Born Gay? A Scientific, Commonsense, Biblical Perspective

Are there determinative biological reasons for the broad range of human sexual proclivities, particularly among the LGBTQ+ population? Slate magazine, an online journal known for its “liberal contrarianism” and “left-wing slant,”¹ has published an article by gay journalist Mark Joseph Stern, asserting that homosexuality “is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait.”²  Moral behavioral expert Lady Gaga, in her 2011 hit single “Born This Way,” lyricizes: “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life …. I’m beautiful in my way, ‘cause God makes no mistakes, I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way.”³

Subjective, agenda-driven assertions like these have become commonplace in our modern world, but is there any hard evidence to back them up? Is this popular claim supported by neutral, fact-based scientific research? If God is brought into the conversation, how do we know what his role is and what his will is in all this? 

A Commonsense Perspective

In the never-ending debate over nature versus nurture, the “born gay” argument is heavy on nature’s role with little if any regard for environmental influences. While sexual desire is innate in nearly all post-pubescent humans, the development and focus of one’s sexual impulses cannot but be affected by external factors. An absentee father, a domineering mother, neglect, abuse, pornography, molestation, or any number of variables that conflict with God’s design for the home contribute to psychological inclinations that conflict with God’s design for the person.⁴ Even siblings raised in the same environment do not have identical experiences, and each reacts to stimuli in a unique way.

The normalcy of heterosexuality is a fact of biology and human history. Trying to legitimize an alternative sexual orientation, whether same-sex attraction, pedophilic desire, zoophilia, et al.,⁵ is an attempt to normalize something that is contrary to nature and biblical morality. While most advocates of the LGBTQ+ agenda would object to being lumped together with pedophiles and zoophiles (thus no “P” or “Z” in the acronym),⁶ if sexual orientation is innate, then the prevailing status quo is inconsistent, hypocritical, and discriminatory for not including others who are “born that way.” 

An Objective Scientific Perspective

With eager attempts to sustain a particular point of view, it is important not to oversimplify or exaggerate the evidence, or make unwarranted assumptions about what the evidence does or does not actually confirm. It is also helpful to clearly define our terms. What is meant by the somewhat ambiguous expression “sexual orientation”? Are we talking about feelings of attraction, fantasy, confusion, longing for relationship, sense of identity, secretive or overt behavior? Does it include various tendencies, mannerisms, and preferences? 

Neuroscientist Simon LeVay, in his study published in 1991,⁷ reported brain differences between heterosexual and homosexual men, which some have interpreted as “proof” of biological causation of sexual orientation. However, since these variations could have developed after birth, LeVay explains: “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”⁸ Numerous other studies that have focused on the role of genetics, including identical twins studies,⁹ can neither establish a biological cause for sexual orientation nor discount the formative effects of environmental catalysts.¹⁰

Johns Hopkins University published a nonpartisan report in 2016, based on exhaustive research from biological, psychological, and social sciences, authored by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh.¹¹ Dr. McHugh (M.D.) is former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr. Mayer (M.B., M.S., Ph.D.), the lead writer of the report, is a biostatistician, epidemiologist, and research physician trained in medicine and psychiatry. Mayer states, “I support every sentence in this report, without reservation and without prejudice regarding any political or philosophical debates. This report is about science and medicine, nothing more and nothing less…. I strongly support equality and oppose discrimination for the LGBT community…” (“Preface” 4-5).

The 143-page report, which addresses sexual orientation, mental health, and gender identity, can be summed up with these words: “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by the scientific evidence…. there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation” (“Executive Summary” 7). The authors also note that the questions addressed in their comprehensive investigation reveal “a great chasm between much of the public discourse and what science has shown” (“Conclusion” 116).

Fluidity of Sexual Orientations

The idea that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors, and identities are biologically innate and unchangeable is not supported by scientific research. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health conducted interviews with a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the U.S. in 1994-1995, with follow-up interviews through to 2007-2008. The study found that of the adolescent males who had reported same-sex attractions, 80% later identified as exclusively heterosexual young adults. Over 80% of the adolescent males who had reported romantic attraction to both genders later reported no same-sex attraction. Considerable scientific evidence shows that sexual behaviors and identities can vary significantly under different social and environmental circumstances.¹² London’s Royal College of Psychiatrists collectively affirms: “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”¹³

A Biblical Perspective

True science is based on empirical evidence and demonstrable data rather than individual preferences or popular opinions. In like manner, the Bible must be evaluated according to what it actually teaches instead of biased and misconstrued presuppositions. Irrespective of anyone’s sexual tendencies, moral purity is expected of all who profess allegiance to Christ.¹⁴ The New Testament Greek term porneía refers to any kind of forbidden sexual intercourse—that which is beyond the context of a divinely approved, heterosexual, monogamous, consensual marriage.¹⁵ Now if God is creator of all humankind and is both loving and just, it is inconceivable that he is responsible for making a person a certain way, or compelling a person to behave a certain way, while condemning that person for something he/she cannot control. Sexual activity between those of the same gender is contrary to God’s revealed will.¹⁶ Either the God of the Bible is unjust, or he is not responsible for making people gay.

The Free Will Factor

We are told, “being gay is not a choice” and “God makes no mistakes,” but these are narrow, undefined, misleading generalizations. At the same time, the idea that sexual desire and sexual attraction are simply matters of preferential choice is also naïve and unrealistic.

The crux of the matter is how these inclinations are expressed, or how these impulses are acted upon. Humans are created with the ability to think and the freedom to choose. God does not force us to act against our volitional choices.¹⁷ Stated from a secular point of view, sexual desire is “a powerful force, akin to hunger, that many struggle (especially in adolescence) to bring under direction and control…. What seems to be to some extent in our control is how we choose to live with this appetite, how we integrate it into the rest of our lives” (L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 19).

Philosopher and legal theorist Edward Stein, critical of popular cultural stereotypes overshadowing cross-cultural scientific facts, observes: “Regardless of whether sexual orientations are directly chosen, indirectly chosen, or not chosen at all … people choose with whom they have sex, people choose whether to be open about their sexual orientations, people choose whether or not to enter romantic relationships, and whether or not to build families.”¹⁸ Everyone has to decide either to reject biblical morality, or distort it to conform to the lifestyle of one’s choosing, or accept and comply with the creator’s design for life and relationships, whether in marriage or in single-hood.

Conclusion:

History professor and gay activist John D’Emilio is honest enough to admit that scientific evidence for the “born gay” mantra “is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”¹⁹ Nonetheless, many sincere people believe it is a provable fact, which Edward Stein describes as “cultural chauvinism,” meaning “to think, in the absence of either strong scientific evidence or strong theoretical arguments, that our conceptual framework, which gives sexual orientation such a central role, is going to be confirmed by an advanced science of human sexual desire.”²⁰

We all have choices to make. Those of us who choose not to climb aboard the trendy “Gay Pride” bandwagon or embrace the “born that way” propaganda will continue to be stereotyped as “a group of toothless, anti-gay protesters coded as hillbillies who wear American flag tank tops and hold signs that say familiar homophobic slogans ...”²¹ But folks on either side of the debate can be just as ill-informed and hateful as the other. If we truly love God and our fellow humans, we will see one another as precious souls made in his image, created to live lives pleasing to him and worthy of him (Col. 1:10). Let’s encourage each other to do just that. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Daniel Engber, “Free-Thought for the Closed-Minded,” Slate (8 Jan. 2019), <Link>.

     ² Mark Joseph Stern, “No, Being Gay is Not a Choice,” Slate (4 Feb. 2014), <Link>.

     ³ “Born This Way (song),” Wikipedia (7 June 2019), <Link>.

     ⁴ Non-heterosexuals are about two to three times more likely than heterosexuals to have been victims of childhood sexual abuse (see Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis 50 [Fall 2016]: 42-50). Sadly, as lesbian feminist Camille Paglia observes, “now, you are not allowed to ask any questions about the childhood of gay people anymore. It’s called ‘homophobic.’ The entire psychology establishment has shut itself down, politically …” (“Sexual Orientation is Fluid and Can Change,” Voice of the Voiceless [accessed 16 June 2019], <Link>.
     ⁵ Mirjam Heine, a German medical student, says “pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation” (see Paul Boise, “TEDx Speaker,” The Daily Wire [18 July 2018], <Link>), and the pedophile rights movement is gaining momentum (see Selwyn Duke, “Shocking Times,” The New American [28 Sept. 2015], <Link>). Zoophilia is sexual attraction to animals, while bestiality is engaging in sexual intercourse with animals, the prevalence of which is becoming more and more recognized (see Phil Paleologos, “Bestiality Is Much More Widespread Than You Think,” 1420 WBSM News (28 Feb. 2019), <Link>.

     ⁶ Another proposed acronym or initialism is LGBTTQQIAAP, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer (an ambiguous attempt to include all other non-heterosexuals), questioning, intersexual, asexual, ally, and pansexual. In addition to being cumbersome and confusing, this “abbreviation” still leaves out a number of other sexual inclinations and identities. 

     ⁷ Simon LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science 253:5023 (30 Aug. 1991): 1034-37, <Link>.

     ⁸ David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover (1 March 1994), <Link>.

     ⁹ Identical twins share the same DNA and prenatal conditions, so if sexual orientation is determined by genes, both siblings ought to be either gay or straight 100% of the time. In 1952 psychiatrist Franz Kallmann, having evaluated multiple pairs of twins, reported that if one twin was homosexual, they both were 100% of the time (“Comparative Twin Study on the Genetic Aspects of Male Homosexuality,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 115:1 [Jan. 1952]: 283-98, <Link>). However, Kallmann’s assertion has since been exposed as bogus. Among other problematic areas, his subjects represented an insufficient cross-section of the homosexual population, and his findings have never been replicated (Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation [Oxford: University Press, 1999]: 145). A number of major studies of identical twins in Australia, Scandinavia, and the United States over the past couple of decades have all concluded that the predominant variables contributing to sexual orientation are post-birth and non-shared factors rather than genetic. If an identical twin grows up to be sexually attracted to the same gender, the chances of the co-twin sharing the same proclivity is comparatively small (Mark Ellis, “Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic,” OrthodoxNet Blog [24 June 2013] <Link>). For a thorough and informative survey of these and similar studies, see L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 13-58. Their report concludes: “Summarizing the studies of twins, we can say that there is no reliable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is determined by a person’s genes.”

     ¹⁰ See Zoe Mintz, “Does a ‘Gay Gene’ Exist? New Study Says ‘Xq28’ May Influence Male Sexual Orientation,” Science (14 Feb. 2014), <Link>.

     ¹¹ L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 1-143, <Link>.

     ¹² L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 50-51.

     ¹³ London’s Royal College of Psychiatrists, “Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement on sexual orientation” (April 2014): 2, <Link>.
     ¹⁴ Matt. 5:8, 28; Rom. 6:11-14, 19; 13:14; 1 Cor. 6:13-20; Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 4:17-20; 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 5:22; 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; Tit. 2:12; Heb. 12:14; 13:4; Jas. 1:14-15; 1 Pet. 4:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:18-19; 1 John 2:12-17.

     ¹⁵ 1 Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4; cf. Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13, 18; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3.

     ¹⁶ Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 7:1-3; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; Jude 7; cf. Gen. 13:13; 19:4-7; Lev. 18:22; 20:13.

     ¹⁷ Deut. 30:19-20; Josh. 24:15; Isa. 55:6-7; John 3:16-17; 7:17; 1 Tim. 2:3-4; Jas. 4:7; Rev. 3:20; 22:17.

     ¹⁸ Edward Stein, op cit. 347.

    ¹⁹ John D’Emilio, interviewed by Sherry Wolf, “LGBT liberation: Build a broad movement,” International Socialist Review 65 (2 May 2019), <Link>.

    ²⁰ Op cit. 346.
    ²¹ Rebecca Jennings, “Taylor Swift’s ‘You Need to Calm Down’ wants to be a queer anthem,” Vox (17 June 2019), <Link>. 

Related Posts: “A Heterosexual, a Homosexual, and a Pedophile Walk Into a Church” <Link>; “The Queen James Bible” <Link>; “Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 2” <Link>.

Related articles: Brandon Morse, “America Vastly Overestimates the Size of the LGBT Community” <Link>; Doug Mainwaring, “200 Ex-LGBT men, women rally” <Link>; Wes McAdams, “The Sexual Ethics of Jesus” <Link>; Tom Feilden, "Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers" <Link>; Doug Mainwaring, "Ex-LGBTs pray, repent" <Link>; Jonathan Lambert, "No 'Gay Gene'" <Link>; Rosaria C. Butterfield, "Are We Living Out Romans 1?" <Link>; John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, "'Born This Way' is Old Science" <Link>; Dewayne Bryant, "Is Homosexuality Hereditary?" <Link>; John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, Pedophilia and the Slippery Slope of "Born This Way"; Christianity Now, Born This Way? Then Be Born Again

Doug Burleson, "Homosexual" in the Bible

Image credit: https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/10-funny-babies-making-faces/

The Queen James Bible

     The Queen James Version of the Bible (QJV) was published in 2012 as an alternative to English translations that allegedly promote “homophobic interpretations.” The QJV editors maintain that the original message of scripture actually says nothing about homosexuality, but due to “interpretive ambiguity” and traditional prejudices, so-called “anti-LGBT Bible interpretations” have proliferated and need to be modified or deleted. They further argue that the term “homosexuality” does not appear in any Bible translation prior to the 1946 Revised Standard Version, and only eight verses (among thousands!) have been interpreted in such a way as to unfairly condemn this lifestyle. Thus the QJV editors affirm: “We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.”¹

     To set the record straight (no pun intended), the fairly recent appearance of the word “homosexuality” in Bible translation is no indication that it wasn’t a biblical issue prior to the mid-20th century. The term does not appear in English Bibles before 1946 simply because it was not an English word until just a few decades earlier,² and even then it took some time to come into common use. Regardless of the terminology employed, the concept is most certainly addressed in scripture. Following are the infamous “eight verses” as rendered in the QJV (with changes highlighted in bold type), along with the rationales for the changes and our responses.

     Genesis 19:5, “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may rape and humiliate them” (QJV). The editors contend that the story of Sodom and Gomorra is not about homosexuality at all but about bullying strangers and attempting to rape angels. While we agree that inhospitality and sexual violence were involved, men desiring to have intercourse with those perceived as other men cannot be so easily discounted, especially when additional biblical information is considered. Moreover, God had already determined to destroy the sinful city (Gen. 18:20; 19:13) before the inhospitable acts toward Lot's guests.

     Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination” (QJV). Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, 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” (QJV).

     The first consideration here is the word “abomination.” According to the QJV editors, the underlying Hebrew term merely refers to something that is “ritually unclean” or “taboo” and is equivalent to the modern concept of “scandalous.” They reason that if it were inherently wrong for men to have sex with each other, it would have been called “sin” or a “violation of the law” rather than “abomination.” But this imaginative conjecture is impossible to apply consistently, as unlawful acts such as idolatry (Deut. 7:25-26; 13:12-14; 27:15; Isa. 41:23-24) and human sacrifice (Deut. 12:31; 18:9-10; 2 Kings 16:3; Jer. 32:35) are inherently sinful while also labeled “abominations.”

     The QJV editors then claim the context of Leviticus 18 indicates that the sin of v. 22 is limited to “having sex with male pagan temple prostitutes.” It is argued that in the long list of sexual offenses the topic switches in v. 20 to pagan idolatry, with Molech specifically named. The assumption is that sex with a male prostitute in a pagan temple is the intent of v. 22, thus the addition of the phrase “in the temple of Molech” is contextually justified. However, this reasoning does not fit chap. 20, where the discussion of Molech-worship (vv. 1-5) moves on to the issue of consulting mediums (v. 6), to cursing parents (v. 9), to a variety of sexual sins (vv. 10-21) including homosexuality (v. 13), to dietary laws (v. 25), and to sorcery (v. 27). Molech was worshiped with child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-5; Deut. 12:31; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35), but there is no conclusive evidence that sex (adultery, incest, homosexuality) was part of the ancient ritual.³

     A form of the Hebrew noun ṯō·w·‘ê·ḇāh (“abomination”) occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and is applied to a variety of objectionable acts regarded as “loathsome,” “repugnant,” or “detestable” (Gen. 43:32; 46:34; Ex. 8:26; Psa. 88:8; Prov. 24:9; 29:27; et al.). It is not possible to confine all that God considers an “abomination” to pagan idolatry (e.g. Deut. 14:3; 17:1; 18:9-14; 22:5; 23:18; 24:4; 25:11-16; Prov. 3:32; 6:16-19; 8:7; 15:8; 16:12; 21:27; 26:25; Isa. 1:13; Mal. 2:11; et al.), particularly moral issues involving sexual activity (Lev. 18:22; 20:13 [cf. vv. 18-30]; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26).

     Romans 1:26, 27, “Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (QJV).

     Whether it is theological bias, scholarly ineptitude, eisegetical⁴ pretense, or a combination of all these, the QJV editors make the bizarre claim that “Romans 1 describes how a group of Christians left the church to practice idolatry …” From this baseless assertion, the tenuous conclusion is drawn that in v. 26 “women were ritually defiling themselves.” What does that mean? The editors admit: “We can’t be exactly sure what Paul meant by the natural use of a woman, but we can be pretty sure he wasn’t talking about lesbian sex.” Does that sound like an impartial reading of the text? While surmising that the “unnatural uses of their bodies” could refer to “pagan dancing,” the editors confess, “we really have no idea.” Nonetheless, they seem a little more confident in suggesting that the men who “burned in their lust for one another” in v. 27 were engaging in ritualistic sex as pagan worship. The sin, therefore, was not gay sex but “worshiping pagan idols instead of God.” Is this valid commentary? If the apostle Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior, I honestly can’t imagine how he could have been any clearer. On the other hand, if someone wanted to justify homosexuality even if it meant twisting the scriptures, I don’t know how it could be any more blatant!

     1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (QJV).

     Seeing that the Greek malakoi (plural of malakos) essentially means “soft,” the QJV editors felt justified in their rendering, “morally weak.” However, this seems redundant in a list of specific sins that all stem from moral weakness, especially in the context of sexual sins. The word is listed after “adulterers” and precedes arsenokoitai, which the QJV editors have interpreted “promiscuous.” Their reasoning is that the term supposedly means a “male who has many beds.” While it is a combination of arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”), the plural form applies to a plurality of offenders, just like the other nouns in this passage, not a plurality of beds! Further, it is linked to the previous malakoi, and NT Greek scholars responsible for major English versions of the Bible unanimously agree that both malakoi and arsenokoitai are sexual terms descriptive of homosexual behavior (ASV, ESV, ERV, HCSB, ISB, NASB, NIV, N/KJV, NRSV, etc.). Are we to believe that every one of these linguists (and each translation committee) has a homophobic agenda and has therefore been dishonest in the translation process? The word malakoi describes men who submit to dominant homosexual partners, and the compound  arsenokoitai applies to men who actively engage in sodomy.⁵

     1 Timothy 1:10, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (QJV).

     The only explanation provided for this rendering is the following: “Given the context and theme of all our edits, we have changed ‘defile themselves with mankind’ to simply ‘defile themselves.’” For the record, the Greek word under consideration here is arsenokoitai that also occurs in 1 Cor. 6:9 (see comments above). Not only is the QJV inconsistent in its wording of these two passages, it has simply omitted a prepositional phrase from this verse that completely alters its meaning. The change does not accurately convey what the apostle Paul originally wrote, but it does fulfill the aim of the QJV to make “homophobic interpretations impossible.”

     Jude 7, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (QJV).

     Here the QJV editors explain: “Given our clarification of the story of Sodom, we chose to highlight the fact that the male mob in Sodom raped angels, which is ‘strange’ in that it is nonhuman.” First of all, the mob in Sodom did not rape anyone. Second, their intention was to have sex with “men” (Gen. 19:5). Jude describes them as having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneuō = ek [‘out of’] + porneuō [to ‘engage in illicit sex’]) and having pursued sarkos heteras (“strange/different flesh”). If God’s natural design for physical intimacy is within the confines of monogamous, heterosexual marriage (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 7:2), then from the divine perspective anything else is necessarily strange/ different/ unnatural (Matt. 19:8-9; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:15-20).

     The Queen James Version of the Bible is nothing more than a reprint of the 1769 edition of the King James Version of the Bible. The only modification is the removal of so-called “homophobic interpretations” in the eight verses listed above. Without the aid of modern technology, in the early 19th century Thomas Jefferson started with the same Bible and used a razor and glue to literally cut and paste sections of the New Testament to exclude the portions about Jesus with which he disagreed. How is this any different? The credentials of the QJV editors cannot be evaluated because the editors have chosen to remain anonymous. But their general estimation of God’s word is evident in their brazen charge that “the Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction,” plus their shameless efforts to alter the biblical text to suit their own agenda (cf. 2 Peter 3:16-17).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See “The Gay Bible,” <http://queenjamesbible.com>; and “Editor’s Note,” <http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/>. The editors state further: “Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them. We wanted our Bible bulletproof from the ones shooting the bullets.” Another gay-friendly Bible translation is The New Oxford Annotated Bible, <Link>.

     ² The word “homosexual,” from the Greek homos (“same”) and Latin sexus (“sex”), first appeared in 1869 in a pamphlet by German novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, in opposition to an anti-sodomy law. The expression was then employed by German psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing in his 1886 Psychopathia Sexualis: eine Klinisch-Forensische Studie (“Sexual Psychopathy: A Clinical-Forensic Study”), a reference work on sexual perversions. The terminology then entered the English-speaking world for the first time in 1892 when Krafft-Ebing’s book was translated into the English language. 

     ³ So-called “sacred sex” is believed to have been practiced in the ancient cult of Ashtoreth (a.k.a. Astarte, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Venus). The idea of committing “harlotry” with Molech (Lev. 20:5) is metaphoric for spiritual infidelity (cf. v. 6; Jer. 3:9; Hos. 4:12; 5:4; 6:10; etc.)

     ⁴ Eisegesis is reading one’s presuppositions into the biblical text, in contrast to exegesis, which means to draw out of the biblical text what the inspired writer intended to convey.

     ⁵ The words arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”) appear together six times in the LXX, the translation Paul extensively quotes in 1 Corinthians, four times referring to men lying with women (Num. 31:17, 18; Judg. 21:11, 12) and twice in reference to men lying with men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). See also Lev. 15:18, 24; 18:20; 19:20; Num. 5:13, 20. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ca. 60-7 BC), in his Roman Antiquities, describes a man named Aristodemus, who was called malakos or “effeminate,” and one reason for the nickname was the presumed effeminacy of his youth, allowing himself “to be treated as a woman” (7.2.4).

Related Posts: The Delusion of Gay Marriage, Homosexual Christian Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Related articles: Brayan Fischer's Jesus Talked About Homosexuality, Ben Giselbach's Why Did God Destroy Sodom?

Doug Burleson, "Homosexual" in the Bible

Image credit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html