Sections in this document:
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul? Similarly, what does it profit a man if he is straight but unsaved? The point of Christianity is not to oppose immorality but to see souls saved. Opposition to immorality is a valid pursuit but should be secondary to the main goal. So I urge you to visit this section first if you are not familiar with the main aspects of Christianity.
Homosexuality is not a right, it is a wrong. Nowadays, with claims of hate crimes and hate speech lobbed at just about anything, that previous statement needs a disclaimer. Is claiming something is immoral an indication of hate? What is the difference between denouncing immorality and being hateful? How do you decide what is hate? I contend that saying that homosexuality is wrong does not constitute hate.
The purpose of this page is to remind people that homosexuality is wrong. Society used to consider it to be wrong but has since changed its mind. Now it is often not just tolerated but lauded. This page argues against homosexuality (or the actions of homosexuals), not the homosexuals themselves. Please note the difference. This page exists not because homosexuality is a particularly worse type of immorality but because people seem to have forgotten that homosexuality is even wrong at all.
The Genetic Argument
The argument that homosexuality is genetic or hereditary cannot be used either for or against homosexuality. Alcoholism and heart disease are genetic and hereditary. Does that mean they are good things to have, or that doctors can test for them and prescribe treatment? (Or, in the near future, alter that gene before birth and correct the problem). Conversely, eye color and hair color are genetic and hereditary. Does that mean they are bad things for which doctors should test and then correct? The point here is that genetic traits can be either good or bad, so genetics should not be used to argue for or against homosexuality.
The Criminal Model
What if other criminals adapted the model that the homosexual community used in "coming out" in society? Homosexuality has long been illegal in most, if not all, of the United States of America. Despite that, homosexuals announced their presence and avoided prosecution by claiming invasion of privacy and "consenting adults" arguments.
The model here is to get a group of the same type of criminals together, have them announce their crime at a large public gathering, call their crime a "lifestyle choice" or something similar, and make a lot of noise about fair treatment of all people (by fair treatment of all people they would mean protection of their class, which would amount to special treatment for that group).
Homosexuality Versus Love
The problem with arguing against homosexuality is that the English language has only one word for love, so people play with semantics to skew the debate. A better model, one that should be used for situations like that, is the Greek language: eros is the sexual love, phileo is the brotherly (familial) love, and agape is caring, unconditional love. For Americans, there would need to be another word, something to use for those people who love pizza, love their cars, love their TV programs, etc. That definition would basically mean favorite thing.
People who argue for homosexuality often use the statement that there is nothing wrong with loving another person. Who is going to argue against caring about another person? But homosexuality is more than just caring for someone else. Try making the same argument in Greek. Would a person for homosexuality say
Homosexuality Versus Evolution
In the theory of evolution, a species adapts to fit its environment, and when it amasses enough adaptations, it becomes a new species. They key to this is that the species' environment causes the changes, and the changes are helpful to the organism. A simple example would be the giraffe's growing of a long neck to help him reach leaves on tall trees, or an elephant's producing large ears to help cool him in the hot climate. The key to natural selection is that changes help further the species. Consequently, any aspects of the species that do not help with the environment or help further the existence of the species are discarded.
Now enter homosexuality. How does it fit with evolution?
Assuming that homosexuality is a recent development, evolution must have somehow produced it. But evolution produces only those things which adapt to the climate or further the existence of the species. Does homosexuality do either of those things? In fact, it is contrary to evolution. This is mainly because of the fact that homosexuals do not produce offspring. If the percentage of the population that is homosexual keeps increasing, then the number of child-producing people would decline. If the trend continued long enough, then eventually the species would cease to exist.
If homosexuality is not a recent development, but rather was part of the human species when we appeared, then why does it still exit? Evolution would have outgrown the useless variation and only heterosexuals would survive.
Would evolution bring about something that would cause the downfall of a species? The argument may be made that it would happen only if too many people were homosexual. But would evolution introduce a change in only part of a species? Homosexuality is not a change to fit the climate or geography, so any evolutionary changes should happen to all people regardless of geographical region. But not everyone is, or is becoming, homosexual. Does this mean that the homosexuals are
If homosexuality has been around for millions of years and was originally part of the human species (i.e. inherited it from a common ancestor), then it should be evident in other species, particularly those close in lineage to humans. There have been reports of homosexual activity in apes (and possibly dolphins too), but those reports are of isolated incidents.
Hypothetically think if there were a community of homosexual apes or dolphins. Would that justify a homosexual lifestyle for humans? Should humans model their behavior after the animal world? The preying mantis eats her mate. Does that justify cannibalism of a spouse for humans? And any chicken farmer will agree that chickens will peck, to the point of blood and beyond, a weak-looking chicken. Does that mean that if you see a smaller person then you can attack him and do whatever physical damage you want, because chickens do it, so it must be natural and good? A behavior's occurrence in animals does not justify that behavior by humans. Why is that? Humans were specially created by God and given a soul. Animals have only instinct, but humans have also a moral aspect. Those previous two sentences do not exactly fit in this evolution section, since evolution does not lend itself to explaining morality, but that is where the argument led.
So if homosexuality is not compatible with evolution, then how did it get here?
Homosexuality Versus Creation
Counter to evolution is creation, specifically that the earth was created and is governed and sustained by God. For the full account of creation, please read the first 3 chapters of Genesis. The earth was created by God, so He set up the rules and laws (both physical and moral) for the earth and its inhabitants. Those moral laws are found throughout the Bible.
That may have sounded pretty harsh, and it is harsh. This section was specifically showing homosexuality in the Bible while ignoring the many other sins. However, the condemnation that awaits homosexuals is no worse than that which awaits murderers, thieves, liars, or anyone who does not acknowledge God as God and believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior. Remember why this page is here - society does not need as much reminding that murder, robbery, etc. are wrong. The condemnation for all people as sinners is the bad news.
The good news is that there is forgiveness and freedom from the condemnation for sin. God can and will forgive homosexuals just as easily as He will forgive anyone who recognizes himself as a sinner (that would be anyone who is human) and repentantly asks God for forgiveness. Please see this other page for more information. Remember that God loves people, you specifically, and does not want people to be condemned (note the distinction - God loves people but hates sin). That is why He sent Jesus to this earth and why He gave us the Bible. But He will not overlook sin, and He will judge (or reward) people for the choices they have made while they were alive (the most important choice being whether to accept Jesus Christ as Savior). God is loving, judging, and righteous.
Homosexuality is not compatible with evolution and it is wrong according to creation, so no matter how the earth got here, homosexuality is wrong.
Homosexuality Mocks God
As seen in the previous section, God comdemns homosexuality. So at the very minimum, homosexuals disobey God. But America's groups of homosexuals go one step further than that. The symbol that they have chosen for themselves seems to mock God. The generic symbol for homosexuality is apparently the rainbow. How does that mock God? To answer this, you need to know the account of The Flood (found in Genesis chapters 6 through 9).
In Genesis chapter 6, starting in verse 5, it says that humans were very wicked (wickedness according to God), so God needed to punish them. In fact, He was ready to just get rid of His whole creation. When God created Adam and Eve He gave them the ability to act and think for themselves. They could choose to follow God or not. Humans still have the same choice today: to obey God or disobey God. Back then, everyone except Noah's family had chosen to disobey God. So God decided, instead of wiping out all of creation, to eradicate everyone except Noah's family. He did this by causing a very large flood that covered the whole earth (even all the mountain peaks) with water.
Now in Genesis chapter 9, verses 12-17, it tells what happened after the flood. God made a promise to Noah, which He extended to everyone who will ever live: that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood ( click here to see which method will be used to destroy the earth). The symbol that God presented to Noah (and for everyone to come) was the rainbow. Since people are still living on the earth, the rainbow is still God's symbol that water will not destroy the earth.
So the homosexuals disobey God, knowing that He has restrained His judgment and will not drown everyone. And then they choose for themselves the very symbol which represents God's mercy. That is mockery, intentional or not.
Recommended ActionsThis webpage was not intended to be a motivational speech, but in order to focus your energy on what to do after reading this page, here are some recommended actions.
Email NoticePlease read this page before emailing me. Thanks.