My new website is at http://freesundays.org
I grew up in an Independent, Fundamental, Baptist, Bible-believing church. I attended Christian schools my entire life, from kindergarten all the way through college. I’ve sung in the choir, I’ve been a Christian school teacher, taught Sunday school, I’ve gone to Christian summer camps, I’ve gone on missions trips, I’ve handed out tracts, studied the Bible through and through and loved God with all my heart and soul. I’ve done it all, but from the beginning, one thing has remained a constant unchangeable reality, I’m gay.
The issue of sexual orientation is a very hot topic today. As is the case with many other controversial topics throughout history, like slavery (exodus 21, for it) the Bible plays a key role in how many people view this issue too. To my Christian friends and family the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is the final authority on the gay issue. For me that mentality has always seemed a little perplexing because before I was old enough to read the Bible I already knew I was gay. Growing up with that reality made me more alert to the inconsistencies between the preacher’s interpretation of the certain scriptures and what the scriptures actually stated.
The Bible passages used to condemn gay people are the Sodom story in Genesis 19, the Levitical prohibition, Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6:9. As an insider to the Christian world and a gay person, I hope to help alleviate some misconceptions and confusion that surround this important issue and to show that the fundamentalist stance, however noble its intentions, is ultimately based on emotions and poor scholarship rather than truth. My findings for the most part are not new, but the vast majority of funamentalist Christians have never heard this evidence, even though it is readily available to them in the Bible itself.
The lack of knowledge and faulty interpretations are due to several causes. First of all, it is only human nature to not like those who are different from us and to then interpret the Bible to justify those prejudices. But usually the misconceptions about gay people result simply from ignorance and a failure to objectively research the evidence. The misuses/interpretations are then propagated by those in authority in Christendom, our pastors, our teachers. Most Christians have never taken the time to examine the evidence for themselves. They are content to just have a preacher tell them what the Bible says and means, especially if it happens to be to their personal liking. The Christians who do take the time to personally investigate the Bible have often been so pre-programmed by fundamentalist interpretations that they can no longer see scripture objectively. It’s as if the preacher’s interpretation of the Bible has now become inerrant and to question it would be sacrilegious. With an issue like this, just being curious or asking questions would be shocking and considered heretical. Fundamentalist Christianity has developed an atmosphere in which reasoning on controversial topics is now discouraged and considered apostasy. This mentality is so far reaching that sources, books that even consider views contrary to the fundamentalist are ignored or dismissed completely. Fundamentalism has created a dangerous form of immunity from outside criticism that helps to preserve its ignorance while much of the world has begun to acknowledge the truth about this issue. Because of such trends most Christians have never heard the overwhelming evidence that the Bible in fact is not condemning of gay people. Here is some of the evidence I found growing up and through continued research. With Greek and Hebrew concordances and dictionaries in hand, I analyzed the 6 clobber passages in 2002 and this webpage was/is the result of my personal research.
Genesis 19- This story is clearly about an ATTEMPTED GANG RAPE, not about sexual orientation, yet many pastors put their own spin/angle on this story. "All the people from EVERY quarter" (v. 4) surrounded Lot's house and tried to break down his door. This story is all about MOB violence, humiliation and RAPE. There is no love or affection in this story, as there is in any true same sex relationship. Had the rape actually occurred it would probably have ended in murder, which was the norm for that tribal society. Everyone except 10 people in Sodom and Gomorrah were violent barbarians- that's the lesson of Genesis 19.
2. Out of the 40 scriptures that refer to Sodom, NONE indicates homosexuality as Sodom's sin. Here are some of those verses- Gen. 13:13, Gen.18:20, Gen.19:13, Deut.29:17-26, Deut.32:32-38, Isaiah1:9-23, Is.3:8-15, Is.13:11-19, Jer.23:10-14, Jer.49:16-18, Jer.50:2-40, Lam. 4:3-6, Ez.16:49-50, Amos 4:1-11, Zeph.2:8., and the list goes on. Over time, biased or ignorant men have attached a definition to the word "sodomite" that never appears in scripture and that God never intended.
3. JESUS speaks of Sodom's sin being INHOSPITALITY several times- Mark 6:10-11, Luke 10:10-12 and Matt.11:19-20. He draws a parallel here of certain city's inhospitality exceeding even that of Sodom's inhospitality, which was presented by Jesus as Sodom's most notable sin. This makes sense because Jesus also taught that loving your neighbor and treating strangers with respect is of utmost importance, Luke 10:25-37. The root sin behind Sodom’s raping and killing was indeed not loving their neighbor or any other strangers that passed through their town.
4. The men in the story were NOT GAY. Lot would not have offered up his FEMALE daughters to the crowd if they were really gay and only interested in men. Rape is about humiliation, not attraction. There is no evidence to suggest that "all the people” in Sodom were gay. In fact the evidence AND common sense supports the presumption that "all the people" here were heterosexuals. The objects of the attempted gang rape were extra-terrestrials. It is possible that "all the people from every quarter" wanted to have sex with them because they were intriguingly unusual and not mere 'men'.
"ALL the people from EVERY quarter", "young and old" (ch19:4), the whole city participated in surrounding the house and demanding sex from the 2 angels. However, it is statistically impossible that "all the people" could have been gay oriented. Logic demands that we presume these men were heterosexuals because heterosexuality is majority orientation of humankind. Studies show that only about 5-10% of the population is gay. Therefore, God must have destroyed "all the people" and the surrounding cities for reasons other than orientation, like the sins of barbarism, inhospitality, idolatry, pride, murder, promiscuity.
In Genesis 19:9 reveals part of the reason why they want to attack the strangers, and it is not because they were gay. The townsfolk think that one of the strangers came to “sojourn” and “he will be a judge”. For some reason they are threatened by this and wish to thwart the strangers from their supposed mission of “sojourning” and “judging”. Then the townsfolk tell Lot that they are going to do worse things to him than what they were planning to do to the strangers. Obviously their intentions are not about attractions at all. The attempted assault was about preserving their own interests and about savagery.
5. This encounter at Lot's door CANNOT be the CAUSE of Sodom's destruction because God had already decided to destroy Sodom BEFORE the attempted gang rape took place. Before any mention of a mob attempting rape, Genesis 17 and 18 show that God had already resolved to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The whole reason the 2 angels came in the first place was to warn Lot and then to destroy the city because of its PRE-EXISTING sins of not helping the needy, idolatry, murder, see Gen. 19:13 and Ezekiel 16:49. Knowingly or unknowingly preachers create the allusion that this event at Lot’s door is WHY Sodom was destroyed, and that's either dishonest or just plain ignorant.
6. Judges 19:17-29 serves as evidence that it was common in ancient cultures for heterosexual MEN to rape other MEN, foreigners and visitors, just like they did in Sodom. This story is almost identical to the Sodom story. The MEN in Judges 19 surround the house, and initially request "to know" a MALE. Then they accept a FEMALE, that is sent out into the crowd, and rape her, proving that these stories had NOTHING to do with being gay and everything to do with barbarism. If Genesis 19 is a valid condemnation of homosexuality, than the story of Judges 19 should be a valid condemnation of HETEROsexuality because unlike Sodom, they succeeded in raping and killing a female. Interestingly, nobody uses this account about Gibeah to denounce heterosexuality. Shouldn't we, to be consistent, be calling heterosexuals those disgusting "Gibeahites" and the act of heterosexual sex "Gibeah"?
7. For thousands of years Sodom's sin was considered inhospitality, pride, idolatry and savagery. Not until around the 1st century A.D, did the story get twisted into being about sexual orientation.
8. Lot offered up his own daughters to be gang raped and treated as disposable property in Gen. 19:8, yet the Bible calls Lot "righteous" and "just" in Genesis and in 2 Pet.2:7-8. Look at Exodus 21. It is direct law from God, following the 10 Commandments in the previous chapter that promotes men “selling” their own daughters into servanthood and condones the brutal treatment and murder of human slaves. Common sense can see the error in such Biblical mentalities, so why would anyone hold to such a backward view of homosexuality? (Especially since Genesis 19 is not even about sexuality but about savagery.) Everything in the Bible is NOT currently applicable anyway or, like "righteous" Lot, we'd still be bargaining with criminals by offering them our wives and daughters as marketable goods. Many Christians practice selective literalism and selective application of the Bible based on personal prejudices rather than interpreting the Bible objectively, consistently and ethically.
Levticus 20:13- (“…if a man ALSO lie with mankind, as he lies with women, both of them have committed an abomination)---Levitical law is irrelevant to sexual orientation because:
1. If you look at the beginning of the book of Leviticus in your Bible, it will probably say "Relating to the PRIESTS". It was (past tense) a strict, ritualistic, holiness code to be kept, by Levitical priests, NOT by gentiles. I am not a priest or even an Israelite.
2.When the word "abomination" is used it is important to remember that it means "ritually unclean, impure", not morally wrong. Notice how "abomination" was used in Genesis 46:34- "Every shepherd was an abomination UNTO the Egyptians". These were usually ancient distinctions of various cultures, like the Canaanites. Genesis 43:32 also shows this. Abominations and clean/unclean distinctions included the concept of consistency and forbade the mixing of fabrics, seeds in the field, etc. The concept of clean and unclean in the Old Testament sometimes is not in agreement with what is realistically clean or unclean, only what was ritually, ceremonially clean/unclean.
3. Its unethical for Christians to try to impose Levitical law on public society at all but especially when they are try to apply one particular Levitical law but NOT apply the other 600 Levitical type laws such as...
1.You must never come near a menstruating woman-Lev. 15:-19-24
2. There must be daily burning of bulls on an altar- Lev. 1:9
3. Slavery must be promoted as a viable practice- Lev.25:44
4. Any neighbor who works on Sunday, must be executed- Ex. 35:2
5. You must never eat certain kinds of seafood, such as shell fish, clam chowder-Lev. 11:10
6. If you have a vision problem, or wear glasses, you may not approach God's altar-Lev. 21:20
7. You must never cut the hair near your temples-Lev. 19:27
8. You must never touch the skin of a dead pig-Lev.11:6-8
9. Never wear clothes that contain two different kinds of fabric, no cotton/polyester blends- Lev.19:19
Christians recognize that the Biblical exclusion of menstruating women, the prohibition against mixing fabrics, etc., have nothing to do with modern culture, so why do some people still hold to this ancient ceremonial custom about same sex relations? The only apparent reasons for a anyone following this double standard of application is that they are either unaware of it or they are using it to unjustly support their dislike of gay people.
4. Leviticus repeatedly states before listing these abominations that the purpose of the prohibitions was to distinguish the Israelites FROM the Canaanites. Leviticus 18:3 says "…and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do:..." One of the reasons for these prohibitions is simply because the Canaanites practiced these things, not because they were intrinsically immoral. There is no need for us to follow ancient laws to distinguish ourselves ceremonially from other cultures. The New Testament clearly teaches that there are only two commandments that sum up how we ought to live. In Matthew 22:37 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Also see Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:9, Luke 10:25-37 and Matthew 7:12.
5. Leviticus 20:13 can't be addressed to gay men, because gay men don't "ALSO" lie with mankind "AS" they lie with women. They are usually incapable of performing with women at all, without at least imagining a man. The men in this verse routinely "lie with women", which makes them heterosexuals most likely, then they go out of their natural orientation and ALSO lie with men probably out of lust, for sport or to humiliate the other man. The uncleanness here is mixing back forth and the inconsistency of sleeping around with both genders.
6. The word ‘abomination’ used here is the hebrew word toevah, meaning ritually unclean. The Hebrew word zimah is used in Leviticus when referring to moral wrongs or wickedness. This use of toevah in Leviticus shows that male to male sexual acts were merely ritually unclean for Jews, who evidently routinely participated in lying with “womankind” “also”. The biological phenomenon of same sex orientation was never even addressed, nor was any ceremonial or moral prohibition given to Gentile men.
7. The original text of Leviticus 18:22 says "With a man, you shall not lie the lyings of a woman." "Lyings of a woman" refers to the fact that, women can only be intercourse 'receivers'. In primitive, male dominated cultures it was thought dishonorable for a man to be an intercourse receiver because he was lowering himself to the same position of the inferior woman. The dishonor here is part of an ancient social status violation, not a moral absolute.
8. If the intent of Leviticus was a general condemnation of homosexuality, lesbianism would have been addressed, but it was not. Levitical prohibitions against male to male relations also insured Israel would grow in population. When a man lies with another man, he has wasted his seed, but when two women lie together there is no loss of semen, therefore lesbianism warrants no mention. In Genesis 38, Onan's brother dies and he is commanded to go get his sister in law pregnant and marry her to preserve the family seed. Even though Onan is reluctant, he goes to her and starts to have sex. Then in verse nine he "spilled" his semen on the ground. This displeased the Lord, and Onan was killed for NOT impregnating his sister in law. Sex was viewed as a means of reproduction, not as an expression of love as we know it today in civilized society. Any relations that wasted seed, like males with males, were not pro-creative, and thus forbidden. Similarly, relations during menstruation were not pro-creative and were also forbidden. Lev. 15:-19-24.
9.The way the male sex organ functions, is by nature more conducive to spreading/contracting diseases, than female sexual functions would be. Thus it is also plausible that 4,000 years ago, before our modern cleanliness and safety practices, males with males could have been considered unclean on that basis, but lesbianism would not have been mentioned in the cleanliness code, and consequently it was not mentioned. Lesbians are still the least likely group to contract any kind of std. Today, worldwide, more than 80% of all HIV infections result from heterosexual intercourse. HYPERLINK "http://www.aaaw.org/action/facts.html"http://www.aaaw.org/action/facts.html The ridiculous theory that AIDS is God's punishment for gay people cannot even apply to much of the gay population because lesbians are the least likely to contract it. In that logic, God must have his special blessing/protection on lesbians. Leviticus also shows the ceremonial connotation of these laws by presenting natural bodily fluids as “defiled” or evil. How can one’s own natural fluids be immoral? Clearly these laws were not about morality but about ritualistic taboos. Leviticus 22:4 says that you were not even allowed to touch a person who had his “seed” go from him.
For further discussion of hygiene in Levitical times please refer to "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel Helminiak, p. 57.
Leveticus 15:32
“This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;”
Levitucs 15:18
“The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.”
10. There were other ritual offenses, also punishable by death, that are no longer applicable codes. Numbers 3:10 says, “And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” The bottom line is that Leviticus was a list of nullified, ceremonial protocols addressed to Levitical Priests. Love literally “is” the law now- Matthew 7:12.
Romans 1:26-27- This is not a condemnation of a loving/romantic same-sex relationship because:
1. This was a heterosexual, humanistic, pantheistic murderous society (v.23,29) involved in idolatry. In verse 24 they lustfully dishonored their bodies in HETEROSEXUAL relations. Then in verse 26 those same heterosexuals began to have same-sex relations out of frenzied lust. The fact that the women here were having sex with each other does not make them lesbians. Even today, straight woman having sex with other women for sport is not uncommon, just turn on MTV or watch late night television. These people were heterosexuals going out of their orientation to pursue insatiable lust. It is impossible to make a just comparison of these murderous, idolatrous heterosexuals with truly gay oriented people who are in committed relationships, based on love not lust. That comparison would be comparing two very different things- lust and love. As for the phrase “vile affections”, the Greek word ‘pathos' (affections) is intrinsically negative, because it means concupiscence and lust. It should be noted that the words “vile affections” have sometimes been misconstrued and distorted into the erroneous concept of vile attractions. “Attractions” would imply that some human romantic attraction is good and some is evil of itself without any action upon it, which would not be true, biblically or otherwise. Even conservatives like James Dobson agree that there is “no sin” in having same-sex feelings. It is important to clarify that the word or concept of ‘attractions’ does not appear at all in Romans 1. However, the word pathos does and it is intrinsically negative. Therefore, we have a redundancy for emphasis, like saying “dirty mud”. The sin is inherently in these lusts, not the object of the lusts. Besides, “vile affections” is a continuing description of the heterosexuals from verse 24. Many heterosexuals act out of dirty lusts, and participate in orgies, meaningless one night stands, and rapes etc. The fact that some heterosexuals act with dirty lusts does not mean that heterosexuality itself is immoral. Also it should be noted that Romans 1:31 has been misconstrued by the average reader as well. The phrase “without natural affection” in the KJV, means “without family love” or “lacking care for one’s own kindred”. This is easily clarified by looking in the margin of any Bible or looking up the phrase in a Greek dictionary.
2. Romans chapter one describes a process in which heterosexuals, are unthankful, vain, then they worship animals, worship themselves, then "wherefore" or "on account of this" (idolatry), God gives them up first to heterosexual orgies in verse 24, then same sex orgies, covetousness, etc, then eventually murder. The "For this cause" God gave them up for is the worship of creation in verses 24 and 26. To say that God would give up on anyone for any reason other than not worshipping Him would be doctrinal contradiction. This process does not resemble my life or any gay person I know. I'm not gay as a result of a process in which I "worshipped four footed beasts" and was overtaken first by heterosexual lust, then same sex lust, and then supposedly, I might become a murderer. The opposite is true. I've spent my whole life worshipping and serving God, all the while knowing that I was romantically oriented towards only my same gender. Usually from childhood gay people have gender identity anomalies, a romantic orientation towards the same gender and often we come from God fearing homes. Obviously the lustful, pagan people Paul is describing cannot be the same people we know today as gay people.
3. Paul sometimes states that he does not have any commandment from God regarding certain issues, but that he will give you HIS opinion. In I Corinthians 7:25 Paul says "I have NO commandment of the Lord, yet I give MY judgment..." Paul was a very opinionated person, and he alerts us of that with his disclaimer. The Greek word for “judgment” here is “gnome”, meaning opinion or advice. Paul admits that some things in his letters are not “of the Lord” they are merely his two cents worth. Peter also warns us in 2 Peter3:15-16 that Paul's epistles are "hard to be understood", if you're unlearned. Paul had been a devout Pharisee and a former murderer. He still showed his contentious, overzealous side now and then, see Acts 15:39. Obviously, Paul's writings must be taken with a certain amount of reserve. While the entire Bible appears to us exactly as God designed and intended for providential purposes, each author's culture and the context must be taken into account for correct interpretation. Otherwise we could buy and kill human slaves without punishment because the bible says they are "property " in Exodus 21:20-21. Historically, Christians in this country have used that verse and also Leviticus 25:45-46, Genesis 9:22-25, and Luke 17:7-10 to support slavery and the mistreatment of the black race. That same kind of ignorance is being used to mistreat and condemn gay people. In the book of Judges 11:29- the “Spirit of the Lord” comes upon Jephthah and he vows his own daughter as a human, burnt sacrifice to the Lord. People need to be cautious about this collection of ancient books called the Bible. It simply cannot and should not be taken literally.
In I Timothy 2:9 Paul says that woman are not to wear gold or pearl jewelry, but the world is full of Christian women wearing gold necklaces and earrings. Many agree these verses are not applicable as blanket statements to all people, while continuing to misuse misinterpreted verses to condemn those born with same sex orientation. Christians have been using this unethical, selective literalism so long that they honestly cannot see the double standard with which they interpret the Bible. One might wonder, how we determine what is a rule for us to follow, now that we are not under the Old Testament laws. The answer is found permeating Jesus’ teachings and the New Testament and yet some Christians cannot seem to grasp and follow it. It is almost as if fundamentalism has deliberately shifted away from Jesus’ teachings. The answer for how we ought to live is love.
Galatians 5:14 says “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Matthew 7:12 “Whatever you want men to do to you, so should you do even to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
4. In Romans 13:10 Paul said, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Then he occasionally mentions things that were formally considered unclean or unnatural, as if they were current moral standards, even though he states elsewhere that “nothing is unclean of itself”, Romans 14:14.
Now notice how Paul avoided the vocabulary of sin or morality in Romans 1:26-27 and instead used the word nature, which is relative to an individual's environment and ideology. Unnatural and "immoral" are not the same thing. In Paul’s day, sex was still primarily viewed as a means of reproduction. Any sex that was not pro-creative would have been considered unnatural. That philosophy would have included, things like sex during a woman’s menstruation. An infertile couple having sex is not pro-creative either, but we know that is not a sin either because true sexuality is ultimately an expression of love.
In addition to calling these same sex relations against nature, Paul also said that long hair was against nature in I Corinthians 11:14. Yet Samson and other Nazerites, like John the Baptist, had long hair as a commandment from God. Unnatural and immoral are not the same thing. In fact God specifically told Samson’s mother not to cut his hair in Judges 13:5. So obviously Paul’s view of what is natural and unnatural was not in accordance with true morality. In the frigid surroundings found in Alaska or Iceland, a man having long hair would in fact be more natural and advantageous. It would not be natural for me to be with the opposite sex because I could never have true feelings of romantic love for a man. The only natural thing for me to do is to be with a woman. Paul wrote that God acted against “nature" or "para physin" in Romans 11:24. So, there is a clear distinction between the concepts of something being "unnatural" and something being "immoral". Much of our world is unnatural. Cell phones, tampons, colonics, pacemakers, organ transplants, invitro fertilization, handicapped people typing with their feet, are all variations of the natural but they're not sinful. In the New Testament we are free to do what is natural for us, which may be what feels unnatural for someone else, as long as it is in keeping with the two greatest commandments of loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves.
6. He says that the women changed the "natural use" into something "against nature". But what lesbians do in bed does not change the “natural use” of their genitals, nor is it "against the nature" of the human body. The most plausible conclusion for women "changing the natural use”, is that these heterosexual women were having anal sex through the use of foreign objects. Some lesbians are even opposed to receiving vaginal penetration from a female partner, which is the perfectly “natural use” of the vagina, much less some sort of anal penetration. This passage simply cannot be referring to truly lesbian women, as we know them today. The changing “the natural use” here, could also refer to the women merely allowing the men to have anal sex with them. This is a classic case of Roman Girls Gone Wild and nymphomaniacs. It does not describe whom we know today as truly gay oriented women. As was the case of Samson’s long hair and countless other Nazerites, variations of the “natural” or typical are not sinful or immoral.
So I ask what is the negative in two people of the same gender falling in love and committing to spend their lives together? There isn’t one. Only positive and good things can come from any two people sharing their lives together out of cherished devotion for one another. There is also no negative or harm brought by the monogamous physical affection of two people of the same gender. Some people with dishonest tactics try to correlate same sex orientation with harmful diseases. No one in history has ever contracted a sexually transmitted disease from his or her orientation. Diseases like AIDS are contracted mainly by a lack of character called promiscuity and other things like intravenous drug use. There are exceptions were a sexually responsible person contracts a disease from some other means, like a promiscuous partner, a contaminated blood transfusion or a rape. Sexual orientation and affection are never harmful, only the abuses of sexuality are harmful. Still some dishonest people insist on drawing a connection between orientation and diseases, which is not a very intelligent route to take. If I were employ that same marred logic, the safest and best orientation for women, would be for them all to be lesbians because lesbians have the lowest occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases of anyone, heterosexuals included.
But alas, I do not make generalizations about any one segment of society. That is why I don’t go around denigrating racial minorities, just because recent studies show that diseases seem to be currently increasing at high rate among minorities. I know that no one contracts a disease because of their ethnicity but rather by a number of other factors, some of which are preventable, some not. That is also why I do not expect the heterosexual community to "answer" for Hugh Heffner's behavior promiscuous behavior. I do not go around associating heterosexuals with being sluts, based solely on the behavior of some.
I Corinthians 6:9- the key word in this verse-"effeminate" has been mistranslated in the KJV, therefore it has no relevancy to same sex orientation:
1. The word effeminate here is the Greek word "malakos", meaning “soft”, also used two other times. In Matthew 11:8 it is used to describe "soft" clothes worn by rich people. In Luke 7:25 it is used to describe "soft", gorgeous clothes again. It is only appears as a description of people one time. Malakos was translated by William Tyndale in 1525 to mean male or female weaklings. Vine's Expository Greek Dictionary defines "malakos" as..."persons who in general, are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous." It means spoiled, frivolous, extravagant, or decadent. We are talking about shallow, wasteful people. To interpret "malakos" with any hint of homosexuality is to completely make up one's own definition. Malakos is the equivalent of a moral weakling. Its undeniable that malakos has nothing to do with male sexuality and EVERTHING to do with wasteful, materialistic, pampered people. Even if it did vaguely have something to do with sexuality, it is much more in keeping with the nature and history of this word to define it as heterosexual males or females who are vain concerning their clothing and looks, possibly to be more sexually appealing. We have men in our culture that we might call a “pretty boy” and they are often known to be “players” and actually promiscuous with women. There are also women who are obsessed with expensive clothes and with their looks.
2. The English language defines femininity as “relating to women or girls.” (Dictionary.com). “Effeminacy” is defined as a male who has feminine qualities. However, there is no particular gender implied in the word malakos, so for this word to be translated as effeminate is a clear mistake. It attaches a connotation of the male gender to that word that is not contained in the word malakos. There simply is no evidence to suggest that “soft” refers to a particular gender, a sexual act, or an orientation, much less a same sex act or orientation. If it did, it would be implying that it is a negative for men to have feminine traits. Most people would agree that men could better themselves by cultivating typically feminine qualities like tenderness and attentiveness. Also it would not only wrongly imply that a man having those qualities was negative, but in the context of the verse, having feminine qualities would even keep a man from going to Heaven. I remind you that there is no evidence to suggest that malakos refers to men at all or that it implies a sexual act, and it is preposterous to suggest that a man’s genteel personality traits would keep him out of Heaven, but biblically, being extremely materialistic might. Be reminded Jesus himself would be considered somewhat feminine by much of society today. Jesus promoted the idea of turning the other cheek. Most men would never do such a thing if someone smacked them.
Even IF hypothetically the KJV’s rendering of malakos as effeminite was a suitable translation, it still cannot refer to sexuality because sometimes gay men are masculine and sometimes heterosexual men are effeminate. Effeminacy as such, is not a matter of choice anyway. Some men are born with a natural aptitude for typically feminine skills. Any higher percentage of gay men having feminine skills like decorating and hairstyling is not a coincidence, but evidence of the biological brain connection for orientation. That's why lesbians are often in more 'masculine' professions like P.E teachers or police officers. We don't get to choose our natural talents and gifts, nor do we choose which gender our brains will be drawn to. Malakos simply means morally soft, spoiled people, nothing more. Affirmation of any other definition would be based on speculation and blatant inventions of one’s own definition.
3. At the end of I Corinthians 6:9 the KJV translates the Greek word “arsenokoites” as "abusers of themselves with mankind". In I Timothy 1:10, the same word is translated as them “that defile themselves with mankind.” Before we examine the possible meanings of this word, keep in mind that scholars are admittedly uncertain and in disagreement about the proper translation of this word. Arsenokoites could have a couple plausible meanings, none of which is homosexual. Vines Expository New Testament Dictionary defines arsenokoites quite simply as abusers. The most likely meaning of this word is sex addicts, male prostitutes, male rapists, thus the concept of “abuse”. Some theologians such as John Boswell, Robin Scroggs, and John Shelby Spong, have given much more in-depth analysis of the word and its probable meaning. The bottom line is that we do not know for certain exactly what the word means, so we must be as accurate as we can with the evidence that we have. The word arsenokoites definitely does not convey the concept of those who have sex with their same gender, therefore translation of arsenokoites unequivocally as homosexuals is wrong. Mistranslating arsenokoites as homosexuals also erroneously includes the concept of females with females. The element of same sex is not given by this word at all. However, women may be included somehow in the terminology, if so, their involvement would clearly not be with other females, but with men, as either a perpetrator or recipient of some sort of abuse of sex. Translating this word as homosexual also erroneously implies the psychological and sociological concept of sexual orientation that is definitely not found anywhere within the word arsenokoites. Even though terms describing men who have sex with men did exist at the time, it definitely was not this word and Paul chose not to use such terminolgy. Even if hypothetically speaking arsenokoites referred to some form of male-male sex, there is no intrinsic denigration of male-male sex here. The immorality would only be in the abuses of male-male sex, such as rape, prostitution and promiscuity. If Paul had meant to condemn who we think of today as “gay”, or men who were not attracted to women and did not marry or pro-create, he would have used the closest words available to him at that time to describe such a class of men. He would have used words like, “eunuch” figuratively speaking but he did not. The only translation of arsenokoites that one can ethically affirm is that of male sex addicts, male rapists, male prostitutes and abusers. To affirm any other definition is to convey mere speculation as fact. Misrepresenting the message of the Bible, is a serious offense, with serious consequences. No matter how much undiscerning preachers try to pass this word off as homosexual, it still cannot be separated from the essence of its true connotation- abuse, exploitation and overuse. This verse says nothing about proper, non-excessive, loving relationships between men or between women.
Jude 1:7 briefly mentions Sodom and Gomorra “going after strange flesh”. The Greek word here for strange is “heteros”. Ironcially it looks like our word hetero, as in heterosexual.
It literally means opposite flesh, which is non-human, animal flesh or extra-terrestrial, angel flesh in this verse. Obviously if this was describing homosexual relations the Greek word would have been “same” flesh, not opposite or other flesh. This description of Sodom going after non-human flesh, could be referring to their attempted rape of the two celestial beings sent to destroy the city. It could also refer to the people of Sodom, in some sort of occult practice, seeking out sex with spiritual beings or with animals.
Adam & Eve/Steve- The first marriage account in Gen. uses a man and a woman because that situation represents the majority of people. Most people will experience heterosexual, reproductive marriages, but no where does God say that ALL people must have the exact same experience. Sex is not the primary purpose of marriage, and reproduction is not the primary purpose of sex; if it were than infertile couples should not be permitted to marry and have sex.
Many Christians approach the subject of human sexuality from a Garden of Eden mentality. However, they fail to remember that everything that had the breath of life in it was instantaneously altered by Adam’s sin and man was cast out of that celestial garden. Every living thing was affected by Adam’s mistake. All things were genetically altered and a process of decay at the cellular level began immediately. This means that sometimes babies are born with an extra thumb, cleft palate or other rarities. There are two possibilities for why human babies are born with same sex orientation and/or gender identities that don’t match the chromosomes or the genitals. First possibility is that such things are a result of biological errors resulting from Adam’s actions. Second possibility is that God originally designed such variations into the structure of nature intentionally for some higher purpose. Either way God is in control of these things. It is no accident when a baby is born blind or with other post Garden of Eden conditions. In John 9:3 Jesus said that a blind man was born blind not because his parents sinned, but so that “the works of God should be manifest in him”. Same sex orientation was either God’s plan A or plan B. But either way this variation comes directly from God for a higher purpose.
Now the Adam and Eve pattern is the most frequent structure and it was the initial one, or else the human race could not have been started and would not be sustained. However, God also creates a certain portion of the population to be infertile, intersexual or homosexual. Gender, sexuality and reproductive anomalies also occur in every species of the animal kingdom as well. There are many biological variations of the human species, we are all a part of God's plan.
According to the erroneous Adam/Steve theory, these atypical human beings can't ever marry, but a lack of Biblical references to same-sex marriages or equivalent commitments does not constitute a condemnation of them. That's like saying that although the Bible mentions dogs as pets, it never mentions cats, therefore, having a cat is a sin. There's no logic to that, only a false assumption based on what was NOT said. In order for the Eve not Steve theory to work there must be a verse that says, "A man shall only marry a woman, not another man". There is no verse that excludes same sex unions. We should have the presumption of moral innocence because there doesn't have to be a positive affirming verse for every phenomenon and biological anomaly in nature. Intersexuals, and those born with same sex orientation, and/or reversed brain gender identity are all a part of God’s marvelous plan for nature and the social, biological balance of society. There doesn't have to be one specific gay gene. Human physiology is much more complex than that. Science proves that pre-natal hormonal influences often lead to a gender identity different than that of the chromosomal determination. This is a variation that has no negative effects and cannot be altered anymore than one could change their DNA. Orientation is formatted deep within the human brain and spirit. Love only brings good, and companionship to human beings. Attempts to alter sexual orientation are futile. It is unnecessary and even harmful to one’s emotional well being to attempt to alter the very brain structure and spirit that God gave them.
We need to be cautious about attempting to interpret and apply everything in the Bible literally. As previously shown, Exodus 21 supports the buying and selling of human beings as slaves. It blatantly prescribes no punishment for the beating and killing of a slave because he is “money” or property.
Anyone who has taken a good, honest/objective look at the Bible knows that it is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy from the German, from the Latin, etc., that it is missing portions and that it contains some copy errors and contradictions. The Bible cannot be interpreted literally without making gross misinterpretations. Example: "Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen" 1 Kings 4:26 versus "Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen; ... "2 Chronicles 9:25 This is is not arms build up because the number of horsemen remained the same, this is clearly a case of the translator adding one extra zero. That's called a mistake, an error. Some people try to say that there were 10 horses contained inside in 4,000 stalls, bringing the total number of horses to 40,000. That may well have been the reality of the situation, but the Bible still demonstrates a contradiction in the actual number of stalls themselves, which is an error, albeit an inconsequential one , but still an error. Baptists say the Bible is 100% inerrant down to the letter, but just from one quick example, you can see that is not so. When the Bible says that not one jot or tittle will pass away, it never says that every jot and original title will be available to everyone throughout history. It only says that it will not pass away. It is preserved in Heaven in its entirety, not here in our hands.
Look up these contradictions: I Sam 16:21, 17:32-34 versus I Sam 17:55-58, Mark 16 versus John 20-did Mary see the angel and Jesus (mt28) before or after Peter came to the tomb? Jud. 4:21 asleep vs. Jud. 5:25-27 awake. Mt 4:18-20, vs Mark 1:16 vs Jn1:35-42. I mention these not to disparage or lessen the message of the Bible. The Bible that we now possess is the one that God willed for us to have but we must interpret it ethically, objectively, and contextually, rather than with a facetious, selective literalism. It is not a magically perfected book. If you think about that, the whole idea sounds like something a human thought would be a nice thing to have. Yes, the Bible was inspired by God, and it is useful for doctrine, but inspiration, usefulness, and perfection are all very different things.
Positive Arguments
1. Most Christians would say that the so-called "sin" of same sex orientation ranks right up there with the worst ones. Evidently homosexuality is not as important as they think because it did not even make the top 10 list. Most importantly Jesus taught that all morality boils down to 2 commandments- Love God, love your neighbor- Mt 22:40. Ironically that's the one Christian's seem to have the most trouble with. They say "love the sinner hate the sin" when out of the same mouth they're gossiping, calling names, lying about us and oppose us having basic rights of employment, housing.
2. If orientation were about morality then we would see considerably LESS gay people from out of religious upbringings but the numbers show that religion has no bearing on one's orientation, that's because this is NOT a theology issue it's a matter of biology and physiology.
3..Jesus never once condemns homosexuality. If it were an issue of moral importance, Jesus would have condemned it. This is a fair conclusion because one should be presumed morally innocent, until proven guilty.
4.In Matthew 19:11-12 Jesus says marriage doesn't suit everyone because there are some "eunuchs so BORN from their mother's womb". In the same verse Jesus calls those who choose to focus on ministry, instead of having a marriage "eunuchs" even though they have no reproductive or sexual function problems. This establishes that Jesus used the word "eunuch" figuratively and that it had other meanings besides "sterile". The BORN eunuchs in this verse are not sterile people because Jesus would never teach that a person wasn't meant for marriage just because they were infertile (Hannah). Especially since a person could not know they were BORN a sterile eunuch until they did marry, had sex and figured out there are no babies. Consequently, Jesus would not teach that infertility is grounds for divorcing your spouse. So we're left with only three groups that "BORN eunuchs" could refer to...#1. People born with visibly ambiguous/malformed genitalia or intersexuals...#.2. People that claim they have no sexual desire at all, asexual people or .....#3... Gay people.. Those born with ambiguous genitalia are known as intersexuals or hermaphrodites. Its unlikely Jesus would make a specific point just for intersexuals that don't marry, first of all because intersexuals are fairly rare, AND they often do marry and in some cases they can still reproduce. Jesus is not refering to asexual people because no one is ever born without a sexual/romantic aspect to their being. A person may supress/deny their sexuality because of external influences, but they were still born sexual beings. 90% of all people marry by age 30. Studies also show that about 5-10% of the population is gay. The born eunuchs are not those destined to be single because they never found "the right one", because that theory signifies something spiritual (God's will) or circumstantial (lack of opportunity) as the cause for being a eunuch. The phrase so born "from their mother's WOMB" specifies that something physical or biological is the cause of their being born eunuchs. Ironically science is now proving that sexual orientation and gender identity are not determined by genetics, but by hormonal and other influences in the WOMB; just like Jesus said thousands of years ago. These "born eunuchs" that don't follow typical male/female roles (v. 4) and marriages are undoubtedly gay people. It was common in the ancient world to figuratively call gay men eunuchs, like today people sometimes refer to a gay man as a "confirmed bachelor". God would never expect us to deny such a vital part of our humanity and to miss out on experiencing true love and committment with someone of the same gender when He purposfully gave us this gift in our mother's womb. http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/gender/intersexuals/article_gender_3.htm
Not all people are created 100% male or 100% female. There are many different combinations of males and females physically, chromosomally, hormonally, and physiologically. Some males are genetically XX and some females are XY. Some people have XO or XXY or a mosaic of XXxyXXxy...So why is it so hard to understand that some people are born with certain intangible gender features of the brain that differ from their physical gender causing unchangeable orientation towards members of their own sex? And don't say God doesn't do that kind of thing because there are thousands of examples:http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency.html. For intersexuals these variations manifest themselves visibly. For gay people the variation is in the brain and thus less tangible, thus unchangeable, but its just as real . I know I was biologically programmed from birth to be romantically attracted to other females. I've been aware of this since the age of four at least. I have never been abused, neglected or molested, so I got my orientation from the same place that all heterosexuals get their orientation- FROM GOD. Romantic attraction is not a matter of the will, volition or one's environment. Did you plan who you were going to have your first crush on? Hmm...should my heart beat faster when Johnny comes around or when Susie comes around? It's impossible to manufacture or conjure up that unique, miraculous kind of attraction from out of your own will. God in his image/sovereignty creates the magical gift of sexual orientation. No one is ever born promiscuous. God expects gay people like everyone else to conduct themselves with fidelity.
The odds of being left-handed are 39% higher in gays than in heterosexuals. Gay men are 34 % more likely to be left-handed and lesbians are 91%more likely to be left-handed.. http://www.sciforums.com/archive/69/2002/03/3/5924
Lesbians usually have more 'masculine' hands than heterosexual women. The index finger is significantly shorter than the ring finger- The Dallas Morning News, 04-02-2000, pp 6A. & Nature 2000; 404:455-456
" Like those of males, the cochlear echoes of the lesbian and bisexual women are weaker than those of heterosexual women, hinting that they sustained a degree of masculinization before birth. Vol. 34, Medical Post, 06-16-1998, pp 25
"Most people have more fingerprint ridges on their right hand. This right-versus-left difference is less true of females and gay males than of heterosexual males--a difference that these researchers believe is due to prenatal hormones." Psychology 6th edition by David G. Myers, copyright 2001 by Worth Publishers, New York
"Gender identity is controlled in a region of the brain called the BSTc and is formed and set biologically during the formation of the brain during the 12th. - 14th. week in utero.." http://www.bornfree2000.com/brain_sex.htm.
"Children who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play indicate a homosexual orientation 75% of the time. Richard Greene's observations suggest that sexual orientation is in place early in the life cycle. http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/studies.html.
Sheep study: "The sheep were exposed in utero to implants of androgen at the precise time when their sex organs had already been formed but ‘their brains were still open to being influenced by androgen. The result ? 100% perfect lesbian ewes http://www.allaboutsex.org/drjohnmoneyprofile.html
Although there is public and political controversy, the overwhelming majority of medical and psychological practitioners agree that sexual orientation may prove to be mainly congenital, or at least firmly established in early childhood. http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/gender/intersexuals/article_gender_3.htm