Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen!


Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen!

James R. Aist

(Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

Pro-gay activists are doing their best to deny that therapy and counseling for people with unwanted homosexuality can be effective. This is not because it can’t be effective (it can), but because to admit that it can be effective would undercut the goal of the “gay agenda” to convince the heterosexual majority that that homosexual people are “born gay” and, therefore, cannot change. But the fact is that not only can therapy and counseling be effective in helping people diminish or remove homosexuality from their lives, such change often occurs spontaneously, without any intervention being necessary or even attempted; it just happens.

The Details

A huge amount of information on this topic has been reviewed and summarized by Whitehead and Whitehead (1), which I will excerpt as follows:

Large studies now show that…

For adolescents:

[The following points were derived by Whitehead and Whitehead (1) from the data files used by Savin-Williams and Ream (2).]

  • Most teenagers who identify as homosexual will change from same-sex attraction. In fact, in the 16 to 17 year age group, 98% who identified initially (at age 16) as homosexual or bi-sexual had moved towards heterosexuality one year later, at age 17;
  • 16 year olds saying they are same-sex attracted or bi-sex attracted are 25 times more likely to say they are opposite sex attracted at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to identify themselves as bi-sexual or homosexual; and
  • 16-year olds who claim they are opposite sex attracted will overwhelmingly remain that way.

For adults:

  • About half of those with exclusive same-sex attraction move towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. Put another way, 3% of the practicing heterosexual population (both men and women) claim to have once been either bisexual or homosexual;
  • These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen “naturally” in life, some very quickly;
  • The vast majority of changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality;
  • The number of people at any point in time who have changed spontaneously towards exclusive opposite sex attraction are greater than the number of bisexuals and exclusive same-sex attraction people combined. In other words, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays”; and
  • Exclusive opposite sex attraction is 17 times as stable as exclusive same-sex attraction for men, and 30 times as stable as exclusive same-sex attraction for women. (Women are known to be more fluid in their sexual orientation than are men.)

Additionally, Sorba (3) has documented numerous examples of adult celebrities and homosexuality advocates who have spontaneously changed from homosexual to heterosexual. These include celebrities such as pop star Sinead O’Connor, actress Ann Heche, gay activist/author Jan Clausen and gay activist Williams (Bro) Broberg. Furthermore, at least six specific examples of adults who changed sexual orientation spontaneously, without therapy or counseling, have been documented by NARTH (4). These documented examples of spontaneous changes demonstrate the considerable fluidity that exists in sexual orientation for many individuals, even in adulthood.

Conclusions

Sexual orientation is often fluid, not fixed, and change sometimes occurs spontaneously, without formal intervention of any kind. The vast majority of spontaneous change in sexual orientation is from homosexual to heterosexual. In fact, it can be accurately stated that ex-gays outnumber actual gays at any given time. These documented facts demonstrate that at least a considerable number of homosexuals are not “born gay.” And they lend credence to the many reports that therapy and counseling for unwanted homosexuality can be effective: since sexual orientation sometimes changes spontaneously, it follows that formal efforts to assist an individual with unwanted homosexuality would, indeed, be quite effective, and they can be (click HERE)

References Cited:

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)

2. Savin-Williams, R., and G. Ream. 2007. Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:385-394.

3. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. (click HERE)

4. NARTH, 2012. 7) Spontaneous or Adventitious Change of Sexual Orientation. (click HERE)

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

An Easy, Do-It-Yourself Bible Study on Homosexuality

An Easy, Do-It-Yourself Bible Study on Homosexuality

James R. Aist

Introduction

If you’ve been paying attention to the “gay agenda’s” assault on the Christian church lately, you’re familiar with their attacks on the reliability and veracity of English translations of the Bible. Proponents of the recently invented “gay theology” (click HERE) and the “gay gospel” (click HERE) claim, for example, that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality, that the English translations have wrongly portrayed what the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts really say about the matter and that the references to homosexuality in the Bible do not apply to modern homosexual couples in long-term, committed, exclusive and loving relationships. The latter claim is used in an attempt to validate, justify and rationalize so-called “gay marriage.”

Historically, the common, ordinary Christian has had to leave the study of the Hebrew and Greek used in the ancient manuscripts of the Bible to highly trained Bible scholars and translators. But, in recent years, user-friendly computer software has been developed that enables the computer literate to study the Bible at this level without first becoming Hebrew and Greek scholars themselves. So, here’s how to do your own study of the Hebrew and Greek root words used in the Bible to express God’s views on homosexuality, using authoritative and reliable Hebrew and Greek lexicons. “It’s so easy, a cave man can do it.”

The “Cook Book” Procedure

To conduct your own, personal study: 1) find online, and open, “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” at “biblestudytools.com” (click HERE); 2) follow the instructions given in the introductory pane; 3) enter, in turn, the following Bible passages  — Genesis 19:1-11 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10 – and then; 4) for each Bible passage, click on the respective highlighted words (hyperlinks) to access the appropriate lexicon and read the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words, given in English. You can toggle between the King James Version (KJV) and the New American Standard (NAS) version and still retain the Strong’s Numbers; or, you can choose from a dozen or more other English translations and read the passage without Strong’s Numbers. You will find, as expected, that wherever homosexual behavior is mentioned in the Bible, it is consistently condemned as sin, abomination, perversion, etc. And understand that translators of later English versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and NAS, consulted the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, rather than simply putting the KJV into modern English.

You may also find it helpful to read the following, most excellent and enlightening, short articles concerning the Bible and homosexuality, as part of your study:

Allen, J. 2014. The Apostle Paul and Homosexuality—Answering Homosexual Objections (Part 1) (click HERE)

Allen, J. 2014. The Apostle Paul and Homosexuality—Answering Homosexual Objections (Part 2) (Click HERE)

Conclusions

The claims of gay activists — that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality as sin, that the English translations have wrongly portrayed what the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts really say about the matter and that the references to homosexuality in the Bible do not apply to modern homosexual couples in long-term, committed, exclusive and loving relationships — is nothing but pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as you can see for yourself. Therefore, the Bible cannot be used with honesty, accuracy and integrity to justify and rationalize so-called “gay marriage.”

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Parenting: Is There Really “No Difference”?

Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Parenting: Is There Really “No Difference”?

 James R. Aist

(Note: numbers given in parentheses refer to specific references listed in the “References Cited” section at the end of the article)

“Children of homosexual parents are about 12-15 times more likely to be homosexual than are children of heterosexual parents.”

Introduction

Gay activists have insisted for years that there is no difference in the outcomes of parenting by homosexuals when compared to heterosexual parenting. Indeed, The American Psychological Association (APA) officially supports this claim. And the homosexual movement has used this claim to influence court decisions in favor of allowing homosexuals to legally adopt children. But, is this claim actually supported by the scientific facts? In other words, are the outcomes of homosexual parenting really equivalent to the outcomes of heterosexual parenting?

The APA Brief on Homosexual Parenting

In 2005, the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Office of the APA published a brief (i.e., literature review) on this topic (1). In this brief, they cited 59 published articles in support of their summary claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” However, in 2012, Loren Marks published a detailed analysis and critique of the scientific merit of that brief and the literature upon which it was based (2). Marks found that the studies cited in support of the APA summary claim are woefully lacking in sound scientific principles: 1) 77% of the studies are based on small, non-representative, biased samples of fewer than 100 subjects each; 2) 44% of the studies did not include a control group (i.e., a heterosexual comparison group), which is an absolute necessity for properly designed scientific studies of this nature; 3) 13 of the 33 studies that did include a control group used single parents, instead of two-biological-married parents, for the comparison; 4) the remaining 20 of these 33 studies with control groups ambiguously specified the make-up of the heterosexual control groups as “mothers” or “couples”; 5) the studies evaluated in the brief focused selectively on “gender-related outcomes” (such as, sexual orientation, gender identity, self esteem and self concepts) while societal concerns (such as excessive drinking, drug use, truancy and criminal offenses) were usually ignored; 6) none of the studies tracked societally significant long-term outcomes into adulthood, thus leaving the critical issue of parenting outcomes essentially unaddressed; 7) the brief seems to draw inferences of sameness of parenting outcomes based on analyses of small, non-representative samples lacking necessary statistical power; and 8) although the brief claims that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”, it ignores or dismisses two, scientifically sound studies published years earlier that did find evidence suggesting that children of lesbian or gay parents are disadvantaged in several significant respects relative to children of heterosexual parents. [This selective omission of two articles presenting contrary findings, even though the articles have considerable scientific merit (2), belies the strong pro-gay bias of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Office of the APA, which can also be easily detected in the mission statement (1) of that office.]

Noting that “Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children”, Marks concluded that the strong assertions made in the APA brief were not substantiated by the published studies used, and were, therefore, unwarranted. In other words, as of 2005, scientific research had failed to prove that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parenting, contrary to the conclusions in the (strongly biased) APA brief.

Studies Reporting Differences in Parenting Outcomes

The first two of these studies were published by S. Sarantakos. His 1996 paper (3) was a comparative analysis of 58 children of heterosexual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples and 58 children living with homosexual couples, all matched according to socially significant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, number of parents in the household, education, occupation and socio-economic status). This study has some possible methodological weaknesses and confounding factors, but it also has several strong points of scientific design not present in the studies used for the APA brief (2). [It is significant that the comments of Marks (2) on this paper represent, in effect, a very favorable, post-publication, peer review.] Sarantakos (3) found several important criteria related to the children’s schooling in which homosexual parenting was apparently inferior to heterosexual parenting, including language, math, sports, sociability, learning attitude, parent-school relationships, support with homework and parental aspirations. Based on his results, he concluded that “…in the majority of cases, the most successful are children of married couples, followed by children of cohabiting couples and finally by children of homosexual couples.” Then in 2000, he published a book entitled “Same-sex Couples” (10). According to Marks (2), in this book, Sarantakos published the results of another research project in which he, once again, used two comparison groups, a married couple sample and a cohabiting couple sample, examined several outcomes of societal concern, and, very significantly, reported long-term outcomes in adults 18 years of age or older. Based on his results, which he obtained from statements made by the adult children of the parents, he concluded that adult children of homosexual parents report drug and alcohol abuse, education truancy, sexual activity and criminality in higher proportions than adult children of (married or cohabiting) heterosexual couples. Additionally, Marks (2) noted that Sarantakos (10) reported that “the number of children who were labeled by their parents as gay, or identified themselves as gay, is much higher than the generally expected proportion.” I will return to this finding later in the article.

Now let’s turn to several, more-recent studies, all of which were published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Regnerus (4) used a large (nearly 3,000), random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) called “The New Family Structures Study.” This large, random sample avoided some of the major flaws of the earlier studies on this topic, such as very small sample sizes, biased sampling approaches (i.e., “convenience sampling”, where the data set is obtained by placing ads in homosexual publications and soliciting volunteers) and non-representative data sets (usually including only lesbian parents) (2). The study found that numerous, consistent differences do exist between children of parents who have had same-sex relationships and those with married, heterosexual parents. More specifically, he found that children of homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thought, require mental health therapy, identify themselves as homosexual, choose cohabitation, be unfaithful to partners, contract sexually transmitted diseases, be sexually molested, have lower income levels, drink to get drunk, and smoke tobacco and marijuana. The study used a cross-sectional design (like a snapshot in time), and so the author was quick to point out that, although many differences were found, the results do not prove that the negative outcomes were caused by homosexual parenting itself. Nonetheless, this research clearly indicates that the claim that there are no differences in parenting outcomes must be re-evaluated with further research. And it also raises the possibility that homosexual parenting may, in fact, produce numerous, negative outcomes in adulthood, when compared to heterosexual parenting.

This publication (4) generated a firestorm of criticism and condemnation, some of which came from other researchers in social science. Accordingly, Regnerus answered the critics with new analyses (12). In this follow-up study, he discussed six of the most common and/or important criticisms and made several changes in response to the criticisms: an important change in the way he referred to homosexual parents and three major adjustments to groups and group assignments within the data set. The results were similar to those in the original article (4), but the magnitude of some of the differences declined somewhat. Thus, this new analysis of the data confirmed the conclusions of the original article; namely, that real differences do, in fact, exist in many outcomes that may be related to homosexual parenting vs. heterosexual parenting, including, but not limited to, sexuality, sexual behavior, educational attainment, smoking and arrests (12). And, once again, Regnerus emphasized that his results do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between homosexuality and the negative outcomes. The onus now lies with his critics to prove him wrong.

Next, I want to summarize two related articles that compared the academic achievement of children with homosexual parents to those with married, heterosexual parents. Allen et al. (5) reexamined a previous study by Rosenfeld (11) that used a restricted sub-sample of a large, U.S. data base, the U.S. Public-Use Microdata Sample of the 2000 census. Rosenfeld concluded that “When one controls for parental SES and characteristics of the students, children of same-sex couples cannot be distinguished with statistical certainty from children of heterosexual married couples.” Using the same data set, but alternative comparison groups, an unrestricted sample and incorporating controls for the subgroups omitted in the Rosenfeld study, Allen et al., found that children being raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal progress through school compared to children of heterosexual, married parents. The second of these two studies (6) used a much larger, random sample of the 2006 Canada census to examine high school graduation rates. The results showed that children living with gay and lesbian families were only about 65% as likely to graduate high school as were children living in heterosexual married families. Moreover, daughters of homosexual parents did considerably worse than sons in this study. This paper confirms the findings of Allen et al. (5), and these two studies, taken together, cast doubt on the ubiquitous claim that no difference exists; children living with same-sex parents do, in fact, perform poorer in school when compared to children from married, opposite sex families (6). However, these two studies also had a cross-sectional design; therefore, cause-and-effect inferences, or conclusions, cannot be made as to why these differences exist. Yet the results do raise the possibility that homosexual parenting itself may, in fact, result in poorer performance in school, when compared to heterosexual parenting.

The last study that I want to summarize addresses a difference found also in the Sarantakos (10) and Regnerus (4) studies: namely, that children of homosexual parents are much more apt to become homosexual themselves. The general consensus among researchers in this field of inquiry has been that there is no such difference. Schumm (7) conducted two meta-analyses of the results from previous studies concerning this issue (a meta-analysis combines and analyzes data from selected published studies in order to increase the sample size sufficiently to detect smaller differences and increase statistical power, thereby compensating for the small sample sizes and lack of statistically significant differences in the selected studies). The main thrust of his report deals with statistical analyses of the results of ten studies involving family histories of adult children with homosexual parents. The results of these analyses showed that 45% of the adult children of homosexual parents were homosexual. Using a verifiable figure of 3% as the prevalence of homosexuals (gay, lesbian and bisexual) in the general population, I calculated that adult children of homosexual parents are about 15 times more likely to be homosexual than are adult children of heterosexual parents. This difference is not only statistically significant, it is also clearly of a very large magnitude. But Schumm didn’t stop there. He proceeded to take data from 26 other studies that had concluded that there is no difference and to analyze them in a similar manner. When he restricted the data to those children who were 17 years old or older at the time the data were collected (in order to address the issue of adult outcomes per se), he found that 28% of the adult children of homosexual parents were homosexual, whereas only 2.3% of the adult children of heterosexual parents were homosexual. Thus, in this meta-analysis, adult children of homosexual parents were about 12 times more likely to be homosexual than were adult children of heterosexual parents. How could these extremely large and statistically significant differences (12-15 fold) come about? Schumm discussed five of the possibilities: 1) parental modeling of sexual orientation; 2) parental preference for the child’s sexual orientation; 3) the child’s greater questioning of their own sexual orientation; 4) parental desire for grandchildren; and 5) non-parental modeling of sexual orientation by homosexual friends of the homosexual parents. Regardless of the mechanism(s) involved, these results, taken together, strongly suggest that the post-natal environment of children with homosexual parents has a powerful influence on the development of homosexuality in the children, and that, in turn, argues persuasively against the popular notion that homosexual people are “born gay.” The strength of this argument is easily appreciated when one considers the fact that identical twin studies have demonstrated conclusively that the maximum contribution of all pre-natal influences (genetics, hormones, etc.) on the subsequent development of homosexuality can be no more than about 10%-15% (8). Some of the remaining 85%-90% post-natal influence could very well be a result of environmental and experiential factors inherent in the homosexual parenting context.

Possible Confounding Factors

Are there other factors commonly experienced by children of homosexual parents that may contribute to the negative outcomes of homosexual parenting reported in these studies? Osborne (9) identified several such factors, including divorce of the biological parents, social and structural stigmas targeting homosexual parents and their children, and multiple family forms (i.e., various combinations of remarriage, single parenting, cohabitation, adoption and step-parenting). The presence of these untested confounding factors makes it impossible, at present, to conclude that the sexual orientation of homosexual parents causes most of the negative outcomes in their children; nor does it rule out such a conclusion. That said, it appears to me that the most likely negative outcome of homosexual parenting that might be heavily influenced by the homosexual orientation of the parents is the homosexual orientation of their adult children, because 1) the effect has been reported in at least three separate studies using different data sets, and 2) the effect is so large (up to 12-15 fold) that it would not be expected to be attributable to unaccounted for, confounding factors. Perhaps the courts should not be so quick and eager to legalize homosexual adoption after all.

Summary

Gay activists have insisted for years that there is no difference in the outcomes of parenting by homosexuals when compared to heterosexual parenting. In 2005, the APA published a brief on this topic. In this brief, they cited 59 published articles in support of their summary claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” However, in 2012, Marks published a detailed analysis and critique of the scientific merit of that brief and the literature upon which it was based. Marks found that the studies cited in support of the APA summary claim are woefully lacking in sound scientific design and principles and concluded that the strong assertions made in the APA brief were not substantiated by the published studies used, and were, therefore, unwarranted. Several other, more scientifically sound, studies have provided evidence that, indeed, there are many, often large, and very significant differences in the outcomes, possibly related to homosexual parenting compared to heterosexual parenting. These differences include inferior performance in school, a much lower graduation rate, poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thought, requirement for mental health therapy, cohabitation, unfaithfulness to sexual partners, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, sexual molestation, lower income levels, drunkenness, tobacco and marijuana use and a very strong tendency for the adult children of homosexuals to self-identify as homosexual. In fact, adult children of homosexual parents are about 12-15 times more likely to be homosexual than are adult children of heterosexual parents. While it is not possible from these studies to conclude that the homosexual orientation of the parents directly or indirectly caused most of the negative outcomes found in their children, the results strongly suggest the possibility that homosexual parenting may not be equivalent to heterosexual parenting after all. The exception may be the homosexual orientation of the adult children of homosexual parents, which, in all likelihood, is heavily influenced by the homosexual orientation of the parents. At the very least, the claim that there are no differences in the outcomes of homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting should be re-evaluated with further research, based on the most scientifically sound research presently available. Perhaps the courts should not be so quick and eager to legalize homosexual adoption after all.

References Cited

1. Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns of the American Psychological Society. 2005. Lesbian and Gay Parenting. (click HERE)

2. Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download)

3. Sarantakos, S. 1996. Children in three contexts: Family, education, and social development. Children Australia 21(3), 23–31.

4. Regnerus, M. 2012. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research 41:752-770. (click HERE)

5. Allen, D., et al. 2013. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography 50(3), 955-961.

6. Allen, D. 2013. High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household 11:635-658.

7. Schumm, W. 2010. Children of Homosexuals More Apt to Be Homosexual? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data. Journal of Biosocial Science 42:721-742.

8. Aist, J. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”? (click HERE)

9. Osborne, C. 2012. Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus. Social Science Research 41:779-783.

10. Sarantakos, S. 2000.  Same-sex Couples.  Parramatta, N.S.W:  Harvard Press

11. Rosenfeld, M. 2010. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School. Demography 47(3):755-775.

12. Regnerus, M. 2012. Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses. Social Science Research 41:1367-1377. (click HERE)

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

 

 

 

Satan’s Sinister, Sister Attacks on Humanity

Satan’s Sinister, Sister Attacks on Humanity

James R. Aist

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” – Jesus (John 10:10)

Introduction

On the sixth day of creation, “…God created mankind in his own image; in the image of God he created them.”(Genesis 1:27). It was only after Adam and Eve were created that God said of His entire creation, “it is very good.” (Genesis 1:31b). When God had created Adam and Eve, He said to them “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28a). God’s first instruction to Adam and Eve was to reproduce, to replicate the crown jewels of His creation, human beings.

Now, God had already created Satan, but only mankind was made in the very image and likeness of God, and only mankind was given dominion over His creation (Genesis 1:28). This made Satan, who wanted to exalt himself above God (Isaiah 14:13), exceedingly jealous and hateful of mankind. In Genesis 3:15, after Satan had convinced Adam and Eve to disobey God’s command to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God said to Satan, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” And in John 8:44, Jesus said that “… the devil… was a murderer from the beginning…” Peter also referred to Satan as “our enemy” (1 Peter 5:8). Clearly, Satan is the archenemy of mankind and seeks ways to satisfy his jealousy and hatred toward us. And what better way to do that than to prevent human reproduction, or, failing that, to get mothers to murder their own children in the womb. So, let’s look into this matter further and see if homosexuality and abortion are, indeed, tools of Satan to undermine God’s command to “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” and to satisfy his hatred toward us.

Homosexuality

I have already shown that God would not and does not create anyone to be homosexual (click HERE). Like all other sins, homosexuality came into the world through the “original sin” of Adam, after God had finished His six days of creative activity. And it was Satan who enticed Eve (and through her, Adam) to disobey God (i.e., to sin) (Genesis 3:1-6). From that moment on, all of mankind has been born with a proclivity to sin. Therefore, Satan is the root source of all sins and of all temptations to sin, including homosexual temptations and sins.

Now, human beings are among the “animals” that reproduce sexually by the union of a male’s sperm with a female’s egg. Thus, homosexuality renders one incapable of reproducing naturally, because, to reproduce, one has to want to have sex with the opposite gender. And, that is how we can know that homosexuality is one strategy that Satan has used to thwart God’s plan for human sexuality, that is, to “be fruitful and multiply.” Moreover, from the human perspective, by destroying the natural, human sexual desire for the opposite gender, homosexuality steals from men and women their ability to fulfill one of their most basic, fundamental and precious human desires; that is, to conceive naturally and bear children (cf. John 10:10a).

Abortion

Since homosexuality prevents only about 1.5% of the general population from reproducing naturally, Satan isn’t satisfied to stop there. Abortion has become so common that it has greatly eclipsed homosexuality as the number one enemy of human procreation. About 3,200 babies are aborted in the U.S. alone each day (click HERE)! For this satanic strategy to be most successful, pregnant women have to believe the lie that their unborn child is not really a human being at all. Enter the pro-abortion lobby, led by Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in America. They are doing everything they can to persuade pregnant women to believe that their unborn child does not become human until some arbitrary point in the gestation process has been reached. But the fact is, there is no identifiable point in this continuum of pre-natal development at which an unborn child becomes suddenly human; the unborn child, having the full complement of human chromosomes – one set from each of the two parents —  is, biologically speaking, a human being from the moment of conception (click HERE). Now, recall that Jesus said of Satan, “… He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). This is how we can know for sure where this lie comes from!

Abortion violates not one, but two, God-given commands: 1) the sixth Commandment, “Do not murder” (Exodus 20:13); and 2) “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28a). And, being murder in its very nature (click HERE), abortion is an obvious way that “The thief comes to…kill…” (John 10:10a; cf. John 8:44). What more evil assault on humanity can there be, than to convince a mother to murder her innocent, helpless child in the womb?! Moreover, abortion is not pro-woman, as the abortion lobby claims. In fact, just the opposite is true. Perhaps the most distinctive human function that defines and exalts a woman is her God-given privilege to carry, nurture and deliver a new human life. Abortion directly attacks the very essence of womanhood. And that is anti-woman, not pro-woman!

Conclusion

Jesus said, “…I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Nothing could represent more direct attacks against this goal and purpose of Jesus than homosexuality (by preventing human reproduction) and abortion (by murdering unborn children). Satan, on the other hand, “…comes only to steal and kill and destroy” mankind’s natural sexuality (via homosexuality) and progeny (via abortion). These two strategies, homosexuality and abortion, are Satan’s sinister, sister attacks on humanity.

After Words

Through it all, let us be quick to treat homosexual people with respect and dignity and to share the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them. And may we not let our hearts become darkened with hatred towards homosexual people, just because we hate their homosexual lifestyle. As the Apostle Paul said, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12).

And, regarding abortion, it’s important to keep in mind that there is no sin that is so big and so bad that God will not forgive it. In fact, God wants to forgive you and bring you peace. He has made this promise to you: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9). He is “faithful” to forgive you because He has promised to do so, and God does not lie or break His promises (Numbers 23:19); He is “just” to forgive you because Jesus paid the full price for your sins when He suffered and died for them, in your place, and, therefore, it would be unjust of Him to not forgive you! And He doesn’t stop there. He will also cleanse you from the stain of your sin and of the guilt and shame associated with it; God will separate your sins from you “as far as the East is from the West” (Psalm 103:12), and he will not keep bringing it up and holding it against you (Isaiah 43:25). You have God’s word on it (Numbers 23:19), so take Him at His word, receive His forgiveness and move on with the peace of Christ.

(To read more articles by Professor Aist on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE; and on ABORTION, click HERE)