There should be no question that the Bible forbids homosexuality. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22) Some people think this doesn't apply to us because it's found in the Old Testament and the apostle Paul wrote that Christians "are not under the Law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14). They must be unaware that he condemned homosexuality in the same letter. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (Rom. 1:26, 27) The laws Christians don't have to abide by are nonmoral Jewish laws that include circumcision, dietary rules and making sacrifices to atone for sin. These laws of Judaism have been abolished (Acts 10:9-15; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:2, 3; 6:15; Col. 3:11; Heb. 10:12, 26; 13:19), so the Bible's critics reveal their ignorance when pointing out that Christians ignore the prohibition against eating animals that don't chew the cud or don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:3-8), for example. It wasn't humans who one day decided laws like that are outdated. God made that decision.

A popular challenge against the Bible's prohibtion of homosexuality is its acceptance of slavery. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]." (Ex. 21:20, 21) This refers to a Hebrew servant who was bought by another Hebrew for six years of service (Ex. 21:1), but was a servant for life only by choice (Ex. 21:5, 6). Evidently, corporal punishment was permitted. In an age when spanking children is almost taboo, punishment by striking with a rod must seem barbaric. But excessive corporal punishment would result in servants being freed (Ex. 21:26, 27), so they were to be treated humanely. And they were never abducted to be sold because that practice was strictly forbidden (Ex. 21:16). Some servants were sold for not paying restitution for something they stole (Ex. 22:1-3), or they chose to sell themselves due to poverty (Lev. 25:39, 47). Others were foreigners who lived in Israel (Lev. 25:44, 45). They likely volunteered to be servants for the privilege of living in Jewish land, which would ensure them an inheritance with the Jews (Ezk. 22, 23). Slavery is also mentioned in the New Testament by Paul, who told bondservants to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22). People in ancient times often lost their freedom by committing a crime or going into debt, but whatever the reason, masters were to treat their servants humanely (Eph. 6:8, 9; Col. 4:1).

Secular humanism deems the ownership of humans as immoral, but in the eyes of humanists we are animals who have evolved the right to own animals of another species. The Bible says God gave us dominion over other animals (Gen. 1:26), while humanists believe superior genes give us that right. Though it's probably unsettling for them to acknowledge, humanists have a brand of morality that's based on opinion and their views on sexuality are very similar to those held by fans of Jerry Springer's talk show. I used to watch that trash and every episode I saw with homosexuals had an audience that accepted it, but it was much different when guests on the show were involved in incest. Everyone in the audience seemed disgusted but would probably call Christians bigots for reacting the same way to homosexuality. They put gay couples in the same category as interracial couples and say it's great that the stigma is disappearing for same-sex couples as it is for interracial couples. Times are changing, they say, and Christians need to keep up with the times. But would they be willing to change their views on incest if it became more prevalent? How many people would have to have sexual relations with a family member to make it acceptable in these modern times?

It's particulary disturbing when so-called Christians disregard the Bible's moral authority and put more trust in whatever opinions gain popularity. They think we have the right to decide if and when it's okay to override out Creator's authority, often using the analogy of the modern acceptance of interracial couples. They may interpret Deuteronomy 7:3 as a condemnation of interracial marriage, but these Jews were forbidden to marry the foreigners around them because foreign influence would turn them away from God (Deut. 7:4). It's the same with Ezra 9:1, 2. They were condemned for mixing their "holy seed" (v. 2) with the people of those lands because it led to them "doing according to their abominations" (v. 1). One of those lands was Moab from which Naomi's two Jewish sons took wives (Ruth 1:3, 4), because those particular Moabites lived for God (Ruth 1:6). This resulted in the bloodline of King David being mixed with Moabite blood (Matt. 1:5, 6, 17), so interracial marriages are fine with God. All that's changed on this issue is public opinion. In contrast, marriage between relatives was permitted up to a certain time (Lev. 18:6), before which interbreeding didn't cause birth defects. The law against homosexuality was given at the same time (Lev. 18:22), but it was never acceptable prior to that. The first man was given a woman as his companion (Gen. 1:22) and men were expected to marry women (Gen. 1:24). So even before homosexuality was declared a sin, Lot knew the men of Sodom were wicked for wanting carnal relations with other men (Gen. 19:4-7). He knew it was unnatural and that's what people don't understand when saying same-sex relationships are as normal as interracial relationships. If you played with Legos as a child you know that color doesn't determine what fits together. God designed our bodies so that men would have sexual relations with women and skin color is irrelevant.

Paul wrote Timothy about a time when people would reject sound doctrine in place of fables to satisfy their own desires (II Tim. 4:3, 4). That's the case with the so-called Christians today who accept only the parts of the Bible that please them and reject the rest. They might as well quit pretending to acknowledge an authority above their own and call themselves humanists, who think it's up to humans to decide what's acceptable, and that what's acceptable is subject to change. If we really did evolve from a lower species, there was a time in the past when our species decided it was unacceptable to be naked in public, and popular opinion decided we should wear clothing. Public nudity is an animal behavior most humanists frown upon, while other animal behaviors they deem acceptable. It has been argued that homosexuality must be natural if animals have had same-sex encounters. Animals have also had sexual encounters with siblings and members of another species, so is it acceptable for humans to have a sexual partner with a family member or from another species? Leviticus 18 says no to all of the above. Verse 6 forbids incest, verse 22 forbids homosexuality, and verse 23 forbids bestiality. We were made in God's image (Gen. 1:26), but animals weren't and we shouldn't behave like them.

What the Bible says about homosexuality means nothing to people who think a majority's approval makes it acceptable. No matter what the sexual preference, their definition of perversion is defined by opinion. Most of them wouldn't think twice about saying pedophilia is wrong, but if asked why, that is something they would have to think about. Is it because it hurts children, and if children voluntarily have sex with adults, how are they hurt? With no moral authoriy higher than human judgment, the best they can answer is it's unacceptable in their culture. But if another culture in a different time or a different place accepted pedophilia, they would say it's wrong in that culture too. They may have been called pedophobic if they were Americans in the early 1800s. Though homosexuality was illegal back then, pedophilia evidently was not as unpopular since men could legally have sex with a prepubescent girl. Even so, it was just as wrong then as it is now. Morality doesn't change with the times, regardless of how many people change their views on sexuality. No mere human has the right to tell the rest of humanity which sex acts are okay if it's not on behalf of some higher authority. If you have no religion, you can't be accepting of one sexual preference while condemning another. You can't pick and choose at your own discretion, as though you are God.

Sexual behavior is a choice, so it makes no sense when the condemnation of homosexuality is compared to racism, as it often is. Even if you disregard the truth that there is no inferior race (Acts 17:26), you can't argue that people choose their race. Skin color is determined at birth, while a sexual preference is acquired at some point in a person's life. Homosexuals may not be able to eliminate their desires, but neither can most pedophiles. Many of them genuinely believe their feelings for children are about love. So should pedophiles act on their desires? Absolutely not. Although psychologists say they can't be cured, there are programs to help them control their urges. It seems to infuriate homosexuals when their behavior is compared to pedophilia, yet they can't logically explain why their preference is acceptable and pedophilia isn't. When human judgment defines perversion, sexual morality is a fallible product of a mere mortal's assumptions. They can't dispute that.

There's a claim that homosexuality is biological, with one study concluding a gene on the X chromosome influences sexual orientation. Other studies have concluded there's a biological link to serial killers. Research has indicated that an additional male Y chromosome or irregular levels of certain neurochemicals will induce aggression, cruelty and violence. Then there are the studies that link alcoholism with genetics. Whether genetics plays a part or not, all of these behaviors are choices. And when it comes to the blatant ignorance of biology known as gender identity, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community contradict themselves by disregarding genetics altogether. They can't have it both ways. If they want to talk genetics, they must acknowledge that the gene that forms testes is on the Y chromosome only, without which ovaries will form by default. Both sexes have X chromosomes, but males alone have Y chromosomes. The presence or absense of the Y chromosome in the sperm that fertilizes an egg determines sex at conception, so transsexuals are absolutely wrong when claiming they were born the gender they identify themselves as. They've transformed themselves to appear to be what they are not.

Somehow it has become politically incorrect to acknowledge the biological difference between males and females. It used to be most everyone would call a man a pervert for going into a women's restroom. Now people will say "she" shouldn't be discriminated against for being "herself." The truth of the matter is he, not she, isn't being himself. He's pretending he doesn't have a penis. Even a sex-change operation would do nothing but mutilate his sex organ. He would still have the chromosome responsible for him being born a boy (Y), just as females who identify as males are still missing that chromosome. It's inconceivable that anyone today can be more ignorant of biology than people in ancient times who knew nothing about genetics, but that is the case. Imagine asking about the sex of a newborn baby and being told it won't be known until he or she is old enough to make that decision. This isn't from a script written for an episode of The Twilight Zone. It's the bizarre new reality Christians are now dealing with in addition to homosexuality.

The first man had X and Y chromosomes both, and God removed one of his ribs to form the first woman (Gen. 2:21, 22) who had only X chromosomes. She was "called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:23). Since something was taken out of Man to make Woman, maybe there's significance in women having one of the two types of chromosomes in men. In any case, the woman was formed to be the man's wife (Gen. 2:24). The definition of marriage is as old and universal as the definition of gender. Now, thousands of years later, people are trying to redefine both. In the case of same-sex marriage, being opposed to it isn't about forcing homosexuals to change their lifestyle. It's being opposed to having to accept their lifestyle as an official union. Not redefining marriage doesn't entail legislating morality, and few Christians protest the legality of things like adultery and homosexuality alone. (In Old Testament times, these and a number of other sins carried the death penalty for the Israelites in order to preserve their covenant with God [Lev. 10:6, 7, Deut. 17:2-7; 22:20-22]. However, we are not ancient Israelites, and there's no Scripture that requires any government today to base its laws strictly on the Bible.)

It's not good enough for a lot of homosexuals and transsexuals to have the freedom to behave as they wish. They keep trying to force everyone to accept their lifestyle. For instance, the dating website eHarmony set up a site for homosexuals in 2009 after being hit with several lawsuits for offering services to heterosexuals only. But what about the dating services only for homosexuals? And what about dating services that are exclusively for single parents? Should someone without a child sue for discrimination? Also, men who claim they're women might call it discrimination if they're not allowed in a restaurant wearing a skirt. So what about the fancy restaurants that require men to wear a suit and tie? Should it be legal that they'd be denied service if they walked in dressed casually? If someone can legally be denied service based on personal preference, why should it be illegal to do the same on religious grounds?

It appears you can discriminate against some forms of sexuality but not others. School teachers have been fired when it was discovered they were in a porno, yet it was an issue when the Boy Scouts of America didn't allow homosexuals in their organization. Stores haven't been threatened with legal action for not developing pictures that contain nudity, but photographers might be in trouble if they refuse to take pictures at a same-sex wedding. One has to wonder how a homosexual who prints T-shirts for a living would feel about being forced to print something that condemns homosexuality. Not only would gay-rights activists be against that, many of them would call it hate speech. In fairness, some of them have defended the free-speech rights of Christians. But many others blame hatred on the Bible, a book that forbids hatred (Gal. 5:19-21), teaching that Jesus loves sinners and came into the world to save them (Matt. 9:10-13; I Tim 1:14, 15).

The small number of "Christians" who hate homosexuals and transsexuals are just as ignorant of the Bible as the "Christians" who claim homosexuality and gender transformation are okay with God. What we have on our hands is an identity crisis. People are identifying as a gender they aren't, a religion they aren't, or both. True Christians are unfairly put in the same category as people who merely identify as Christians, and it's often ignored that a lot of the so-called Christians who hate gay men are sexually aroused by lesbian behavior. These hypocrites obviously don't care what the Bible says. It's also hypocritical that so many of the gay-rights activists who accuse Christians of hatred relentlessly ridicule Christians, not to mention the gay clubs that feature a display of Jesus being sodomized. Their resentment is unjustified. Christians care about them, as they do prostitutes, adulterers and other sexually immoral individuals.

Copyright © 2011, 2018