The entire purpose of the article you read is to use any logical or emotional trick in the book to establish what this person has decided before investigating the question.  This article is not an attempt to determine what the Bible teaches.  It is a blatant attempt to prove something with no regard whatsoever for whether the evidence reaches that conclusion.  You should not trust the reasoning of this person.

You should look carefully at the reasoning of this person.  First of all, he uses highly emotionally charged examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.  Here is the question at hand:  Does the Bible label homosexual relationships a sin?  The author uses examples of terrible behavior toward homosexuals and the horrendous abuse of Christianity by certain criminals to imply that if you accept the Bible condemns homosexuality, you are in the same club as those who commit violent acts against homosexuals.  This is not a logical argument.  The fact that non-Christians or false Christians have abused homosexuals is absolutely irrelevant to the question, so why does he bring this up?

Second, note what this person does with the Bible.  What he does is tell us that the Bible does not mean what it says.  For example, Genesis 2 says that God made man and woman and that the two shall become one flesh.  He said that he made a helper suitable for man.   "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh."  What does this author say about that?  He says this story is primarily about God, not about marriage.  I challenge you to read Genesis 2:18-23 and tell me this is not a passage about marriage.  It tells us in no uncertain terms that it is natural for man to desire woman and woman desire man.

About Sodom and Gomorrah the author claims that the story is not about sexual sin and God’s judgment for such behavior.  Again, I suggest you read the story and tell me that it is not about God’s judgment for sinful, ungodly behavior.  The examples we see are homosexuality, sexual abuse and fornication.  These are the sins God puts in the story, after which he judges Sodom.  In 2 Peter 2:7 it calls the behavior of those in Sodom "filthy lives."  Peter assumed that his readers knew Genesis 18.  The behavior we observe in Genesis, including rape of an innocent girl is called filthy.  Your author does not believe this bahavior is filthy.  Well, I, for one, do.

To show this author’s lack of respect for scripture, look at his list of commandments of God he says he does not agree with:

• DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
  If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
• DEUTERONOMY 22:22
  If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
• MARK 10:1-12
  Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
• LEVITICUS 18:19
  The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

I’m certain you don’t agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex.

For myself, I actually agree with Deuteronomy 22:13-21 that sex before marriage is a sin.  I agree with Deuteronomy 22:22 that adultery is a sin.  I agree with Mark 10:1-12 that divorce is a sin.  I agree with Leviticus 18:19 that for a Jew, it was sinful to have sex with his wife during her period (although this is not condemned in the New Testament).  Apparently this author disagrees.  Well, that is his choice, but I, for one, take the Bible seriously and I hope that you do as well.

The author then mentions Leviticus 18:6 which states in absolutely unmistakeable terms that homosexual relationships are sinful.  His response is essentially this:  "None of us belielve any of these things, so why should we believe what it says about homosexuality."   Well, I, for one believe that if God says something it is true and I have no right to change his words.  Bottom line, either God prescribes homosexuality or it does not.  This author tries to imply that an "abomination" is not really a serious charge in Hebrew.  OK, then why does God prescribe capital punishment for homosexual relations?

Now, this author makes one good point.  He tells us that the laws in Leviticus do not apply to the Christian.  This is true. ?Why does he bother to say this?  Does he accept that God did in fact outlaw homosexuality?  If not, then why mention it.  If so, then why claim earlier that God did not oppose homosexuality in the Old Testament.

This author is correct.  In order to establish that homosexuality is outlawed under Christianity, one must show it from the New Testament.  Of course, we have already established (Genesis 2) that sex between a man and a woman is "natural"

So, what does the New Testament say about sex between members of the same sex?  I believe that even if it did not specifically mention homosexuality, it would be sinful because homosexual relationships are not natural.  Just look at Genesis 2 and look at human anatomy.  What is natural is clear.  Nevertheless, let us consider Romans 2:26-27.  "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."  God calls sex with a member of the same sex "unnatural" and "perversion."  Is this hard to understand?  This author literally has the nerve to say that this passage "has nothing to do with homosexuality."  This requires twists of logic that do not even deserve a response.  He quotes a minister who says, ""The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?"  We could use the same logic to say that drunkenness and adultery and premarital sex and arrogance and pride and lying and greed are not sinful.  It is to take away from God the right to declare specific acts sinful.  If the fact that we are tempted to sin is an excuse for sinning, then nothing is sinful.   This is not logical argument, this is a refusal to accept and obey what God clearly says in the Bible.

We should not be surprised that this author wants to find a way to explain away 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.  My Greek dictionary defines the word in question: "one engaging in homosexual acts; sexual deviant."  This author claims the word’s meaning is a mystery.  This is a blatant example of choosing to believe what we want to believe.  This passage calls homosexual relations "wicked."  IT also calls those who have sex with members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married "wicked."  I do not believe it is any more sinful to commit homosexual acts than to have sex with someone of the opposite sex to whom we are not married.  Bottom line, sex is only allowed in Christianity to those to whom we are married.  The behaviour this person is defending is not sex between married person.  1 Tim 1:10 says that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals (exact same word as in 1 Cor 6:9) slave traders and liars as lawbreakers and rebels.  The author makes the absolutely absurd claim that Hebrew does not have a word for homosexuality!!!  To him, whatever word in Hebrew means homosexuality, by his own presupposition, does not mean homosexuality.  He claims that THE word in Hebrew which means homosexuality does not mean homosexuality.  How can we respond to this argument?  This is not an argument but avoidance of the obvious.

The author then has the nerve to literally claim that no one recognized homosexual behaviour until 150 years ago.  This ignores a huge literature on the subject.  Perhaps he has not read Seutonius or any of hundreds of authors in ancient times who discussed homosexuality.  He says that "the Bible authors should not be accepted as our final authorities on sexual orientation."  And this author has the gall to claim at the beginning of his article that he honors the Bible!  The Bible is the ONLY source of authority we have.  If the Bible authors do not have final authority on what is sinful, then there is no authority for anything.  Please, do not be fooled by such Satan-inspired ideas.

The author ends with a call for tolerance and love.  He angrily condems a minister who calls for homosexuals to be killed.  I cannot blame him.  I too condemn such disgraceful behaviour.  Jesus loved adulterers and other sinners.  So should we.  We should reach out to homosexuals with the love of Jesus.  We should not make excuses for sinful behaviour.  We should be as strongly opposed to heterosexual sin as homosexual sin.  Otherwise we risk being hipocrites.

John Oakes