a random sample of about 15,000 this study reported results consistent with common sense, that those raised in a traditional man-woman intact marriage did best. Those with a homosexual parent(s) were the:
- most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual
- most apt to to be on welfare
- most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection
- most apt to have recently thought of suicide
- most apt to report being raped
- most apt to test impulsive
- most apt to smoke
- most apt to report heavy TB viewing
- most apt to have been arrested
- most apt to have pled guilty to a crime
- most apt to score high on depression
- most promiscuous
- least apt to be employed
- least apt to report being able to depend on others
- least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family
It isn't that gay people are necessarily bad parents, but children thrive most fully when raised by a mother and a father. The Witherspoon Institute's Report on Marriage explains why: There are crucial sex differences in parenting. Mothers are more sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and partly as a consequence, they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children." Complementing that, "Fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to tackle difficult tasks, endure hardship without yielding, and seek out novel experiences." Similar arguments appear in a policy brief by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a journal article from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal.
The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. "Nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman," says scholar Harry Jaffa. Political entities have overwhelmingly agreed. For example, the Minnesota Supreme court said, "There is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race," a limitation it finds illegitimate, "and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Historian Glenn S. Sunshine has this to say in his book Why You Think the Way You Do: "Throughout history, in every society without exception, marriage in one form or another has had a privileged place as a means to regulate sexuality, so that children would be brought into the world and raised in a stable environment. The notion of homosexual marriage was thus absurd; it violated the very purpose of marriage. Some societies had provisions for temporary same-sex relationships, usually between an adult and an adolescent male, but nothing that allowed for permancy or gave the status of marriage."
As put by Melanie Baker, "Law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny....If we want to preserve the democracy that stands on self-evident truths as its foundation; if we want to provide our children and grandchildren with the same protection we currently enjoy; and if we want to salvage the remaining bits of rationality essential to a truly diverse and integrated society, we will stand against bills like the [Maryland] Civil Marriage Protection Act."
Actually, we discriminate in many ways as to who can marry. One cannot marry his mother. One cannot marry a minor child. And one cannot have multiple wives. These are all issues determined to be important for the individuals involved as well as society.
Yet we cannot divorce the institution of marriage from its theological roots. We acknowledge that marriage is an institution given by God (Genesis 2:24). The Creator of the Universe established the relationship between a man and a woman, thus it is a divine institution, not a human one. To confer marriage-like rights to gays is not the prerogative of people (Matthew 19:6). (This includes civil unions or domestic partnerships, as they are merely marriage by other names.) Defining marriage is the prerogative of God. Whatever may tend to undermine the institution of marriage would also undermine the authority of God, as well as hurt society.
Liberals may argue, "Why should we arbitrarily select only heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals want to marry?" The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between and man a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. It's purpose is clear and of utmost importance to society.
David Orland in an article entitled "The Deceit of Gay Marriage" puts it very well. He says:
To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society's reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat.
The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those who employ it. This is for two reasons:
First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and the law—though many are surprised to learn this—is aimed at the general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements.
Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual "families" of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones.
See these links that explain in more detail why homosexual marriage harms children:
In addition to various arguments offered in these links, various studies show that domestic violence is approximately 3 times higher among homosexual partnerships than heterosexual marriages. A large proportion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. (Source: Journal of the Family Research Institute, August 2008.)
But homosexuals not only want fair treatment, they are pushing for "Super Rights." According the Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute:
"Every member of society has a duty to contribute to the commonwealth. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them. Thus, homosexual practioners not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future.
Those who engage in homosexuality seek what they say are 'gay rights." In reality, they are demanding Super Rights. Super Rights are those privileges that allow one to ovverride the inalienable rights of other citizens, such as freedom of speech and association. These Super Rights—which are conferred by 'non-discrimination,' 'hate crime,' and 'hate speech' laws—allow homosexuals, if they so choose, to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them.
As an example, empirical studies to date indicate that a male teacher who practices homosexuality is the most likely kind of teacher to sexually molest students. A principal knowing this may not want to hire a teacher who declares his homosexual interests. But if that teacher wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights of the principal as well as the right of students not to experience extra risk (especially since safety is part of their right to life). Parents renting out one side of their duplex may not want to place their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if—even on a whim — the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the property and associational rights of the parents as well as their children's right not to be exposed to potential molestation.
The Super Rights of homosexual practitioners also squelch the right of others to freedom of speech. If a broadcaster opines that homosexual sex is dangerous, but a homosexual finds such speech 'offensive,' his Super Rights trump the broadcaster's freedom of speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned."
The concept of hate crimes seems particularly reprehensible. If one of your (heterosexual) loved ones is the object of a despicable crime, the perpetrator would receive a lesser punishment than someone who committed the same act against someone who practices homosexual sex!
But what about auxiliary rights that have been attenuated to marriage throughout the years, such as hospital visitation, inheritance, and so on? These can be fulfilled by other readily available means, including contracts, wills, and power-of-attorney documents. Marriage is not necessary to acquire them.
Quoting Eric Pavlat, "Finally, legally recognizing these unions hurts the nation as a whole. Noted Harvard sociologist Pitrim Sorokin declared in The American Revolution that he found virtually no culture that both failed to restrict marriage to a man and a woman and survived very long. Cambridge anthropologist Joseph D. Unwin stated nearly the same thing in Hopousia, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society: 'In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.' In short, gay marriage harms everyone, regardless of whether they themselves are gay or married."
Liberals accuse conservatives of being arbitrary by limiting marriage to a man and a woman. They don't like it when we draw lines. Our response is two-fold. First, our drawing of the line is not arbitrary. This entire article supports our view. But secondly, liberals themselves are the ones who draw lines and do so arbitrarily. Let's use simple reason. If you say that two men should be allowed to marry, why draw the line there? Why not 3 men, if that meets their particular pursuit of happiness? Why not polygamy? Why not allow a 35 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl? Where do you stop? Wherever the liberal draws the line it is arbitrary.
Sometimes we hear the objection that marriage is not about children, that many heterosexual couples do not have children either by choice or sterility. We respond that their sexual union is still the kind of union that God has intended for the procreation of children. So the objection has no force.
Only about 4% of gays, even when marriage is an option, actually get married. This is a strong indicator that gay marriage is not really about marriage, but about affirmation.
One can reflect on this in a different way. What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in a natural heterosexual marriage?
Top of page Born That Way
The issue of special rights for homosexuals hinges in part on the notion that the trait is genetic. To date there is no credible evidence to support this view, though many have been searching for a gay gene for years. There have been three "studies" which were once cited to suggest an inherited homosexual trait, but all three have been scientifically discredited. (One of these was the 1991 study by Simon LeVay. Another was a study by J.M. Baily and R.C. Pillard in 1991. The third was the Dean Hamer study in 1993.) See
The medical and scientific evidence suggest that indeed, there is no such thing as "homosexuality," in the sense of genetic determination. Indeed, some in the homosexual community are now acknowledging that there is no "gay gene." See
Even the liberal-leaning American Psychological Association has reversed its previous stance on this. See:
Those who insist on a genetic cause must answer an obvious question. Whenever we hear of someone who says that so-and-so was "born gay," we ask, "Which parent did he inherit his homosexuality from?" Obviously, homosexuals do not propogate themselves. Wouldn't natural selection have eleminated any gene that resisted propogation from the population?
Then what does cause homosexual tendencies? Many who have counselled people who practice homosexuality are convinced that in most cases there has been a serious and extreme loss of confidence in own's manhood (or womanhood). This may have been the result of extremely detached parenting (especially from the father), from some other person who had a major influence at a young age, childhood sexual encounters, accusations from peers about one's lack of athletic abiltiy or sensitivity, etc. In the case of a female, a high athletic ability, overweight, or certain other physical features can also limit their ability socially with the opposite sex—and they may conclude that lesbianism is the only alternative. In this day and age when homosexuality is accepted in many circles, experimentation may actually lead to ingrained behavior.
These websites list potential variables for same sex attraction:
- Childhood Influences
- Environmental Factors
- Lesbianism and Upbringing
- Schumm's Studies on Gay Parents
- Facts about Youth
Does child abuse cause homosexuality? There have been various studies that show this link. Here is an article that discusses one such study, and the potential flaws in the study: Child Abuse and Homosexuality.
There may be other factors involved. For example, a boy may not have the talent or inclination to be successful in athletics, for which a high view is placed in our society. So, he may infer from this that he is not manly enough.
Cultural factors may also play a role. Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do points out that during the Renaissance there was an increase in homosexuality, apparently due to a cultural hatred of women (misogyny).
But some admit the reason they got into the homosexual lifestyle was simply because of its availability. More and more, representatives of the gay community are acknowledging that homosexual behavior is simply a choice. Gareth Kirkby of Xtra West, a gay publication, said that there is no longer any need to lie about it. He admits that he freely chose the lifestyle. See also
- Homosexual Activist Says No Gay Gene
- Actress Admits It's a Choice for Her
Those in the gay lifestyle can and do come out of it. Various studies show that success rates of those wanting to leave the lifestyle range from 30% to 70%. It is, no doubt, difficult to leave the lifestyle. One reason it is so difficult is because of its addictive nature. For stories of those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, see the Exodus International and International Healing Foundation links at the bottom of this article.
Even if it were shown that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, that would still not make it right. Compare, for example, alcoholism. It is generally believed that there is an inherited tendency for alcoholism. But that inherited tendency does not condone the behavior, nor does one who inherits the trait necessarily become addicted to alcohol. Society tries to compassionately help those caught in that addiction. While difficult, many people inflicted with alcoholism are successful in reforming their lives.
To take the view that we all have the right to act on our natural impulses would be to logically affirm even sociopathic behavior. Our natural instincts are selfish and often destructive to others. A functioning society demands that we put aside our natural tendencies in many cases.
Depression is another illness that is apparently often genetically related. But again, the source of the illness does not dictate our attitude toward it.
Consider the reasoning by this person who left the gay lifestyle: Born this Way but Reborn.
All human beings are faced with sexual temptation of some sort during their lifetime. Homosexual attractions and temptations are not exempted, just as adultery is not exempted from being sinful behavior. As heterosexuals, we argue that we ourselves have a tendency—which we are certain is genetically inherited—to want to cheat on our spouse. This desire is quite strong. Yet we do not act on this desire and are able to suppress it.
Many young people go through a normal period of examining their sexuality. If during this period society tells them that homosexual conduct is okay, they may be encouraged to try it. This experimentation may lead to a lifestyle that would not otherwise occur if the cultural mandate were not present.
Let's address here the objection that animals engage in homosexual behavior, implying that it must be natural for humans. But we respond that animals engage in many types of behaviors that we wouldn't want to copy. Some animals eat their own young, so should that be okay for us? Some animals eat their own feces, so should that be okay for us? Enough humans commit murder or rape that we could say that it is a natural occurance, so must something occurring naturally be acceptable? We have the capacity to operate on more than animal instinct!
Here are some interesting statistics to consider:
- Around a third of gays, and many lesbians, say that they were "seduced," "molested," or persuaded by either formal or informal association into becoming participants in homosexuality. Many males who engage in same-sex sex claim they were "made compulsively homosexual" by seduction/molestation.
- A far higher percentage of adopted children of gay couples become gay verses gays in the population at large (over 20% verses 2%), proving that homosexuality is learned rather than genetic. See Children of Gays.
- A boy raised through teen years in a city is three times more apt to engage in homosexuality than a boy raised in rural areas.
Here is an interesting testimony from a former gay activist: Testimony.
And here are additional links confirming that sexuality can be changed:
- Ex-Gays? by Jones and Yarhouse
- National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality
- Venus Magazine
- I Do Exist
- People Can Change
- List of Articles
- Politics of Truth
- Twin Studies
- Thomas Project
- Ex-Gay Men
- Prideworks Admission
More links on causes of homosexuality:
- Is it a Choice
- Relationship Problem
- Child Molestation as Cause
- Incest as a Cause
- Shame and Attachment Loss
See also the links at the bottom of the articles, especially the various testimonies of those who have left homosexuality.
Top of page Ravages of the Lifestyle
But one may ask, "Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry. After all, who does it hurt?" Today's society is lying to us about homosexuality. We are told that it is biblical—clearly incorrect. We are told that it is genetic—no evidence for it. And we are told that it can be a beautiful and loving lifestyle—wrong again.
Statistics show that homosexual behavior is marked by death, disease, disappointment, promiscuity, perversity, addiction, and misery. The real threat to persons in the homosexual lifestyle does not seem to be discrimination, but physical devastation.
Please note—the purpose of our web site is to present the testimony and evidence as best we know it. The statistics below are harsh. If you have contrary evidence, we would be glad for you to provide it. Here are a few of the available statistics:
- The best available evidence indicates that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population, not even accounting for death from AIDS.
- 25% to 33% of people in the homosexual lifestyle are alcoholics compared to 7% in the general population.
- 60% of all syphilis cases are among homo and bi-sexual men.
- Homosexual men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general public.
- Most people in the homosexual lifestyle are loving and caring. But we cannot merely sweep under the rug the statistics that indicate that homosexuals are 16 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest a child and 15 times more likely to murder.
- In addition to increased molestation, empirical research shows that children of a homosexual couple have more frequent harms such as social difficulties, emotional turmoil, gender role disruption, etc.
- For further statistics, see the educational pamphlet Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do. (This pamphlet, as well as others available from the Family Research Institute, are excellent to distribute at your workplace if you are forced to attend an indoctrination on homosexuality!) They are available at this website: Family Research Institute (See "Pamphets" and "Scientific Articles" in the upper left hand corner of the home page.)
According to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, a stunning 31 percent of lesbians in relationships had experienced physical violence from a partner within the past year. According to John Klofas of the Rochester Institute of Technology, "Trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse." Meanwhile, gay males, according to the journal Violence and Victims, "are more likely to be killed by their partners than [by] a stranger." The increased potential for violence has been confirmed in numerous studies (see Conservapedia and John Jay College), as well as by gay advocacy groups such as the Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project.
Child Molestation appears to be staggeringly higher among gays. See Pedophilia.
Encouraging people to enter relationships so much more dangerous for them than marriage is not responsible behavior on the part of any government. Likewise, legalizing gay marriage hurts homosexuals in general. When the government says that gay marriage is fine, it teaches (often through public elementary education, see Spain), that homosexual behavior is fine. But unfortunately, these behaviors are linked to a number of serious health problems, including drug abuse. Gay men are infected 50 times more often than straight men, and and have a much higher incidence of anal cancer (among men), breast cancer and gynocological cancers (among women), and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.
The pathology of homosexual practice gives the reasons for many of the ravages of this lifestyle. In a 1991 paper, James Holsinger Jr, a physician nominated for the post of Surgeon General, explained that the structure and function of the male and female reproductive systems are fully complementary. But the rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against severe damage. Not only is the rectum not lubricated, but the anal sphincters are designed for only the outward passage of objects.
Holsinger stated, "From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma." Among items in a long list of problems listed by Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually trasmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.).
The following link is an open admission from a homosexual male regarding the norm in this lifestyle: Self Destruction.
Also see this link concerning health of various lifestyle groups: Health.
The gay political movement largely follows the methods described in Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's strategy manual After the Ball. This includes making themselves seem victimized in order to gain sympathy—carrying out a "conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media," and marginalizing people and groups who oppose homosexual behavior. But the facts are that the gay lifestyle itself creates its own victims.
We should make a logical distinction between human characteristics. It is bigotry to oppose someone on the basis of race. But it is wise to oppose someone because they practice destructive behavior.
Here are some additional links:
- Lifestyle Risks
- Dr. John Diggs
- Center for Disease Control
- Sexual Orientation and Cancer
- Prostate Cancer Survival
- Catalogue of Health Effects
- Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle
- Statistics on Homosexuality
Top of page A Loving Lifestyle?
Homosexual activists and often the uninformed media leave us with the impression that the gay lifestyle is filled with love and tenderness. No doubt this is often true. But statistics, again, show another reality.
Life-long monogamy is nearly non-existent among those in a homosexual lifestyle, including those who profess to be "married." Promiscuity is rampant. Many contacts are between strangers with 70% of gays estimating that they had sex only once with over half of their partners. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexuals could be classified as monogamous or even semi-monogamous (having 10 or fewer lifetime sexual partners.)
One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men.
The website Meet Gay Couples notes, "[Surveys] all report that varying degrees of non-monogamy are fairly common among male couples." The gay newspaper Washington Blade reports that "three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous." The study's lead author, a gay professor at the University of Windsor, holds the opinion that "younger [gay] men tend to start with the vision of monogamy...because they are coming with a heterosexual script....The gay community has their own order and own ways that seem to work better."
Gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay male couples whose relationship lasted from 1 to 37 years. They found that all the couples whose relationships lasted more than 5 years incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity. There was not a single long-term monogamous couple.
Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands long enough to gather data on it. A 2003 study found the average duration of "steady" male partnerships to range from .75 to 2.25 years. These "steady" relationships had an average of 8 casual partners in addition to the significant other each year.
The sin of promiscuity is an aspect of heterosexual behavior as well. But statistics indicate that it is a far greater factor in the gay lifestyle. Here is an article that seems typical: Fort Smith
It can be said with impunity that what advocates of gay marriage really want is not just marriage rights. They want a world without any sexual inhibitions or limitations.
The slippery slope is real. In fact, some advocates of gay marriage are advocates for the end of marriage itself. For example, gay scholar Nan Hunter argues that "legalizing lesbian and gay marriage would have enormous potential to destabilize the gender definition of marriage for everyone." Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz describes Norwegian sociologist and gay marriage advocate Kari Moxnes's views as seeing "both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women." In Moxnes's article "Empty Marriage," she describes "Norwegian gay marriage [as] a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength," as "a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself."
Interestingly, only a few gay couples when given the opportunity to marry actually do so. The Family Research Council quotes a statistic from USA Today showing that in Vermont's first three and a half years of civil unions, only 936 gays or lesbian couples chose to take advantage of the opportunity—about 21 percent of the estimated adult homosexual population. In Sweeden, where traditional marriages are increasingly rare, gay union numbers are even lower, as reported by a 2004 Baltimore Sun article, "About 1,500 same-sex couples have registered their unions" out of an estimated 140,000 gays and lesbians—or about 2 percent.
Top of page A Way Out?
Many people in the homosexual lifestyle are saying that what they want is acceptance. But those who have counselled homosexuals say that they often reveal a deeper desire of wanting out of the problem.
What does our compassion as Christians demand? Our concern is marked by a broken-hearted grieving over the condition of the sinner. Shouldn't our mercy and love be to help bring the lives of everyone into conformity with the will of God? The evidence supports our confidence that God's commands are not arbitrary, but that they are for our own good. Studies consistenly support the idea that, on average, those persons who are living a biblical lifestyle have happier, more successful, and healthier lives than those who do not. This includes having a more satifying sex life!
If you are caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, we suggest to you that the loss of confidence in your gender was probably from someone who convinced you of such. But God does not see you that way! He sees you as the man (or woman) that he made you. If you have a problem, it is one of authority.
Jesus changes people from the inside out. There is no hope for a broken world or a broken life other than through Jesus. Through Jesus, there is hope for us all. We recommend visiting the following websites for further information:
- Restored Hope Network
- Homosexuals Anonymous
- Transformed Image
- S. B. Ministries
- Janet Boynes Ministries
- Parents and Friends
- Ex-Gay Teen
- Ex-Gay Stories
- More Stories
God loves each of us no matter how often and blatantly we have sinned against him and our fellow man. He loves us so much that he wants what is best for us. God does not lower his standards just because we fail so often. God provides perfection and pardon for us through his Son, Jesus Christ. To learn more see our
Links about homosexuality:
Judaism's Sexual Revolution (This is a fascinating article about homosexuality from the perspective of historic Judaism.)
Wes' Testimony (Scroll Down)
Links about other aspects of sexuality:
Books for further study:
- Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey, co-editors
- Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
- Counseling the Homosexual by Michael R. Saia
- Informed Answers to Gay Rights Questions by Roger Magnuson
- Straight & Narrow? Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexual Debate by Thomas E. Schmidt
- God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door: Reaching the Heart of Gay Men and Women in Your World by Alan Chambers and the Leadership Team at Exodus International
- You Don't Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling with Homosexuality or Those Who Know of Someone Who Is by Jeff Conrad
- The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality: A Biblical and Compassionate Response to Same-Sex Attraction by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche