Bible God wants Gays Hated
Click to navigate site
Does the Bible Require the Death
Penalty for Homosexuals?
All honest Christians agree that the Bible forbids homosexuality as a very heinous sin and says that those who commit it will be lost forever in Hell unless they stop and repent. Christians say that all laws even God's try to be for the best. So there will always be casualties. There will be people hurt by the laws. But this doesn't prove the laws bad or that they should be defied. It does seem arrogant and stupid of gay people to expect Christianity to be on their side and to let them have sex. I'm on their side but they should not be supporting a religion that can't be the religion it claims to be unless it stands by its teaching both popular and unpopular. Can Muslims offended by the Koran ask Islam to drop it? There would be no point in religious faith if it were not based on mystery and asked us to believe things we did not understand.
The Bible in Christian doctrine, is the word of God. Its condemnation of gays is therefore the word of God. The Church in opposing gays finds itself backed up by its Bible which gives no argument against homosexuality whatsoever. It is just condemned as if there could be no argument about it. This implies that those who don’t see homosexuality as bad or evil and sinful are guilty of being so blinded by their own sin that they have lost the sense of sin. It implies that for a homosexual to ask for acceptance or approval is for her or him to encourage others to sin gravely. Jesus condemned blindness as a very dangerous sin and the blindness of the scribes and Pharisees was the main reason he was so ferocious in his condemnation of them.
Good is a very broad thing. When a Christian tells you to be good they mean you must abstain from drunkenness, adultery, blasphemy, heresy, the neglect of prayer and being just to your neighbour to mention just a few things. The word good implies that many actions are good and many are bad. The word good, by implication, is saying that some things are good and must be done and others are bad and must be abstained from. It is totally unthinkable that when the Bible writers, both in the Old and New Testaments, said that God through them was commanding us to be righteous that the command wasn't saying by implication that homosexuality was evil. The Jews and the Christians of Bible times never ever believed anything other than that homosexuality was perverse and forbidden and evil. Therefore the Bible is enforcing their belief when it commands good because abstinence from gay sex was one of the things the writers of the Bible considered good and was included whenever they said we must be good.
THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
The Bible never says that the Jewish law all is over and done with as a
law of binding moral precepts implying that it is a Christian duty to kill
homosexuals for the Law wants them stoned to death. The Book of Leviticus says that the homosexuals
must be killed. The reason is not to prevent bad example – for homosexuality would have been
secret then anyway and killing people even legally is a worse example – or to
prevent disease – for they did not understand that but to purge the evil from
the midst of the people. When it was
right then it is still right now. It was
to get rid of the sinners and for nothing else.
When Jesus said the faith comes before life and when he had his saints
died for it and since practicing homosexuals are endangering that faith by
working towards acceptance it follows that they should be jailed or murdered
and Christians should seek the legal right to make sure it happens to
them. And if the Christians shouldn’t be
then it is not really a serious sin to murder them.
There is no doubt that the Law wants the homosexuals put to death cruelly
as possible. Those Christians who say
they are appalled by this suggestion will mutter about since Christ we listen
to the spirit of the Law and not the letter.
Their saying that they ask nothing worse of the homosexual than they do
of the heterosexual, namely no sex outside of marriage, makes them look
insincere. The obedient heterosexual has
a bigger of chance of having sex for marriage is available to her or him. The homosexual is forbidden to have a
non-physical sexual relationship while heterosexuals can date and have
romances. Kissing except for pecks on
the cheek is a sexual activity and so is cuddling.
The law of God actually put homosexuality on a par with child-sacrifice
and bestiality! This is incredible but
see for yourself (page 18, Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, Intervarsity
Press, 1972; Leviticus
The Church advocates more tolerance for publicans who take advantage of
people’s fondness for the drink than it does for gays and they don’t cause
drunks to beat up their wives and abuse their children and wreak lives and
kill. This has led many gays to see the
Church as a well-disguised hate-group.
This is excited even more when in A Catechism of Christian Doctrine we
read that the sin of
It is ludicrous to talk about
loving the person but not the sin of homosexuality for homosexuality is a major
part of the person and even more so when the hypocrisy we have seen is
tolerated. A person is defective until
he or she meets a good partner to bring out all the love inside them and they
become giving to that person so to disparage love is to disparage the person when
that love is harmless or need not harm if it is harmful.
The Bible God says that it is not
good for man to be alone in Genesis 2:18 and the Church says it is good for
gays to be alone. Some think that though
the Bible God made Eve for man to solve this problem it does not prove that it
has to be a woman for Adam was made heterosexual. But the context of where God said the man
should not be alone tells us that God brought many animals for man to be
helpmates and none were suitable.
Evidently, God is unintelligent and not all-knowing or all-powerful for
he has to use trial and error. Anyway,
the fact that God thought an animal would be a more suitable helpmate than a
man shows that God is plainly homophobic.
Finally God made Eve from the man’s ribs and the man said, “At last this
is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”.
The man meant that the only suitable helpmate for him would have to be
made of the same flesh as he was made of – God evidently agreed when he made
Eve from the man. Homosexuals might jump
for joy at this point but the story is still anti-gay. Since your partner has to be made from your
flesh in some sense it would follow that a man’s partner should be another man
but Genesis, God and the first man rejected this and said that the partner
should be of the same flesh but of the opposite sex. If Genesis agreed with homosexuality its
logic would actually forbid heterosexual relations which it evidently does
not. The logic in Genesis is this, the
helpmate needs to be made from man to be his mate so that the helpmate is like
him but the helpmate is not to be another man which is out of the question
though men are similar to each other in so far as they are men. Because the woman was taken from the man, men
and their wives become one body
according to Genesis 2:24. This refers
to sexual union in marriage. It implies
that man yearns for union with woman because she is made up of what is missing
in him. It is as if he cannot be whole
without the woman. If so, then
homosexuals are grossly perverted and sick.
It must be a wilful perversion.
Like the eternal sin Jesus mentioned the homosexual must be so committed
to her or his sin that conversion will never happen – it can in principle but
it won’t happen. Some say that the habit
of sin must have led to homosexuality so there can be no being gay as in
orientation without excessive sin.
The Bible never allowed gay
weddings or even imagined they could be possible which shows that this story is
anti-gay. To deny gays marriage is to say
the intimacy of marriage which God holds up as an ideal is not for them and if
they are not allowed that self-sacrificing intimate marital love then they
cannot be permitted to have relationships full stop. If you can give away a carrot and a nice orange
and you refuse to give the orange then you are saying it is wrong to give the
carrot away too. Jesus said thinking of
this chapter in Genesis that God made them male and female which is why a man
leaves his parents and becomes one body with his wife (Mark 10). This is really saying that the female is what
the male needs and is physically different to enable sex or union to take place
which is why he leaves his parents to become one with his wife. Jesus is saying that a man needs a woman not
another man. Homosexuality then must be
a deliberate perversion. Men are
refusing to love women in defiance of God.
That is what he is saying.
In reply to this some will say
that Jesus means that a man only needs a woman if he has received the call from
God to get married. But Jesus said it is
because people are made male and female that they are drawn to one another and
discover their vocation to get married.
He would have believed that men can do things that destroy God’s plan
for them. A man can be called to
marriage by God and let God down and end up single. Jesus would have believed that a man can need
a woman and not be called to marriage but be called to give that need up. Since Jesus says men need women there is no
doubt that he means men whether called to marriage or not. There can be no doubt that he was saying that
men who need men and women who need women are depraved sinners.
If homosexuality is wrong and it is not good for man to be alone then it
follows that homosexuals are to be blamed and punished by the Church for their
orientation for it must be their own fault.
The Church says homosexuality is wrong – not just wrong but seriously
wrong. This condemnation is way over the
top. It is hardly a serious sin even if
it is wrong. It shows how the Church
hates gay people. If heterosexuality
often spread AIDS the Church would say it cannot be banned because
heterosexuality is ethical and right. So
it follows then that since homosexuality is wrong and bad and totally evil and
if it often spreads AIDS then homosexuality is tantamount to murder and grave
injury to others. It follows that
killing homosexuals is only self-defence.
Something that is evil can be banned for doing some people harm.
It is the abuse of homosexuality, not homosexuality that spreads
AIDS. The Church cannot accept this
for it regards homosexuality as an abuse.
The negativity of
the Church has forced lonely vulnerable closeted gay men to substitute a sex
for a loving relationship. Presumably, the
Church prefers promiscuity and risking one’s life through AIDS to gay
love. It prefers driving people into
making mistakes through desire and loneliness that they had little control over
to letting them “sin”. The Church has
done a lot to promote the spread of AIDS.
The way it makes much harmless sex including gay sex something to be
hidden and to be ashamed of contributes to the spread of AIDS for lack of
information about the person you go to bed with inevitably ensues with
sometimes devastating results. The
Church, when it can, murderously gets countries to legislate in ways that
restrict the availability of birth control and condoms even in
Does
the Bible Require the Death Penalty for Homosexuals?
This is a Christian answer to this question:
The Old Testament theocratic law required the death
penalty for incest in
When a man committed incest in the
Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as
he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”) required the death
penalty for homosexuality in
My reply is that the change in
the Law referred to in Hebrews 7:12 does not imply that the moral rules of the
Old Testament, such as the duty of the God fearing state to destroy gay people
are wrong or changed or obsolete.
When Judaism was only a temporary
religion that was meant to evolve into Christianity its fulfilment it doesn’t
necessarily imply the law had to be changed except in the sense that it was
made tougher or more explicit. It is
worse to sin when you have experienced the fulfilled faith than the preparatory
one.
The Bible time and time again
says that the Old Testament is full of moral example. As for the incest case the Christians did try
to execute the guilty man but by cursing him and urging God to destroy him in
the hope that the suffering this entails might make him turn to God again. And the law to execute does not require one
to execute where it is impossible. The
rulers of
However, the Catholic apologist
Robert Sungenis argues that handing the man over to Satan for the destruction
of his flesh does mean execution. The
Christians saw secular and pagan states as the emissaries of Satan though God
still used them to punish the wicked (Romans 13). Handing over to Satan may mean handing him
over to the civil authorities and the destruction may be civil punishment,
capital punishment. The fact that Paul
sounds so certain the man will be destroyed indicates that he did mean
execution. He wants the man put to death
so that he may repent before he dies.
It is certain however that if a man lives with his stepmother as a lover that Paul wants him excommunicated or cursed if nothing else can be done to him. Now what the man was doing was hardly a huge scandal for few men would be doing what he did. For Paul homosexuality would have been a worse scandal. Paul handed him over to Satan by God’s authority meaning God approved. That Christianity is so afraid of being loathed if it does that today that it won’t obey God speaks of the duplicity of this religion. Paul decreed that for a believer to have sex with a prostitute was for him being part of Christ’s body to unite Christ with evil and so must be a very great sin indeed. He would have seen a man having sex with a man like trying to fuse two toes together and breaking the organisation of the body of Christ.
The book of Leviticus in relation to sexual sinners who were put to death by stoning has God saying that they have nobody but themselves to blame for their deaths (20:27). In other words, it was the right thing to do. It is only if it is wrong or unnecessary to kill them that the question of who else is to blame for their deaths comes in. The Bible says it is both right and necessary to slay homosexuals and to do it with cruelty.
The Bible says that if a man takes his brother's wife that is incest and they will die childless (Leviticus 20:21). The will die childless bit would suggest that the man has his penis cut off or something by the God police. It is suggested that this means legal childlessness - their children will not be given any legal status. But that explanation is a bit stretched. God could have commanded that the genitals of homosexual people be cut off. He abhorred the sin so much that nothing less than the death penalty would suffice.
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2004/qa-aug-04.htm#Question%2026
Note: The Same Source says that
the Church has the right to use torture to destroy heresy. Question 41.
HOMOSEXUALS SLANDERED
The Christian religion armed with the Bible teaches the beloved
superstition that homosexuality and lesbianism are gravely sinful. The fact that the Bible recognises only
heterosexual marriage as the proper context for sex is sufficient proof of
that.
In the time of Henry VIII, homosexuality was a capital crime.
In ancient
If God exists then he comes first.
He puts himself first. He
deserves all his own love. He deserves
all love. He deserves all going to Hell
for him if it means they value him better.
We must put him first and love him with all and not some of the love in
us. Heterosexual sex implies making a
sacrifice to bring a child into the world for God so sex that does not create
life is immoral. The consistent
homosexual should be an atheist.
In Genesis 18, 19 we read that God wanted to destroy
Some say the Sodomites were into gay rape so their condemnation does not signify
condemnation of homosexuality in itself.
In that part of the world, it was known for soldiers to use homosexual rape to
humiliate their enemies by treating them as women.
But there is no hint of anything like that in the text. They did not say they wanted to rape the
angels. It could be that they broke into
Some say that
It might seem that the sex would have been regarded as sinful because it
was physical and devoid of love. But the
Bible never commanded that a husband must love his wife. The levirate law is one case where a man is
forced to marry his dead brother’s wife to raise children for the brother and
that is as far from romantic as you can get.
Also, the woman did not take the marriage vow and was too young to know
what was happening. Purely physical and
cold sex was encouraged by the Law of Moses.
Marriage was a business arrangement in those days. It is undeniable that the absence of love in
sex was not what bothered God for it couldn’t have annoyed him to the extent
that he sought to destroy the cities. It
must have been the homosexuality. It is
too far fetched to imagine that anybody in the Bible would have been accepting
towards homosexuals.
Some say when Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom to rape them he was acknowledging that the men were heterosexual. That isn't necessarily so. Perhaps Lot was desperate and not thinking straight. Perhaps Lot couldn't understand how men could resist his daughters even if these men only had sex with men. The men must have went with women enough to keep the city populated. But that doesn't mean they were heterosexual.
The angels brought
If the angels had appeared as ugly men there might have been no trouble
so they were to blame for all this as much as were the sodomites. So God likes to send angels to attract weak
people to sin. What kind of God sends
angels disguised as hunks to a gay den of iniquity? The episode is wholly consistent with the Old
Testament view that God likes tempting people to sin. It should be taken literally in this for the
Devil was invented later to take the rap for tempting so when the texts would
have been interpreted as blaming God that is what they are doing.
The sin of homosexuality is seen by Genesis as so bad that just for
looking back at the city one could become a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26).
Looking back implies that you want to go back there or are showing concern for the
inhabitants. The second is the most
likely for who would want to go back?
The claim that the sin of
In Genesis, the angels were going to stay in the square and not with
There is no doubt from the context that the sin in Genesis 18 and 19 is
homosexuality and it does indeed declare that it is a sin that cries to God for
his revenge to come down as the A Catechism of Christian Doctrine question
327 declares.
Leviticus
Some believers hold that Leviticus is just saying that gay sex is an
abomination meaning a taboo or just a religious impurity. That means it was just forbidden not because
it was wrong in itself but for cultural reasons. They say that Jesus did away with this rule
like he did away with the rule banning pork.
But abomination is used of things that are definitely wrong and which
Christianity still considers forbidden so they are lying. God did not command that people be put to
death for religious taboos but for serious crimes. Leviticus
It is likely that when God was so harsh on homosexuality it was because
it was thought to be a disorder that could be spread if it was tolerated. People knowing gay people could set in
motions triggers that could lead them into similar practices. That is God’s point.
Paul said that the Law of Moses was infallible. It said that if a man has sex with a man they
are to be stoned to death and condemned as sinners. Gay Christians would say that Moses had to make
this rule for the people were so hard-hearted that they would have turned against
God and goodness if he had not which is accusing God of incompetence. They are saying that Moses did not mean to
say that gay sex was wrong. But there is
no evidence that expediency was his motive.
Jesus said that Moses had to allow divorce for the people were too
difficult but that does not mean we can say the same about any other rule. Besides, God had made plenty of rules the
people of
God commanded in the Law of Moses that no man with a defect or disorder
even a small one was allowed to go near his altar as a priest (Leviticus
21-22). The
To have an illness is bad for you and makes the world a worse place. That is what the Church is saying you are
doing if you are gay and even if you don’t practice by accusing you of having a
disorder.
Asa was praised by God for expelling all homosexuals from the land (1
Kings
Jesus did not condemn homosexuality directly but he said that sex outside
marriage was wrong and that marriage is only for one man and one woman. So he frowned upon it.
Let us study Romans 1:18-32 where
Paul condemns homosexuality as depravity.
Paul declared elsewhere that it was best to be single and unmarried
though he that married did not do wrong in doing so for it is better to marry
than to burn with passion and fall into sin. The single life leaves one free to
serve the Lord better and spread the gospel.
When Paul discouraged marriage and by implication from what he said
about needing marriage to avoid sexual sin he did not regard masturbation as a
solution either so it was a sin too.
When you have to marry to avoid sexual sin if your passions are strong
and you can’t masturbate it is clear you cannot have sex outside of marriage
even if it is homosexual sex. If Paul
had allowed homosexuality he would have allowed gay marriage.
Back to Romans.
First he says that it is because
people reject God who has made his existence clear enough to all and hate his laws
and are selfish that he abandoned them to sinful lusts. He teaches the doctrine of many that people
are homosexual because of sin and God abandons them to these evil
feelings. “God abandoned them to vile
affections and degrading passions. For
their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal
one. And the men also turned from
natural relations with women and were set ablaze with lust for one another –
men committing shameful acts with me and suffering in their own bodies and
personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong doing and
going astray, which was their fitting retribution” (Romans 1:26,27). He says God delivered them up to disgraceful
passions meaning homosexuals are a disgrace and we should be ashamed to have
them in our midst. Then he says the
women gave up natural sex for unnatural and the men did the same and burned
with lust for one another. Then he
says “men did shameful things with men and received in their bodies the penalty
of their perversity”.
What is this penalty?
Some say that since he says after
that that God delivered them up to further evils like hatred and disloyalty
that this deepening depravity is the penalty.
Others say it is the death they deserve which he mentions in the last
verse. But the answer is in the sentence
itself. The answer is that the
degradation of gay sex is the penalty for it is so shameful. Since it is the sex it is the desire to have
this sex too so homosexuality, in practice and in orientation, is regarded as a
punishment for sin. Now the pagans he
had in mind flaunted their sin and people looked up to them for it. So Paul means they know deep down that what
they are doing is wrong for God has implanted this knowledge in them. He is saying that it is impossible to let
yourself have any gay pleasures or dirty gay fantasies without being a terrible
sinner. This tells us that straights who
make themselves do gay things are not who he has in mind for they like those
who think they were born gay both feel that this is natural for them. To those gay people who would say that they
have no sense in them that being gay or having gay sex is wrong the Bible God
would say, “Then you are so sinful that you can’t see the truth. You are the most godless of the
godless”. There is no doubt that
homosexuals are being accused of one of the worst possible sins: stubborn
hatred of what is right and self-inflicted blindness.
Paul is also indicating that the
homosexual orientation itself is a penalty for he said in the next sentence
that the men did not obey God and so they were abandoned to their lusts. So if you are gay it is your own fault for it
is a punishment for sin.
Paul says that gays deserve to die.
That means that when a gay man dies of AIDS it is less than what he
deserves. It was Paul who should have
died. The Humanist position is that no
matter what you do you never deserve to die for life is the absolute value. There is real hatred in Paul’s theology and
in the God who was allegedly writing these letters in unison with him.
Some surmise that Paul condemned heterosexuals forcing themselves to be
like homosexuals in Romans 1 but not real homosexuals. They want to suggest that Paul didn’t mind
real homosexuals doing stuff which is totally off the mark for Christianity was
clear from the start that homosexuality was bad and inherited homophobia from
the Jews. It even condemned
masturbation! Paul would not have been allowed
into the
Is he saying that all homosexuals or just some have chosen to be
gay? He gives no indication that he
means some so he means all. He gives no
hint that he means just the abuse of homosexuality is wrong so he means that
homosexuality itself is wrong. You must
take the straightforward interpretation for that is the intended one.
He is certainly saying they indirectly choose to be gay because they know
God and won’t worship him but go after idols instead so God abandons them to
perverse desires. Remember, the same
would apply to a person who prefers to make up his own version of God for that
is making an idol in the imagination. A
person without the aid of modern psychology and scientific research would
naturally assume that since homosexuality was supposed to be unnatural it is
not natural to be gay and so the person must be gay through their own fault. If Paul was against homosexuals who were once
heterosexual but who did not force themselves to change then he was against all
homosexuals. The text is not about
married men running after men or about men who sleep with boys or who use
homosexual sex in pagan rites as some suggest for these suggestions are just
speculation and are unsupported in the text.
Stick to what is there.
Paul never hints that the gay sex is done in honour of pagan gods and
that is the kind of gay sex he condemns.
He says it is a sign of separation from and hostility to God but that is
not the same as saying that the sex is a form of idol-worship though some
theologians tell us it is.
To say that Paul only condemns artificial gays is ridiculous because why
would he be so strong against them if homosexuality is ever tolerable? And the idea that there are natural gays is a
modern idea that Paul wouldn’t ever have thought of. It’s an anachronism to say that Paul never
meant to condemn natural gays who are in a loving mature relationship.
It is wrong to claim that Paul is condemning loveless homosexual lust and
acting upon it for sexual acts without love are evil for he would have just
settled for condemning the evil passions.
Then the acts would not be shameful in themselves but the attitude
behind them but he condemns the acts as shameful things. And why single out homosexuals for that
complaint when straight people can be complained about too? Paul is denouncing same-sex sex.
It is wrong to argue that since Paul talks about gay sex being shameless
and dishonourable he is not saying it is unethical but that he socially
disapproves. It’s like behaviour that is
not really bad but just rude. He means
bad because he says those who have gay sex pay for it in suffering meaning it
is punished by God. He makes no
distinction between people doing it privately or publicly so he means gay sex
is shameless in the sense that gays should be ashamed of their sin. He uses the word para physin (unnatural)
which can mean not ordinary like it means at Romans 11:24. But we know that Romans
Some Christians argue that Paul is not condemning homosexuality but just the
homosexual act which makes one man play the role of the woman by receiving the
other man (page 12-13, Saint Saul). But in 1 Corinthians 6:9 he calls them
arsenokoitai which is an extremely insulting word meaning butt-fuckers so the
men who dominate are still condemned. So
passive and active homosexuals are despised.
The thought that it is only the penetrator or penetrated makes no
sense. The fact that Paul called
homosexuals abusive names shows that they are to be hated and despised.
Paul singles out homosexuality in the passage and gives it more space
than any of the other sins he mentioned as an example of what happens when men
turn away from God. He regarded it then
as especially horrific and the best example of how bad people can get.
It is wrong to say that Paul only condemns homosexuality that results
from godlessness for when he could be saying that homosexuality results from
godlessness that is what he means. He
would have been clear if he had meant the first.
In conclusion, Paul and his God were saying that homosexuality is caused
by human selfishness and that those who have always been gay have a selfish
streak that causes their desires. The
orientation then is a symptom of sin and therefore sinful and unholy and the
act is as terrible.
1 Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not
inherit the
Paul and the whole Bible never said anything positive about homosexuality
or allowed gay weddings so they were opposed to homosexuality.
The Church condemns the word gay because it implies that one is proud to
be attracted to and having relations with one’s own sex while the Church says
that this happiness is false happiness.
The only true happiness is in keeping God’s commandments. Try telling that to the virtuous people who
are raped and die of AIDS as a consequence or to women who find themselves
married to evil men. To describe
yourself as gay then is a grave sin and blasphemes God and gives bad example
and it is a heresy. To use it must
entail excommunication. The Church might
not go that far for it likes to pinch pennies off gay people but the fact is
that if you contradict the teaching of the Church given as the word of God you
are a heretic and have broken from the Church.
If homosexuality is sinful then the love a man has for a man and a woman
for a woman is artificial. When the love
is evil and not sinful for the persons are weak then it is still evil and
undesirable and to be disparaged and hated.
Good fruit does not come from bad trees like Jesus said.
Top
of the Document
.
GOD AND HOMOSEXUALITY
The Bible condemns homosexuality and requires that homosexuals be put to
death.
The evil Jesus condemned homosexuality when he said that marriage was for
one man and one woman and that sex outside wedlock was wrong.
If God exists then he comes first.
He puts himself first. He
deserves all his own love. Heterosexual
sex implies making a sacrifice to bring a child into the world for God so sex
that does not create life is immoral.
The consistent homosexual should be an Atheist.
Religionists tend to put themselves before God but in this case they will
condemn homosexuals for God. They love
God when it suits them. They cannot even
prove that homosexuality is wrong.
If homosexuality is a sin then the sexuality is caused by sin. God decreed that sex is only for those who
are married. Paul advised against
marriage and said that marriage is good when it prevents fornication or sex
outside marriage (1 Corinthians 7).
Homosexuals cannot get married to one another so God is encouraging sin
by making people gay. The only thing a
Christian can say to this is that God makes nobody gay but people make
themselves gay. And that God is not
encouraging gays to sin for it is their own doing that they won’t become
heterosexual and get a wife or husband.
Obviously, it would be a sin to be gay if you choose to be gay and if
homosexual acts are wrong and unnatural.
You would be going against nature and attracting yourself to sin and not
holy marriage.
This means that a homosexual cannot become a priest or a nun.
The Bible in the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians says that it is
good to marry but better not to but so to prevent fornication everybody should
have their partner in marriage for it is better to marry than to burn with
lust. Paul vehemently condemned
homosexuality. The picture is
clear. Marriage should be avoided if you
have no lust in you. If you do, then get
married to avoid the sin of fornication.
Homosexuals are not allowed to marry so if they burn they must
deliberately cause their desire for the same sex. There is no other conclusion that can be
drawn. If they deny it’s deliberate they
are lying. Some Christians will say that
it is foolish to believe that they are not just because they turn away from
females. That is like saying that a
person who never drinks milk necessarily must be unable to drink milk.
The homosexual is despicable in the Bible
because the one who breaks the law of God in one thing is guilty of breaking
every other law automatically (James 1:10).
This is because sin is essentially disobedience to God and disobedience
is disobedience. This is more true of
one who commits a sin like homosexuality that the Lord says deserves a cruel
and lingering death.
One sin makes all you do sin for how can you really intend to be good
when you are attached to sin? So, if it
is sin to practice homosexuality there is nothing good that can be said about
the relationship at all and it is right to force the couple asunder for there
is nothing in the relationship worthy of respect. The Catholics sometimes say that there is
something good in homosexual love despite its sinfulness but that is just their
way of being sweetly insincere.
Blaming gay people or their being gay would make the queer bashers more
determined to destroy them. It makes
being gay more repulsive to any who feel it is repulsive.
Religion may seem not to encourage queer-bashing but by implying that gay
people want to be gay though they don’t have to be they are saying they are
asking to be beaten up and that their being sinners lessens the sin of the
bashers for they deserve the bashing although it was a sin to beat them
up. It would be hard to prove that the
bashers did anything seriously wrong. It
looks like they never did anything wrong at all if the gays have asked for
it. It would be a sin for the gays to
complain or to go to the police. It is
right to say that Bible-believers have to condone the beatings. They are encouraging them when they teach
what says they should not be punished.
Suicide rates are high among young gay men and religion will make sure
that it not only stays high but climbs higher still. The condemnation of homosexuality excites
much homophobia and drives many to despair and even suicide. It would be better to speak positively about
homosexuality and stop condemning even if it saves just one life but the Church
won’t do it showing how little concern it has for gay human life despite
bragging about its great respect for life as the most important thing.
Bible believers who rail against capital punishment on the grounds that
human life is sacred are abandoning their God whose scriptures command capital
punishment. Their dogma forbids them to
do that for all God cares about is what he wants and does not mind if people
die over the things he directs the Church to teach. How anybody could expect this God to be
unlike the bloodthirsty tyrant who commanded that gays be stoned to death in
the Bible is a mystery. His commanding
the prohibition of homosexuality is proof enough that he wants gays dead and
for us to make sure he gets his wish.
Then the Church dares to not apologise for having said in the past that
suicides should not be buried in consecrated ground or even get a Catholic
funeral in order to arouse horror of this crime (Question 1039, Radio Replies,
Vol 2). This was very unjust because
there were plenty of others who died in alleged sin that were allowed the
proper funeral – need I mention kings and queens and other toffs who died
fighting unjust wars or organising massacres? And there was no need to show anybody that
suicide is horrible and something to be prevented.
Religion says that homosexuality is a disorder, a sickness. To say that something harmless or that can be
harmless is sick is disguised hatred and homophobia. Religion says that homosexuality is both
sickness and sin or evil. So if you
think that it is worse to call evil people sick than evil then religion is
doing this thing. So if you think it is
worse to call evil people evil than sick religion is still doing it. Religion then does both.
Those who think that it is worse to call them sick do so because it is
being assumed that evil is easily corrected and sickness is not. To say evil is
sickness is to sanction long periods of treatment and to discourage anybody who
has evil tendencies to fight them on the basis that it is going to be a hard
and long struggle. To say gays are sick
implies they should be locked up and treated.
And since they are sick they cannot be trusted not to give in to their
sinful tendencies. They need to be
protected from their sickness for that is what you do for sick people.
To condemn evil people as sick suggests that if you think that gay
sexuality is sick then you have to regard them as mad for their “sickness” is
different from others in that it is so important in the gay person’s nature and
is so permanent. The sexuality would
have to be a form of madness if it is a sickness and if gays are mad then they
should not be employed or trusted.
Madness is having thoughts and feelings you ought not to be having. Homosexuality then is irrational if it is
sick.
The Catholics today say that they regard homosexuality as being an
objective disorder but that is not the same as saying that gay people are
objectively disordered. No form of
hypocritical double-talk could be more obvious.
Conclusion
The Bible forbids all tolerance for homosexuals and orders that they be condemned as evil.
WORKS CONSULTED
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society,
A Teenager’s Answer to “Shall I Go to the Prom?” Sherry Burgess, Guardian of Truth
Publications,
Courtship and the Dangers of Petting, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Eunuchs for the
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society,
Rediscovering Gay History, John Boswell, Gay Christian Movement,
Saint Saul, Donald Harman Akenson,
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue C SS R,
The Pope and Contraception, Brenda Maddox, Counterblasts 18, Chatto &
Windus,
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992
The WWW
How to Fight the Religious Right, Brian Elroy McKinley
http://elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
Top of the Document
BIBLE VERSION USED
The Amplified Bible
24 November 2007