Doug Gray presented a paper in The Ethics Round Table on the biblical perspective on homosexuality that I thought might be helpful. He presents the arguments used to support homosexuality from the Bible and culture. Then he gives a biblical response.
Roundtable on Ethics – 2009/2010
Homosexuality
I. Arguments made by pro-homosexuals based on misinterpretations of the Bible ((No positive argument is provided to assert that the Bible specifically references homosexuality as good or desirable. Rather, biblically based arguments supporting homosexuality address perceived inaccuracies of interpretation or indirect references.))
a. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality – this argument holds that Gen. 19:8 points to the sin of Sodom being inhospitality rather than homosexuality. Along these lines, this argument holds that Gen. 19:5 uses the Hebrew word “yadha” that should properly be interpreted “to get acquainted.” Thus, Gen. 19:5 would give the idea that the men of Sodom wanted to become acquainted with Lot’s visitors, not have sexual relations with them.
b. The sin of Sodom was selfishness – this argument is based on Ezek. 16:49 that specifically lists the sins of Sodom as arrogance, abundant food (perhaps gluttony), careless ease (perhaps slothfulness), and not helping the needy. This verse does not address sexual activities.
c. The Levitical law regarding homosexuality no longer applies – this argument holds that the primary Levitical law against homosexuality (Lev. 18:22) was just one of many that are no longer applicable (ex. eating pork). Thus, when Acts 15:6-12 references to the apostles lifting the “yoke,” the bondage of not allowing homosexuality is included.
d. The O.T. law was based on a strong cultural bias toward having children – this argument holds that it would be no surprise that a culture that holds having children in high regard would set law opposed to homosexuality. Proponents liken the unfavorable treatment of homosexuality to that of barrenness (Gen. 16:1; I Sam. 1:3-8).
e. Homosexual references in the O.T. were associated with idolatry – this argument holds that the association with idolatry was the reason for condemnation in Deut. 23:17 and I Kings 14:24. Thus, only those acts associated with idolatry would be considered sin.
f. Paul’s statements regarding homosexuality were opinions, not commands from God – this argument refers to Paul’s statement in I. Cor. 7:25, “I have no command from the Lord …” to mean that Paul was referencing a culturally-biased opinion (just like reference to disgracefulness of long hair) rather than a moral absolute in his I Cor. 6:9-10 condemnation.
g. I. Cor. 6:9-10 only condemns offensive homosexual acts – this argument holds that generally homosexual acts are not immoral, only the ones referenced as offensive by Paul.
h. Paul’s argument against homosexuality in Rom. 1:26-7 spoke against “unnatural” acts – this argument implies that if something is “natural,” then it does not carry the same condemnation from Romans 1. This argument defines natural in the sociological context rather than biological one and says that each person must act in a manner consistent with their natural tendencies.
i. Isaiah 56:3 indicates that homosexuals are in the kingdom of God – this argument states that the reference to eunuchs in the kingdom of God applies to homosexuals.
j. David and Jonathan were homosexuals – this argument contends that I Sam. 18-20 records the intense love between David and Jonathan. Specifically:
i. Jonathan loved David (I Sam 18:3)
ii. Jonathan stripped before David (I Sam. 18:4)
iii. The two kissed each other (I Sam. 20:41)
II. Positive arguments against homosexuality based on the Bible
a. God ordained heterosexuality, not homosexuality – the origin of human sexuality comes in the context of Gen. 1:27-28 and 2:24, as marriage is the exclusive context ordained by God for sexual relationship. This is reaffirmed in Heb. 13:4.
b. Homosexuality was condemned under the Mosaic Law – Lev. 18:22-23 clearly speaks to homosexuality being prohibited as an abomination.
c. The condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture extended beyond the Jews. Thus the Mosaic prohibition was moral, not merely ceremonial.
i. Lev. 18:24-29 – God was seeking judgment against the Canaanites for committing abominations listed in previous verses, including (but not limited to) homosexuality.
ii. Gen. 19:5; Jude 7 – Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for homosexuality.
iii. Rom. 1:26-7 – Homosexuality among Gentiles condemned.
iv. I Cor. 6:9-10 – Homosexuals listed among those not inheriting the Kingdom of God.
d. Homosexual temple prostitutes were condemned – Deut. 23:17-8
e. Homosexuality is described as more disgraceful than heterosexual rape (Judges 19:22-30)
f. The prophets condemned homosexuality – I Kings 14:24; II Kings 23:7; Ezek. 16:49-50
III. Biblical responses to arguments for homosexuality
a. The sin of Sodom clearly included homosexuality – both the Hebrew language (yadha) and context indicate that homosexuality, not inhospitality, was the sin of Sodom. Ten of twelve references in Genesis are specifically in the context of sexual intercourse (Hence the expression, “knowing someone in the Biblical sense).
b. The sin of Sodom went beyond simple selfishness – Ezek. 16:49 speaks to Sodom’s selfishness as the underlying cause, but v. 50 goes on to speak of Sodom’s abominable actions as the sinful manifestation of that cause/motive. (word translated “abomination” is tow’ ebah – same word used in Lev. 18:22)
c. The Mosaic prohibition against homosexuality was moral, not merely ceremonial. Lev. 18:24-9; I Cor. 6:9-10; and Rom. 1:26-27 point to immorality of homosexuality outside the bounds of Mosaic Law.
d. Barrenness had nothing to do with the sinfulness of homosexuality – in Matt. 19:11-2, Jesus specifically refers positively to being single and spreading the gospel. Paul refers to celibacy as a gift from the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 7:8).
e. While idolatry deserves condemnation, homosexuality is condemned separately from idolatry – thus any connection between idolatry and homosexuality is not an essential one for condemnation (Lev. 18:22-9; Rom. 1:26-7). In fact, the Ten Commandments separate idolatry from sexual sins.
f. Paul’s teachings on homosexuality are authoritative – most direct condemnation of homosexuality by Paul is in Rom. 1, which is not questioned as authoritative. However, even in I Corinthians, Paul asserts his authority given by God (I Cor. 2:13; I Cor. 12:12). The statement in I. Cor. 7:25 was one indicating that God had not previously addressed this in Scripture. Rather, it was a statement of truth (John 16:13).
g. Paul’s condemnation was not cultural – the argument for cultural bias is based on Paul’s I Cor. 11:14 reference to long hair being dishonoring to a man (too bad for the mullet). However, never does Paul exclude men with long hair from the Kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9-10); from the church (sexual sins in I Cor. 5:1-5); or as dishonoring to God (Rom. 1:21-27).
h. Homosexuality is the offense in I Cor. 6:9 – this verse is correctly understood that homosexuals are the offenders, as homosexual qualifies offenders (not the opposite). In addition, this context speaks to the homosexual type of offense, not the offensive type of homosexual.
i. Biblical reference speaks to homosexuality going against nature (Rom. 1:26). Nature is biological and not merely a sociological predisposition. The true and right nature of sexuality was created by God as described in Gen. 1-2.
j. Isaiah’s statement clearly addresses eunuchs, not homosexuals (Is. 56:3). Eunuchs are asexual either by birth, mutilation, or spiritual gifting.
k. David and Jonathan were clearly not homosexuals – otherwise David would not have been so strongly attracted to Bathsheba (II Sam. 11:2-27). Specific to I Sam. 18 – Jonathan removed his armor, not his clothing (v. 4), and the emotion in I Sam. 20:41 was mourning (weeping), not arousal.
IV. Other arguments in favor of homosexuality
a. There is nothing wrong with sex between two consenting adults in private. Only coercion is wrong.
b. The right to privacy protects homosexuality. This argument attempts to equate the constitutionality of homosexuality with the right to choose for women.
c. Homosexuals have civil rights. This argument attempts to equate homosexuality with other minorities protected from discrimination.
d. Sexual tendencies are inherited. This argument claims that if sexual inclinations are hereditary/genetic, then we cannot discriminate based on biological traits.
e. Morality has evolved since biblical times. This argument contends that past condemnation is not sufficient cause for condemnation today (just as premarital sex and cohabitation before marriage are no longer condemned).
f. Many other mammals are homosexual too. This argument is that nature sanctions same sex activity. Homo sapiens are not exempt from behavior patterns of other mammals.
V. Responses to the other arguments for homosexuality
a. Mutual consent does not make anything moral. Two adults can consent to double suicide, and that does not make it right. The individuals’ choices are not the ultimate standard of morality.
b. The right to privacy does not grant anyone the right to conduct immoral activity. Changing location does not change the morality of an action.
c. No rights exist specific to homosexuals – each person has the right as a citizen. However, no civil right should encourage what is wrong.
d. Homosexual tendencies are not inherited – several problems with the genetic argument:
i. No undisputed evidence supports this claim
ii. Homosexuality shows psychological evidence of being a learned behavior
iii. The homosexual movement is actively recruiting new members
iv. Predisposition to an activity does not make it right (i.e. predisposition to cannibalism, violence, alcohol abuse, etc.)
v. Everyone is predisposed to sin. Homosexuality is one form (of many)
e. Morality does not merely change due to time. Our understanding (or misunderstanding) of morality may change, but morality is not temporal.
f. Animal behavior is not normative for humans. Animals are not morally responsible creatures. Instinct rules animal behavior. Humans are created in the image of God and are culpable for failure to adhere to the moral standards set by the Creator.
VI. My Position – homosexuality is immoral based on biblical, logical, and contextual arguments
a. Biblical arguments – laid out previously, but to review:
i. God created His design for sexuality (Gen. 1-2) – heterosexuality exclusively in the context of marriage.
ii. Throughout the old and new testaments, God’s condemnation of homosexuality is upheld (Gen. 19, Lev. 18, Judges 19, Rom. 1, I Cor. 6 – to name a few)
iii. While proponents of homosexuality attempt to argue these Scriptures with eisegesis, not one biblical reference speaking favorably of homosexuality is provided, nor does it exist. Proper exegesis of Scripture only confirms God’s hatred of homosexuality as a perversion of His design.
iv. The proper response by the church is to maintain purity by removing homosexuality from its midst (I Cor. 5:1-5).
b. Logical arguments:
i. Homosexuality is not natural
1. No one was born of a homosexual union – nor can homosexuality provide a subsequent generation.
2. Homosexual behavior is not normal – rather a very small minority actually claims to be homosexual.
3. Ex-homosexuals testify to being recruited and subsequently returning to normal heterosexual relationships.
ii. Homosexual practices are physically destructive
1. Enteric infections/diseases
2. Elevated incurrence of STDs
3. Significantly higher instances of anal bleeding/lesions
4. Higher incurrence of HIV+/AIDS
c. Contextual arguments:
i. Even in a society as accommodative to so many forms of sexual behavior as the United States, continued elections reaffirm the understanding that homosexuality is not suitable for marriage.
ii. The homosexual agenda is a politically-driven movement. This was very recently evident in a student majoring in Early Childhood Education at the University of Oklahoma. His stated agenda was to ensure that his kindergarten classroom made prominent use of books exposing children to same sex unions. His response to a guest lecturer presenting education from a biblical worldview was that the speaker was promoting “brain washing.” Interestingly, he was arguing to “brain wash” kindergartners based on his definition. Clearly, the goal was not merely to act out of conscience and practice a “natural” inclination. Rather, it was to change others’ perceptions.
