Homosexuality, the law, ethics and the Bible.............

Homosexuality: the law, ethics & the Bible

What the Bible says:

The biblical case against the act of homosexuality is quite clear:

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"
[Lev 18.22]

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act ..."
[Lev 20.13]

"You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog [male prostitute] into the house of the Lord ..."
[Deut 23.18]

"There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations ..."
[1 Kings 14:24]

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law ..."
[Mat 5.17]

" ... men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts ..."
[Rom 1.27]

"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor ... homosexuals ... will inherit the kingdom of God"
[1 Cor 6.9,10]

"and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction ... and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men ..."
[2 Pet 2.6,7]

"and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it [the heavenly city]"
[Rev 21.27]

"Outside [the heavenly city] are the dogs [male prostitutes] and the sorcerers and the immoral persons ..."
[Rev 22.15]

Summarizing the above:

The Old Testament books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy state God's moral law regarding homosexual acts and lifestyle. God sees these acts as detestable and an abomination, and He underscored His word by destroying the sodomy of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19.5,24).

Moral law is timeless and Jesus upheld it in Mat 5.17. So we find the same moral view throughout the New Testament right up to Revelation. Those who willfully persist in immoral behavior, as defined by God's moral law, will be left outside the Kingdom of God (symbolized by the heavenly city).

The Main Point

God is holy and instructs man to be likewise:

"You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."
[Lev 19.2][1 Pet 1.15,16]

A good definition of holiness is "to conform to God's character, to be set apart for His purpose". God cannot co-exist with unholiness and this point is made at the very end of the Bible. Regarding that heavenly city, God says:

"and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination ... shall ever come into it ... "
[Rev 21.27]

"Outside are the dogs [male prostitutes] ... and the immoral persons ... [Rev 22.15]

This raises the question of what happens after death. The Bible says we are either included in or excluded from that heavenly city - the Kingdom of God. To be excluded means eternal separation from God.

The Good News

The uniqueness of the Christian faith is that reconciliation to God and complete forgiveness are assured through the death of Jesus on the cross. We can have a new life and are promised entry to that heavenly city.

Lifestyle Change

Consider James Hartline. James ran away from home after extreme physical and emotional abuse. At 17 he was introduced to the homosexual community and found men paying him the attention his father never gave. This lifestyle pursued him in prison, where he spent a total of 19 years.

Whilst in prison James had a vision from God that would change his life. Upon release he subsequently became infected with HIV and at that point (faced with a death sentence) he took conversion to Christ more seriously. He had a choice; stay with the San Diego homosexual community, or change his lifestyle and follow Christ. He did the latter and today he is active in helping those struggling with homosexuality.

Homosexuality and the Law

Since the 1960's Western culture has progressively legalized private homosexual acts between consenting adults. In the UK, the Sexual Offenses Act (1967) decriminalized private sexual acts between men 21 years or over in England and Wales. The minimum age of consent at which a person may lawfully consent to buggery and to certain homosexual acts was then reduced to 16 in England and Wales by the Sexual Offenses (Amendment) Act 2000. This came into force in 2001. In 1973 the Dutch mental health institutions stopped treating homosexuality as an illness and the military lifted its ban on homosexuals. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage in 2001. In America the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated all state sodomy laws in 2003, opening the floodgates to the legalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriages state by state.

In Europe, social and employment law surrounding homosexuality has been formalized and prompted by EU legislation. The European Union Article 13 Race & Employment Directives require EU member states to introduce legislation to outlaw unfair discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. This applies in the fields of employment and training, and in the provision of goods and services. In response to such directives the UK government introduced the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

Homosexuality and Free Speech (UK)

In order to avoid conflict with Human Rights Law on free speech (specifically, the right to publicly manifest religious belief), the UK 2007 Regulations included exemption to cover the activities of religious organizations. The exemption applied for example when it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organization. In principle therefore, it was still possible for a church to publicly state the biblical teaching on the subject of homosexuality, even when it conflicted with homosexual practice. In principle, free speech was protected.

Then in May 2008 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was passed. The Act created the criminal offense of ‘incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ and the Government, at the instigation of ‘gay rights’ lobby groups, initially refused to make exceptions that would allow for free speech by those who wish to express their disagreement with homosexual practice. In order to protect free speech a group of dedicated Peers in the House of Lords tabled an amendment as section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986. This ‘free speech clause’ read:

"In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

Homosexual lobby groups then persuaded the UK government to include a clause in the Coroners & Justice Bill 2009 (Clause 58) that would remove the free speech clause. Such law, if brought into force, could overrule Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (or Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) in the Courts.

In all this it is important to recognize that, if absolute morality exists, the fact that the law sanctions homosexual acts and tries to muzzle free speech on such acts does not make homosexual acts moral (see later).

Is Homosexuality Normal?

Western ethics tend to be those of Postmodernism. They maintain that:

• What is, is OK
• All homosexual activity is a viable choice, and there is no guilt
• Homosexual feelings are normal; youth are advised “there is nothing wrong with you”

But are homosexual feelings normal? In deed, what is 'normal'. Homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Three main studies are cited by ‘gay rights’ activists in support of their argument: Hamer's X-chromosome research, LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals. It is claimed that in all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves, and that their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers [Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality]. The BUWA concluded that "There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes". Evenso, some scientists still maintain that homosexuality is due to a complex combination of social, psychological, and biological factors [National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, NARTH].

Others support the BUWA and maintain that NARTH's 'biological factor' is not a fundamental genetic one:

"No researcher has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren’t caused by their behaviour ... no one has found a single heredible genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals." [Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs]

For example, studies of 1700 homosexuals in the 1940's and nearly 1000 homosexuals in 1970 reported that homosexuals overwhelmingly believed that their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. Similar studies conclude that homosexuality is learned; that the root cause is psychological rather than biological; and that the problem is relational rather than genetic [Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs]. According to NARTH, the relational problem leading to male homosexuality can be a complex combination of gender nonconformity e.g. avoiding competition and lack of male bonding, temperament e.g. a tendency to personalize criticism, poor (distant) father-son relationship, and over intimate mother-son relationship.

In conclusion, scientific studies point to homosexuality being what a person does in contrast to gender, race and impairment, which relate to what a person is.

Given that relational issues appear to be the prime cause of homosexuality, we can now challenge the Postmodern idea that homosexuality is ‘normal’. Are homosexual feelings really normal? A perceptive definition of ‘normality’ has been given as:

"that which functions according to its design"

On this definition, the relationship problems outlined above are clearly not normal in that they don’t follow the perceived design pattern. For example, the natural and preferred father-son relationship is for a father to lead and help his son in a close and friendly manner. And of course the sexual acts of homosexuality are perceived by the majority as conflicting with the design pattern. How can anal intercourse be perceived as part of natural design? On this basis, homosexuality is clearly not normal - it is not a normal sexual variation.

Statistics also bear this out; typically less than 1% of men are purely homosexual [Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs]. To counter this, some point out that there are many examples of homosexuality in nature itself, and so it must be normal. For example, it is claimed that lizards can be lesbian and gay male swans can make good parents ['Evolution's Rainbow', Rough garden, Stanford]. But male swans cannot create a family via procreation - they are not designed that way!

The next time teacher claims that homosexuality is normal, ask the question:
"Then why don't we find about 50% of the population heterosexual
and about 50% of the population homosexual?"

The World Ethic on Homosexuality

If homosexual feelings are not 'normal', what about homosexual acts? Is there a 'correct' worldview on homosexual acts? Is there a guiding standard or ethic on the matter stating that such acts are 'right', or 'wrong'? Western society tends to go by a majority or cultural ethic, whereby whatever a cultural group approves of is deemed 'right', and whatever the group disapproves of is 'wrong'. A quick way of determining the current majority or cultural ethic on some matter is to carry out an opinion poll. A Canadian poll (Environics Research Group, May 2001) asked Canadians "Do you personally strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of homosexuality?" In 1996 22% approved and in 2001 44% approved, showing a rapid change in social ethic. According to this poll, homosexuality (and by implication, homosexual sex) is rapidly becoming 'right'. Similarly, a 2001 Gallup poll showed a continuation of a slow, but steady, liberalization of American public opinion toward homosexuality (Newport, 2001). A poll in the same year by the Barna Research Group found that nearly half of all adults (48%) believe that sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender should be legal. Two years later, Gallup found that six out of ten Americans feel that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal.

Clearly, a majority or culturally defined ethic is variable and unreliable. This is cultural relativism and the social consequences can be disastrous e.g. liberal sexual ethics has led to a dramatic increase in HIV cases and sexually transmitted infections. Moreover, opinion polls only tell us what a society is currently thinking, not what it should be thinking - assuming an absolute ethic exists. Consider again the core question: "Is there an absolute ethic on homosexual acts?" Can we say homosexual acts are definitely 'right' or definitely 'wrong'? Some maintain that any absolute ethic (moral standard) cannot come from man, a finite and fallible being. It must come from a transcendent source, from beyond mankind, if such a source exists. As the philosopher Wittgenstein said:

‘The sense of the world must lie outside the world … ethics is transcendental]

The Biblical Ethic on Homosexuality

Christianity maintains that absolute ethics exist and are based upon the nature of God, and in particular on the absolute moral standard of a Creator God. This ethical view escapes the unreliability of cultural relativism. It presupposes that God exists and has revealed absolute standards. It maintains that these standards are compatible with His creation and are true and correct. Such ethic is timeless and is for man's well-being. It comes from an authority higher than man, and is revealed in Jesus and the inspired scriptures of the Bible.

According to the Bible, God created 'kinds' (including man), and instructed them to 'multiply' (Gen 1). In order to multiply, the 'kinds' had male and female gender. Moreover, everything that was created 'was good'. So the natural state of things before the so-called 'Fall of Man' was for a male and female of a kind to procreate. The concept of two male swans 'parenting' simply cannot have been on God's agenda, since together they cannot procreate. This is not saying that same-sex relationships are wrong - far from it. Male bonding can have great social benefit and in the Bible we are told that Jonathan loved David and became his close friend (1 Sam 18.1). It is simply saying that same-sex sexual relationships were not on God's creation agenda! In God's perfectly created world, they were simply not natural and intended and so must have been completely absent.

The biblical concept of the Fall of Man brought a different scenario. For man, one consequence was sexual sin in the sight of God, and that includes homosexual acts. The biblical case against the act of homosexuality is found in Lev 18.22, 20.13; Deut 23.18, Mat 5.17-19; Rom 1.18-27; 1 Cor 6.9-11 and Rev 21.27, and God underscored His word by destroying the sodomy of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19.5,24). Some argue that the OT law on homosexuality is outdated, just as we no longer stone people to death, have slaves, or offer a ram for guilt offering. But they fail to distinguish between civil, ceremonial, and moral law. Whilst civil law changes with time, and the law requiring ceremonial sacrifice was abolished by the sacrificial death of Jesus, God's 'moral' law is timeless. For instance, written several thousand years later, the New Testament still labels the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as sexually corrupt in God's sight (2 Pet 2.4-10). Today, the UK 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' (SORs) now force individual Christians and Christian organizations who offer 'goods and services' to compromise their Christian ethos in favour of activities violating God’s timeless moral law! In contrast to the UK government, Jesus upheld the OT moral law and did not abolish it (Mat 5.17), and the Bible holds this view of homosexuality right up to the book of Revelation.

The fact that homosexuality is found in nature is no excuse for man. Man, as distinct from an animal, is a moral being and has been given God's injunction on the matter. Animal homosexuality is simply demonstrating one effect of The Fall and God does not appear to have created them this way. As to the future, those who deliberately live immoral, unclean lives in the sight of God are excluded from the heavenly city (Rev 21.27, 22.15), the New Jerusalem. Revelation 22.15 uses a term similar to that in Deut 23.18, which implies 'male prostitute' or 'somodite'. Based on such scriptures, Christian Theism maintains that:

• Human nature has been warped by the Fall
• Homosexual feelings are abnormal
• All homosexual activity (sexual acts) is sin in God's sight

The Christian Response to Homosexuality

The legal position and the sympathetic Postmodern world ethic on homosexuality pose a challenge for the Church. How is the Church to respond? Since Christians are commanded to be salt and light in society (Mat 5.13-16), it is their duty to state God's moral law on homosexual acts, and other ethical and moral issues. But this must be done in the context of a loving, caring, non-judgmental way - Jesus always gave the truth in love. The Christian should have Christ's love, humility and compassion for those caught up in homosexuality, without compromising the God-given principles in scripture. Homosexuals, like any other sector of society are to be welcomed into God's church. Here we all strive to understand God's way for man, and try to adhere to His word in the Bible. Here we all acknowledge the need for repentance, the saving grace of Jesus and the new life He offers through His death and resurrection. But someone openly flouting God's word within His church (on homosexuality or any other issue) should not hold a position of authority or ministry within the church (1 Tim 3.1-14).

---