Tag Archives: Gay

by

Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

'The ChildLover logo' (CLogo), is "a 'but...Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

by James R. Aist

Introduction

Before I delve into the subject matter of this very sensitive and controversial issue, I want to make a few relevant, clarifying points. First, the vast majority of both homosexual and heterosexual people are not child molesters; thus, one cannot identify a child molester solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Second, while it is true that male heterosexual pedophiles account for most cases of child molestation, this is due solely to the fact that male heterosexuals outnumber male homosexuals by as much as 67 to 1. And third, the vast majority of child molestations are perpetrated by males, not females; consequently, this article will deal exclusively with male homosexual pedophilia.

The Definition Game

The existence of links between homosexuality and pedophilia is a well-documented and established fact, yet homosexuality advocates deny the reality of it. Whether or not there appears to be such links can depend on how narrowly one defines “homosexual” and “pedophile.” The main argument of homosexuality advocates seems to be that a male who sexually abuses a male child or early teen male is a pedophile, but not a homosexual. They arrive at this conclusion by first arbitrarily defining “homosexual” and “pedophile” in such a narrow way that it is virtually impossible for a “homosexual” to be a “pedophile” and vice versa. Gagnon (2005) describes this “semantic slight of hand” in the following way: “If a pedophile is defined as a person who shows little, if any, erotic interest in adults and a homosexual as a person who shows little, if any, erotic interest in children, then by definition, no homosexual can be a pedophile and few homosexuals will ever engage in a pedophilic act. Voila!” I have not found any scientific, objective rationale given for these restrictive definitions; homosexuality advocates just declare their definition to be fact and then base their results and their interpretations on the assumption that the definition is true. This re-definition of “homosexual” and “pedophile” has all the indications of yet another ploy by homosexuality advocates to make homosexuals look good by denying realities that make them look bad. And I, like many others, am not buying it.

Historically, all pedophiles have been viewed as either heterosexual or homosexual, depending on their own gender and the gender of their victims (Sprigg and Dailey, 2004); a heterosexual pedophile prefers to have sexual relations with children of the opposite sex, whereas a homosexual pedophile prefers to have sexual relations with children of the same sex. In pedophilia, the age of the victim is clearly an important factor in the selection of the sexual “partner”; in fact, there is a continuum of age preference of child molesters from adults to teens to children to babies. To draw a line anywhere along this continuum is arbitrary because it is a continuum and because homosexual sex with a person of any age is still a homosexual act.

The most objective viewpoint appears to be that homosexual pedophilia is where sexual attractions based on gender and on age intersect (Sprigg and Dailey, 2004), to produce a “homosexual pedophile” with dual sexual orientations.

The percentage of male homosexuals among convicted child molesters is many times higher than the percentage of male homosexuals in the general population.

Several studies have shown that approximately 33% of convicted male child molesters molest males (Holland, 2007). In the study by Erickson, et al. (1988), 86% of the male sex offenders who assaulted boys (approximately 35% of the 229 convicted child molesters in the study) self-identified as homosexual; thus, approximately 30% (86% of 35%) of the male sex offenders who assaulted boys self-identified as homosexual. Now let’s compare this 30% to the percentage of self-identified male homosexuals in the general population. According to Wikipedia, 1.0%-1.6% of adult males self-identified as exclusively homosexual in random surveys worldwide. Even if we use the higher-end figure of 1.5% found in the most recent random survey in Great Britain (Doughty, 2012) as a reference point, we find that the percentage of convicted male child molesters who self-identified as homosexual in this study is 20 times as high (30% divided by 1.5%) as the percentage of males in the general population who self-identify as homosexual, thus demonstrating that this point is true and valid. Furthermore, studies using the more objective phallometric methods to assess the sexual orientation of convicted male child molesters have also validated this point (Marshall et al., 1988; Freund and Watson, 1992).

Using the results obtained by Freund and Watson (1992), Gagnon (2005) took into account some of the additional factors that can influence such research results and calculated that homosexual development would result in pedophilia six times as often as heterosexual development does. Thus, there is, in fact, a strong, demonstrable link between homosexuality and pedophilia among convicted male child molesters.

What about studies that claim to provide evidence against such a link between homosexuality and pedophilia? The articles by Groth and Birnbaum (1978) and by Jenny et al. (1994) are perhaps the most often cited studies of this sort and have been critically reviewed by Holland (2007). Problems identified with the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article include: 1) they did not include data on sexual relations that the pedophiles may have had previously with adults; 2) they used a strict definition of male homosexuality that would exclude male pedophiles abusing male victims, thereby assuring that no “homosexual” (by their definition) would be found among the pedophiles (i.e., in this study, there was the appearance that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia were mutually exclusive, due to the strict definition of “homosexual” that was applied to the interpretation of the results); and 3) their definition of “homosexual” was so restrictive that the small sub-sample size representing “homosexual” pedophilia would easily not contain a single “homosexual” child molester, due solely to chance (Holland, 2007). For these reasons, Holland (2007) argued that the conclusion that homosexual pedophilia and homosexuality may be mutually exclusive does not follow from their data.

The article by Jenny et al. (1994) does not fare any better when examined critically (Gagnon, 2005; Sprigg and Dailey, 2004). Firstly, not a single child molester in the database was interviewed! They simply consulted hospital charts containing information from the victim’s parents, case workers or the victims themselves to identify the sexual orientation of the offenders. How could these people possibly know, with certainty, the complete sexual history of these child molesters? In my opinion, their use of such an unreliable, second-party, indirect method to obtain critical information rendered both the data base and the conclusions drawn from them scientifically invalid. And secondly, they used a restrictive definition of “homosexual” that classified any perpetrator who had ever engaged in a heterosexual relationship as “heterosexual”, thus ensuring that the apparent number of “homosexual” perpetrators in the data base would be extremely small. Once again, the use of an arbitrary, restrictive definition of homosexuality yielded the inevitable result: the appearance of no link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The articles by Gagnon (2005), Holland (2007), and Sprigg and Dailey (2004) similarly expose the flaws in other publications often cited as evidence that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Feel free to read these articles through and reach your own conclusions. My conclusion is that the validity and preponderance of available evidence favors the truth and reality of this link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Some have contended that male pedophiles are not really homosexual because they do not have sexual attraction for adult males. Sprigg and Dailey (2004), Gagnon (2005) and Holland (2007) have extensively reviewed and evaluated the literature on this point, and the reader is referred to these sources for a more detailed analysis and discussion of the evidence. First, let’s note that the definition restricting “homosexual” to those individuals having sexual attraction for adults is arbitrary and biased. Second, the results of Erickson et al. (1988), discussed above, provide  evidence that male pedophiles are homosexual because they do have sexual attraction for adult males, based on their self-identification as “homosexual.” And third, Marshall et al. (1988) and Freund and Watson (1992) found, using the more objective phallometric methods, that many male homosexual pedophiles do, in fact, have significant levels of sexual attraction to adult males and are, therefore, truly homosexual by any objective definition.

Still others argue that male pedophiles are not really homosexual because homosexuality and pedophilia represent separate, distinct and mutually exclusive sexual orientations, citing differences in feminine behavior, feminine identification and early puberty (Holland, 2007). However, there is considerable evidence, summarized by Gagnon (2005) and Holland (2007), that homosexuality and pedophilia are not separate and distinct sexual orientations after all. Perhaps the most convincing of such evidence is the discovery that the development of both homosexuality and pedophilia is strongly influenced by some factor related to birth order (Bogaert et al., 1997; Blanchard and Bogaert, 1988; Blanchard et al., 2000). This additional link between homosexuality and pedophilia is one of common etiology (i.e., causation). After considering evidence related to both birth order and the order in which erotic sex preference and erotic age preference develop in individuals, Gagnon (2005) concluded that “significant continuity exists that justifies seeing a spectrum of developing homoerotic possibilities rather than a sharp line separating two polar extremes” (i.e., “homosexual” and “pedophile” defined so as to be mutually exclusive). Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that many, if not all, male homosexual pedophiles have a dual sexual preference, one based on the sex of the victim and the other based on the age of the victim.

Homosexual pedophilia is an integral, ongoing and valued component of the homosexual movement.

Baldwin (2002) and Sprigg and Dailey (2004) have documented extensively this component of the homosexual movement. The practice and celebration of consensual sexual involvement of adult homosexual men with young male teens and boys has a history dating back to ancient times. In modern times, this practice is largely represented in America by an organization called the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This group openly and proudly practices, and lobbies for acceptance of, pedophilia, claiming that they are doing their under-age victims a favor by having sex with them. In the USA, the legal age of sexual consent is determined at the state level, with all states presently falling in the 16-18 year range. However, world-wide the legal age of consent for sexual relations varies from less than 12 years of age to about 21 years of age, with 13-18 being most common. There is no reason to assume, in view of the prevalence of liberal attitudes regarding sexual morality in America, that our own legal age of consent will not be conformed to that of other, more lenient countries, in the near future. In fact, NAMBLA lobbies for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws in the USA, hoping that some day they can have their way sexually with male children of any age without fear of legal consequences. While NAMBLA is an embarrassment to some in the homosexual community, it appears that, as a whole, the homosexual community is doing more to embrace them than to marginalize them. And their presence is a real, substantial and integral part of the homosexual movement in America, as adult-youth sex is viewed and promoted by many in the homosexual community as an important, and valued, aspect of gay culture (Dailey, T.). This is an undeniable manifestation of yet another link between homosexuality and pedophilia, this link being of a more cultural nature and having an extensive historical witness.

Since the U. S. Supreme Court declared recently that so-called “gay marriage” is legal in all 50 states, pedophiles have become increasingly emboldened and committed to having pedophilia accepted as merely another sexual orientation. Their end game is to gain for pedophiles the same preferential treatment that is presently given to the homosexual orientation. That would include legalization of pedophilia and marriage to minors. This would make their sexual relations with minors legal, and they would then be free to prey on your minor children and grandchildren without penalty of law! (click HERE)

 

Closing Comments

Bisexual people manifest a dual sexual orientation, heterosexual and homosexual; everyone seems to agree on this point. Heterosexual child molesters are often married with children and so clearly manifest a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based; everyone seems to agree on this point as well. So it should not be surprising at all that the preponderance of valid evidence indicates that many male homosexual child molesters also exhibit a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based. What is surprising, perhaps, is that not everyone can agree on this point as well.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Recommended Readings:

1) Barber, M. 2013. Left’s new crusade: adult-kid sex. (Click HERE)

2) Barber, M. 2014. Left’s push for adult-child sex. (click HERE)

References:

Baldwin, S. 2002. Child molestation and the homosexual movement. Regent University Law Review 14:267-282. (click HERE)

Blanchard, A. and A .F. Bogaert. 1998. Birth order in homosexual versus heterosexual sex offenders against children, pubescents, and adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior 27:595-603.

Blanchard, A., H. E. Barbaree, A. F. Bogaert, R. Dickey, P. Klassen, M.E. Kuban and K. J. Zucker. 2000. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29:463-478.

Bogaert, A. F., S. Bezeau, M.E. Kuban and R. Blanchard. 1997. Pedophilia, sexual orientation, and birth order. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106:331-335.

Dailey, T. Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. (click HERE)

Doughty, S. 2012. One in 66 Britons is gay or bisexual – NOT one in ten, as previously thought. (click HERE)

Erickson, W. D., N. H. Walbeck, and R. K. Seely. 1988. Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:77-86.

Freund, K. and R. J. Watson. 1992. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18:34-43.

Gagnon, Robert A. J. 2005. Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture. Part II:Science: Causation and Psychopathology, Promiscuity, Pedophelia, and Sexually Transmitted Disease. (click HERE)

Groth, A. N. and H. J. Birnbaum. 1978. Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior 7:175-181.

Holland, E. 2007. Sexuality: homosexuality, child molestation, pedophilia and hebephilia. (click HERE)

Jenny, C., T. A. Roesler and K. L. Poyer. 1994. Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics 94:41-44.

Marshall, W. L., H. E. Barbaree and J. Butt. 1988. Sexual offenders against male children: sexual preferences. Behavior Research and Therapy 26:383-391.

Sprigg, P. and T. Dailey. 2004. Google Books. Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Chapter 6. Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? Pages 121-142.

by

Ears to Hear, Born Again and Gay Theology

Picture of an infant wearing a hearing aidEars to Hear, Born Again and Gay Theology

by James R. Aist

This article brings a word of wisdom and encouragement for those of us who do not find the arguments of “gay theology” to be either legitimate or persuasive. There are three points to be made here:

First, everyone is born into this world with a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26) and deaf ears (Deuteronomy 29:3-4). The only ones who can listen to the word of God and believe it are those to whom God has given a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26) and “ears to hear” (Isaiah 32:1-4). These are the ones we are able to reach with the truth of God’s word; they are our target audience, if you will. We love the others, but we cannot expect them to agree with us unless and until God gives them a “heart of flesh” and “ears to hear”. That is God’s decision and His work, not ours;

Second, those to whom God gives a “heart of flesh” and “ears to hear” will, at some point in the conversion process, become “born again”. To be “born again” is not an option for salvation; it is an absolute requirement (John 3:1-8). When one is “born again”, God, by the Holy Spirit, replaces their heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26); that is, He removes the old human spirit they were born with, which is at enmity with God, and replaces it with a new human spirit (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26), which is from God (John 3:1-8) and in harmony with God. The “born again” person loves the word of God and eagerly believes (receives) it (1 John 4:6). But to those who are not “born again”, it is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2:13); we should not expect them to believe it, because in their present condition, they cannot (1 Corinthians 2:13 and 1 John 4:6). To persist in trying to persuade them becomes, at some point, “casting our pearls before swine”, and Jesus instructed us not to do that: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6); and

Third, here is my “take home” message. Let us continue to proclaim the truth of God’s word for the sake of those who are “born again” and are in the process of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit (that’s all of us who are “born again”!). And let us not grow weary in doing this good work (Galatians 6:9) because unbelievers rant and rail against us; they are still at work in the earth doing the work of the devil (1 John 3:8 and Ephesians 2:2), so do not listen to them. The outcome of this “labor of love” of ours is up to God, not us. God only asks us to do our part by continuing to proclaim the truth of His word. He alone will bring forth the fruit of our labor according to His perfect will, His perfect plan and His perfect timing (Galatians 6:9).

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

by

The Gay Agenda: What in the World Is Going On?

Cover of DVD The Gay Agenda: March on WashingtonThe Gay Agenda: What in the World Is Going On?

by James R. Aist

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

“Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.”

Introduction

If I am to fulfill my original goal of informing my fellow born-again Christian believers about aspects of homosexuality that they really should know in order to be able to perceive and understand the culture war that’s underway in today’s world, then I am compelled to write this revealing article. Please do not dismiss these things lightly, as something that does not and will not impact you, your family and/or your quality of life. Because, in doing so, you would be making a very serious mistake.

In another article I detailed background information on the nature and consequences of the homosexual lifestyle (Click HERE), so that you can better put the individual gay agenda items into perspective when you get to them. To document the points I make and for your convenience in looking into these matters more thoroughly on your own, if you are so inclined, I have provided several, carefully selected, key references and links.

Before I delve into the substance of this introductory article, I want to make it very clear that I explicitly differentiate between people who have same-sex attractions but do not act on them, people who have same-sex attractions and practice homosexuality, and the “gay agenda” per se. Those are three completely different things, as just because someone is a homosexual person doesn’t necessarily mean that they push the “gay agenda”, and just because someone is pushing the “gay agenda” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a homosexual person. Thus, when I speak against the “gay agenda”, I am not speaking against any individual as a homosexual person, but against a social movement with which they may have only a fringe association.

The Gay Agenda

The term “Gay Agenda” apparently was coined by evangelical Christians to refer to the ideology, goals, strategies and methods of the radical homosexual activists who are primarily responsible for the progress of the homosexual movement in America. The homosexuality advocates themselves vehemently deny that they have any such agenda, presumably because they do not want the heterosexual majority in America to know that they have an agenda. Why? Because knowledge of their agenda, or even that they have one, could cast the homosexual movement in a bad light, thereby diminishing support of their goals within the heterosexual majority. The homosexual movement does, in fact, have an agenda. This agenda can be ascertained from their lists of demands published in relation to gay conventions and parades, in various gay print media articles, and in media accounts of the kinds of things they are actually doing. Action items 14-19 and 21, below, are taken directly from two publications in the late 1980s by two gay activists, Kirk and Madsen (click HERE). And with electronic media becoming more and more commonplace, the execution of the details of the gay agenda are becoming increasingly publicized and coordinated. You will undoubtedly recognize many of these developments as I describe them in the following paragraphs.

The ultimate and most all-encompassing goal of the gay agenda is to force our society to fully accept their lifestyle as  morally, socially,  and religiously equivalent to the heterosexual lifestyle. This goal is for not only acceptance, but also affirmation and celebration of homosexual behavior as normal, natural, healthy and desirable (11, 13, 14). This is what the homosexual movement is really all about. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance is being replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement of homosexuality (11).

The following action points of the gay agenda are not “straw men” trumped up by anti-gay evangelical Christians. Rather, they are taken from published statements by homosexual apologists themselves and are abundantly evident in news reports, both past and contemporary (see 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13):

1. Government encouragement, support and even requirement of sex education courses, prepared and taught by homosexual women and men, presenting homosexuality — and homosexual sex acts — as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle and a viable alternative to heterosexuality (for a recent summary of the queering of sex education in America, click HERE, and for a blatant admission that gay activists want to indoctrinate your kids, click HERE). This is where your children are taught details about homosexual sex acts and forced to commit them. (See 12, 20 and 21);

2. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent (making your children open season for pedophiles). For a recent example and expose of this action item, click HERE;

3. Repeal of all laws that restrict the gender or number of persons entering into a marriage unit;

4. Extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit, regardless of gender or numbers;

5. Addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of minorities protected by anti-discrimination laws (this would be the first minority group in America granted such status based upon volitional behavior rather than upon immutable characteristics, such as gender or race);

6. Deny tax-exempt status to organizations and institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian churches and para-church ministries);

7. Deny federal funding to institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian colleges and universities and para-church ministries);

8. Passage of “hate crimes” laws in all 50 states (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

9. Passage of laws making it criminal to have thoughts and speech of a “homophobic” nature (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

10. Permeate every level of government with gay-friendly officials (to codify the gay agenda);

11. Demand legalized same-sex marriage, thereby wrecking the traditional institution of marriage (for a recent admission of this intent by a pro-gay activist, click HERE) ;

12. Attack the Bible, especially where homosexuality is condemned, and make it appear that God does not condemn homosexuality by inventing new interpretations of selected verses (7);

13. Win over Christian churches and denominations, thereby neutralizing the greatest obstacle to the homosexual movement (7). This strategy is evidenced by the recent development of “gay theology” (click HERE), the “gay gospel” (click HERE) and the “Queen James Bible” (click HERE) ;

14. Partner with the liberal media in mounting a propaganda campaign to win over the majority of heterosexuals to the homosexual movement;

15. Portray homosexuals as victims, instead of aggressive challengers;

16. Make homosexuals look good by publicizing famous homosexuals who are well-liked by the general public;

17. Make homosexuality look good by portraying lasting, committed homosexual relationships as the norm of the homosexual lifestyle (never mind the facts that such homosexual relationships are the exception rather than the rule and that promiscuity is  rampant in such relationships, relative to heterosexual marriage);

18. Make the anti-gay “victimizers” look bad by coining and repeating charges of hatred and bigotry against anyone who does not agree with them;

19. Knowingly and intentionally propagate lies, myths and hoaxes that promote the ideals and goals of the homosexual movement, in order to win over the heterosexual majority;

20. Punish businesses that do not support the homosexual movement (e.g., boycotts, demonstrations, lawsuits and negative media blitzes).

21. “Jamming”. This tactic refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda, and it requires the full cooperation of the liberal media.

If you think, after reading this list of agenda items, that the gay agenda will not affect your own life to any significant degree, you may want to read about true-life examples of the real and present threat of the gay agenda to your personal freedoms, as reported by Gagnon (12). And for a comprehensive, documented list of recent examples of the “gay agenda” in action, click HERE.

Anyone who has been paying attention to current affairs will recognize many of the agenda items listed above as being exactly what is going on in the world. It is clear that the homosexuality advocates are bent on forcing the homosexual ideology and  lifestyle into every aspect of the American experience, including education, government, politics, health, religion, employment, and even our thought and speech. This is the means by which they are forcing our society to fully accept their lifestyle as a healthy, moral, social and religious equivalent to the heterosexual lifestyle, which it clearly is not. And this is why those of us who oppose homosexuality are becoming increasingly vocal and activist about it; we would be willing to tolerate homosexual people keeping their perversions behind closed doors where they belong, but when they take these things into the public arena and try to foist them on society in general, then we push back, and rightly so.

For another insightful treatment of this topic, click HERE.

For a discussion of a Christian response to the “gay agenda”, click HERE.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References:

7. American Family Association. 2006. Gay Activists War Against Christianity. (click HERE)

9. Barber, J.M. 2008. Unmasking the “gay” Agenda. (click HERE)

10. Burtoft, L. 1995. Setting the Record Straight. What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality. Copyright 1995 Focus on the Family.

11. Conservapedia. 2012. Homosexual Agenda. (click HERE)

12. Gagnon, R.A.J. 2004. The Threat of the Homosexual Agenda to Your Freedoms. (click HERE)

13. Smith, F.L. 1993. What You Need to Know About the Deadly Homosexual Assault. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR.

14. Sprigg, P. 2010. The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. Family research Council. (click HERE)

20. Citizens for Community Values. 2002. The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools. (click HERE)

21. Blair, L. 2013. Parents Upset After Middle School Girls Forced Into ‘Lesbian Kiss’ at NY School. (click HERE)

by

Gay Theology: Did God Really Say, “You must not…”

Portal of the Church of Pilgrims, in Washingto...Gay Theology: Did God Really Say, “You must not…”

by James R. Aist

“But if I were a Christian homosexual, I think this one question would disturb me the most: am I trying to interpret scripture in the light of my proclivity, or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of scripture?” (Morris, 1978)

Introduction

At the heart of the so-called “Gay Theology” is the claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts that occur within the context of loving, committed, enduring homosexual relationships. This, despite the fact that the Bible does appear to condemn all homosexual acts and that the Christian church has steadfastly held this position since Jesus Christ established His church almost 2,000 years ago. In effect, what gay theology is asking, rhetorically, is, “Did God really say that sex within the context of loving, committed, long-term homosexual relationships is wrong?” If the phrase “Did God really say…” sounds familiar to you, it is probably because that is exactly what Satan said to Eve in the Garden of Eden when he was trying to get her to commit the first sin: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1). And that is exactly what is happening in the Christian church today, in the form of gay theology. Satan is using gay theology to get Christians who are homosexual to continue to practice homosexuality and feel good about it, rather than repent of it. In this article, I will present some of the most important claims of gay theology, point-by-point, and show why each claim should be summarily rejected by all Christians as false doctrine. In doing so, I will draw heavily on Dallas (1991) and Davies & Rentzel (1993).

Refutation of Gay Theology

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

The claims of gay theology can be distilled down to four major points: 1) In Romans 1, Paul could not have been referring to the loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships that we hear about today, because he knew nothing of such relationships; 2) Paul, in Romans 1, was, instead, referring to temple prostitution resulting from idolatry, homosexual acts committed by a heterosexual person, and/or impersonal sex (i.e., sex without love); 3) Because Jesus did not have anything to say about homosexuality, He must have approved of homosexual acts within the context of loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships. If He did not approve of them, He would have said so; and 4) Since Jesus emphasized the “law of love”, He must have approved of homosexual acts within the context of loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships. Now let’s take a look at these four claims in the light of the biblical witness.

Claim # 1: In Romans 1, Paul could not have been referring to the loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships that we hear about today, because he knew nothing of them. Response # 1: The Apostle Paul (5-64 A.D.) was a well-educated Jew (Acts 22:3) and a citizen of the Roman Empire (Acts 22:27), traveled extensively in Greece and Italy, and would certainly have been aware of loving, lasting, committed same-sex relationships occurring both before and during his lifetime, as the following historical facts would suggest: 1) In the early Roman Imperial period, some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings were reported by sources that mocked them; the feelings of the participants were not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal referred to marriage between men as something that occurred not infrequently, although they disapproved of it; 2) The Roman Emperor Nero (54 A.D.) celebrated two public weddings with men, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedman Pythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride. These wedding ceremonies included traditional elements such as a dowry and the wearing of the Roman bridal veil; and 3) Same-sex unions were well known in Ancient Greece and Rome. These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century (Click HERE, HERE and HERE). So, despite Paul’s apparent knowledge of the existence of such homosexual relationships —  loving, lasting, and committed —  he did not endorse them as morally acceptable; rather, he consistently condemned all homo-sexual relations as sinful. Response # 2: For this claim to be true, the Holy Spirit would have had to be either tragically forgetful or grossly incompetent by allowing Paul to omit from his teaching on homosexuality that homosexual acts within the context of loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships are the exception and, therefore, to be allowed. Secondly, God would have had to let this oversight go uncorrected for 1,900 years, all the while leaving the loving homosexual couples to live in terror of going to hell, unnecessarily. I don’t know what god you believe in, but the God of the Bible is not incompetent, forgetful, or cruel! Response # 3: Jesus promised that, “…the Advocate,the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26). In this prophetic promise, “all things” would have included the exception that homosexual acts within the context of loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships are to be allowed, if God had meant for Jesus to sanction them. Instead, what Paul did was just the opposite: writing after Jesus had returned to the Father, he very specifically and unequivocally condemned all homosexual behavior as sin. This was in keeping with Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit “… will remind you of everything I have said to you.”, because Jesus had said, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person…” (Matthew 15:19-20), where the Greek word used here for “sexual immorality” (porniea) refers to all sexual sins, including homosexuality. Response # 4: Even if Paul himself had not known about loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships, God’s Holy Spirit knew about them all along — even to the present day – and yet He did not enlighten and inspire Paul to include an exception for them. So we see that Claim # 1 is nothing more than a fanciful assumption, and one cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption!

Claim # 2: Paul, in Romans 1, was referring only to temple prostitution resulting from idolatry, homosexual acts committed by a naturally heterosexual person, and/or impersonal sex (i.e., sex without love). Response # 1: If we take a closer look at Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior, we find that the Greek word translated “homosexual offenders” (1 Corinthians 6:9) or “perverts” (1 Timothy 1:10) is “arsenokoites”. When this Greek word is broken down into its component parts, its etymology (i.e., derivation) expressed in English is “male-bed-person”, which clearly indicates that, in Paul’s writings, “arsenokoites” refers to “a man who goes to bed with another man to have sex with him”, without reference to the motive, sexual orientation or nature of their relationship. In other words, “arsenokoites” refers to all occasions of homosexual behavior, including loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships. And this has been the accepted meaning of “arsenokoites” from the time of ancient Greek literature. Furthermore, if there was any exception intended, then Paul, writing under the inspiration and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, would surely have mentioned it in these passages. But he did not. Response # 2: If we read Romans 1 carefully and critically, and without reading anything into it, we see that Paul refers to homosexual desires and behavior as “vile affections”, “against nature”, and “unseemly” in and of themselves. There is not even a hint that he might have been referring exclusively to temple prostitution, homosexual acts committed by a naturally heterosexual person, and/or impersonal sex (i.e., sex without love). To suggest otherwise is nothing more than an assumption without any scriptural basis in the context of Romans 1. Response # 3: The Apostle Paul was, himself, a highly educated, well-informed and zealous proponent of Judaism (Acts 22:3). It is a documented, historical fact that among the religious Jews there has been, and still is, an unusually low incidence of homosexual behavior, relative to other people groups (Whitehead and Whitehead, 2012). Homosexuality as a component of temple idol worship has long since disappeared from the religious landscape, and yet homosexuality among religious Jews still occurs at an unusually low rate. These facts, taken together, clearly indicate that Judaism has, from its earliest days to the present, considered homosexual behavior to be sinful in and of itself, as a natural reading of the relevant Old Testament passages indicates. And that explains why homosexual behavior was and is taboo across the Jewish culture, and not just as it was manifested in temple idol worship; Judaism has always considered homosexual behavior to be sin. So, when Paul discussed homosexual behavior in the New Testament, he was teaching from his historical, Jewish understanding of the sinful nature of homosexual acts per se, as well as from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So we see that Claim # 2 is nothing more than a fanciful assumption, and one cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption!

Claim # 3: Because Jesus did not have anything to say about homosexuality, He must have approved of homosexual acts within the context of loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships. If He did not approve of them, He would have said so. Response #1: Wherever the Bible says that the practice of homosexuality is sin, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) & God the Holy Spirit (the one, triune God) are talking. Therefore, Jesus said everything the Bible says about homosexuality: Genesis 19:5 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Judges 19:22-25; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10. While the Bible does not record Jesus singling out homosexual acts per se, as sexual sins, one of His teachings, as recorded by Matthew and Mark, implies that He did consider them to be sin: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person…” (Matthew 15:19-20) and “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:21-23). The Greek word translated “sexual immorality” in both accounts is “porneia”, which, according to Strong’s Concordance, refers to all forms of illicit sexual intercourse, including adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality and incest. It would be presumptuous, at best, to conclude that, out of all the sexual sins that this Greek word refers to, Jesus meant to exclude homosexual acts. If He had meant to exclude homosexual acts from the list, He could have said something like “…sexual immorality (“porneia”), except homosexuality (“arsenokoites”),…”, but He didn’t. The implication, from the context, is that He meant to include homosexual acts among the sins to which He was referring. If this implication is not correct, then Jesus — the man who is also the Divine Son of the all-knowing God — did not say what He meant and therefore mislead His hearers! I would suggest that if you believe that about Jesus, then you may just believe in a “different Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4). Response # 2: Paul declared that “the wicked”, including unrepentant “homosexual offenders”, “…will not inherit the kingdom of God…” (I Corinthians 6:9-10), and went on to say that “the wicked” were all washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God (I Corinthians 6:11). So think about it: if God really made some people homosexual, approved of homosexual behavior, and wanted them to remain gay, then why did He change them in the name (“name”: literally, power and authority) of the Lord Jesus Christ? I think you and I both know why He changed them. And if Jesus approved of homosexual behavior and wanted them to remain gay, how could they have been changed by His own power and authority? Obviously, Jesus also wanted them to be changed. Why? Because the homosexual offenders were wicked (I Corinthians 6:11)! Response # 3: This claim presumes that the recorded words of Jesus are more authoritative than the words of Scripture elsewhere and that Jesus does not agree with what the other writers of the Bible have to say about homosexuality. But it is the Holy Spirit of God who inspired all of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), including epistles like Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, where homosexual behavior is specifically and directly addressed and condemned as sin. And, the role of the Holy Spirit in us is conviction of sin, not denial of sin.  Moreover, Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead — in fact, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus (Romans 8:9 ) — and have been in perfect and eternal communion and harmony all along. Therefore, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with everything the Holy Spirit revealed in the Bible about moral issues, including homosexuality. In fact, the entire Bible is the inspired (God-breathed) word of God, Who exists in three persons – God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus said everything the Bible says about homosexuality. Response # 4: The Bible does not record all that Jesus did (John 20:30) and it does not claim to have recorded all that He said. An assumption based on the lack of a specific reference to homosexual sins in particular cannot be used to prove a point.  So we see that Claim # 3 is nothing more than a fanciful assumption, and one cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption!

Claim # 4: Since Jesus emphasized the “law of love”, He must have approved of homosexual acts within the context of loving, committed and enduring homosexual relationships. This claim assumes that the presence of caring and committed love in a relationship sanctifies any and all kinds of lovemaking in that relationship. This is, in fact and unfortunately, the prevailing view in our secular culture. But is this secular view compatible with the biblical view? Response # 1: If this claim is true, then, to be consistent and fair, Jesus would also approve of such sexual sins as fornication, adultery and incest, since all of these relationships can, and often do, involve love, apart from lovemaking. But the Bible condemns all of these other sexual behaviors as sin, despite the presence of love in such relationships. There is no rational basis for claiming that homosexual relationships are the exception. Response # 2: Nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that Jesus even hinted that a motive of love can justify any kind of sinful behavior, including homosexual behavior. Rather, Jesus said that if we love Him, we will obey Him (John 14:23) and that if we do not love Him, we will not obey him (John 14:24). And since Jesus did, in fact, agree with all that the Bible says about homosexuality (see responses to Claim # 3), to obey Him includes abstention from homosexual acts and to not obey Him includes refusing to abstain from homosexual acts. Jesus did not come to save us in our sins, but to save us from our sins. So we see that Claim # 4 is nothing more than a fanciful assumption, and one cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption!

Perhaps the most powerful argument against the homosexual lifestyle is theological, based on Genesis 1:27,
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Those who live homosexually blaspheme the image of God, for this is a heterosexual image. “How can male and female have anything to do with the image of God?” you may ask, since God is not a sexual being. Here’s how: God is the creator of human life; that is part of His “image” (i.e., who He is). So, in order for us to be created in that aspect of the “image of God”, He created us male and female, so that we could participate with Him in the creation of human life through heterosexual acts. Homosexual acts cannot create human life and, therefore, blaspheme the image of God in us.

I would guess that very few Christians are aware that the Bible has stern rebukes and dire warnings for those who approve of sin or encourage others to sin, but it does (Leviticus 19:1; Isaiah 5:20; Malachi 2:17; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 18:6; Romans 14:22). Thus, anyone, including born-again Christians, who even approves of or encourages the sins of homosexuality will, someday, have to answer to God for it. If that’s you, then now is the time to repent!

Challenges:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

If you are interested in exploring gay theology and its refutations in more detail, then I recommend that you check out the references and links listed at the end of this post. And, if you are a homosexual Christian who is unwilling to repent of (turn away from) your homosexual behavior, or if you are a heterosexual Christian who approves of or encourages homosexual behavior in any way, I hope that you will be willing to read, carefully and thoughtfully, the following Bible passages and re-think that:

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” (Ephesians 4:14-15)

“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.  This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” (1 John 4:6)

” … find out what pleases the Lord.  Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.  For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” (Ephesians 5:10-12)

” … offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual act of worship.  Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.  Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Romans 12:1-2)

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves.  Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

“Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” (2 Timothy 2:19)

” … the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.” (Psalm 1:5)

“He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.  The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the Devil’s work.  No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.  This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the Devil are:  Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:10)

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:  If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)

“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.  So be earnest, and repent.” (Revelation 3:19)

Do It Yourself

Here’s how to do a study of the Hebrew and Greek root words used in the Bible to express God’s views on homosexuality, without being a Hebrew or Greek scholar yourself: 1) find online and open “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” at “Bible Study Tools” (click HERE); 2) follow the instructions given in the introductory pane; 3) check the “Strong’s Numbers” box at the top right of your reading pane to view the Hebrew and Greek lexicons using Strong’s Concordance numbers; 4) enter, in turn, the following Bible verses — Genesis 19:5 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 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. You will find, as expected, that wherever homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is consistently condemned as sin, abomination, per-version, etc. And understand that later English versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and NAS, consulted the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, rather than relying on the KJV. The claim of gay activists, that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior, is nothing but pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as you can see for yourself.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited:

Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. What do different cultures tell us about homosexuality? (click HERE)

Dallas, J. 1991. Desires in Conflict. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR. pp. 267-282.

Davies, B. & L. Rentzel. 1993. Coming Out of Homosexuality. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. pp. 183-189.

Morris, P.D. 1978. Shadow of Sodom. Facing the Facts of Homosexuality. Tyndall House. 164 pp.

Recommended Links for further 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)

Pro-Gay Theology Overview (click HERE)

Gay Revisionist Theology: Did God Really Say…? (click HERE)