Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

Greg,

True, parents produce the whole person, both material and immaterial. Nevertheless, it is a non-sequitor to assign homosexual orientation and/or choices to a particular gene. I don’t think you would assign a disposition of lying to the lying gene, etc. Sodom was overcome with homosexuality; it became the culturally accepted norm, as is being attempted in our culture. It was learned behavior, cultivated and conditioned by the sinful standards of Sodom, and rooted in the sinful nature of its citizens. Common grace is important in order to allow mankind to live in a civilized society. Common grace is both internal and external. With the recent decisions of the “Extreme” Court, using loopholes in the Constitution and California Law to justify gay marriage, the ramifications will be serious. Already, Justice Kennedy has declared those who solely advocate a biblical view of marriage as “enemies of the human race” (read Scalia’s minority opinion). I guess Justice Kennedy et. al. thinks that large majorities of the US Senate, US House, and President Clinton were enemies of the human race when they passed DOMA in 1996. Apparently, even President Obama must have been an enemy of the human race when he declared on national television in the Rick Warren interview that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. I know many of these politicians have recently “evolved” on this issue as recently as President Obama did 14 months ago. Already, PBS programs are attempting to sexualize children based on this decision. It was reported today that the Bert and Ernie characters were pictured with Bert affectionately leaning his head on Ernie’s shoulder while they were watching the Supreme Court on Television. The left loves to sexualize the young and steal their innocence because they know that homosexuality as an unnatural desire has to be taught, learned, conditioned, and then accepted.

Amen, Mike. That is what I have been saying all along. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the Bible calls it an unnatural desire. It is not something that people are born doing. It is learned behavior, as is sexual abuse, incest, bestiality, etc. A majority of homosexuals have experienced some type of sexual abuse during their childhood that shaped their impressionable minds. The human mind is dark and sinful by nature, and when a man practices sin, it can become extremely perverse and corrupt.

Let me clarify my comment. I should not have used the word “genetic,” as I do not believe there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (as in a certain gene). I do believe many factors contribute to homosexual temptations (SSA), including biology (sin nature inherited from the parents), relationship with one’s father, exposure to pornography, sexual abuse as a child, etc.

If you’ve ever counseled a (professing) Christian who is struggling with SSA, who tells you with tears in his eyes that he did not ever ask for these temptations, has remembered being “different” from other boys even as a child, and would do anything for those temptations to go away, it’s not so easy as saying to him, “Well, homosexuality is just a choice.”

It depends what you mean by “homosexuality.” If you mean SSA, then see above. If you mean homosexual behavior, then absolutely there is a choice, just as there is with any other temptation. And the only biblical choice is to reckon the body dead to sin, to not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness, to present your body as a living sacrifice to God and not be conformed to the world, to renew the mind, to walk by the Spirit and not the flesh, to flee youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, etc., etc., etc. As someone does those things, just as with any other temptation, over time the temptations may lessen even if they do never completely go away. Men, just think of the heterosexual temptations we face—at times they are very strong, at certain points in our lives we may have been defeated by them, but as we fight them day by day we can have some measure of victory over them even while never being completely free of them.

But in case I have not been clear, for someone struggling with SSA to act on his temptation either in thought or deed would absolutely be sin that is clearly condemned by God.

I would highly recommend these two books:

• Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity by Joe Dallas
• When Homosexuality Hits Home (for parents of children who say they’re gay)

The name of the first book is very appropriate. We all have desires in conflict—a desire to please God by the Spirit, and a desire to please ourselves by the flesh. Those fleshly desires take different forms in different people. In some people, for various reasons—some of which are their own fault and some which are not—they take the form of SSA.

[Mike Harding]

Greg,

True, parents produce the whole person, both material and immaterial. Nevertheless, it is a non-sequitor to assign homosexual orientation and/or choices to a particular gene. I don’t think you would assign a disposition of lying to the lying gene, etc. Sodom was overcome with homosexuality; it became the culturally accepted norm, as is being attempted in our culture. It was learned behavior, cultivated and conditioned by the sinful standards of Sodom, and rooted in the sinful nature of its citizens. Common grace is important in order to allow mankind to live in a civilized society. Common grace is both internal and external. With the recent decisions of the “Extreme” Court, using loopholes in the Constitution and California Law to justify gay marriage, the ramifications will be serious. Already, Justice Kennedy has declared those who solely advocate a biblical view of marriage as “enemies of the human race” (read Scalia’s minority opinion). I guess Justice Kennedy et. al. thinks that large majorities of the US Senate, US House, and President Clinton were enemies of the human race when they passed DOMA in 1996. Apparently, even President Obama must have been an enemy of the human race when he declared on national television in the Rick Warren interview that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. I know many of these politicians have recently “evolved” on this issue as recently as President Obama did 14 months ago. Already, PBS programs are attempting to sexualize children based on this decision. It was reported today that the Bert and Ernie characters were pictured with Bert affectionately leaning his head on Ernie’s shoulder while they were watching the Supreme Court on Television. The left loves to sexualize the young and steal their innocence because they know that homosexuality as an unnatural desire has to be taught, learned, conditioned, and then accepted.

Greg, just so I correctly understand your position, are you saying that a person can be born predisposed towards an attraction to the opposite sex? I mean are we talking about a rebellion against God’s law in a Romans 7:7 sense or a disposition towards the opposite sex from birth?

[christian cerna]

Amen, Mike. That is what I have been saying all along. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the Bible calls it an unnatural desire. It is not something that people are born doing. It is learned behavior, as is sexual abuse, incest, bestiality, etc. A majority of homosexuals have experienced some type of sexual abuse during their childhood that shaped their impressionable minds. The human mind is dark and sinful by nature, and when a man practices sin, it can become extremely perverse and corrupt.

Certain scientific studies have suggested a correlation in some (or as you prefer “a majority) situations. However, that means that some situations cannot be explained (providing that your assumption is correct). Where do you go from there? I just find it it simplistic to make absolute statements based upon partial correlation of data.

Again, my point is merely that scientific studies have “proven” a lot of things. But why would we choose to publicly fight over an issue that doesn’t really matter? Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals may or may not be influenced by biological make-up or environment toward that temptation. The fact is that they are tempted; and the fact is that they can overcome that temptation through Christ…enough said.

I was back and forth on whether I should post this, and have decided to do so with the following disclaimer: I am not speaking of myself, any of my family, or anyone I go to church with.

I know a young man who struggles with same sex attraction. I have known him since birth. He has evidenced feminine tendencies since he has been in diapers. It was something his parents recognized and attempted to (subtly) steer him from. But it has not yet “worked”. He has always felt different. He is deeply, deeply troubled by his own bent. I am not certain he is converted, but he has attended Gospel preaching churches most of his life.

All that to say that, at least from the perspective of a fairly close observer in this boy’s life, his trouble with this temptation is not a simple matter of choice or a persevering in rebellion that resulted in a later “giving over”.

The idea that some bent towards homosexuality may be inborn or genetic is not beyond the realm of possibility, just as it might be possible that things like alcoholism might be. The Bible does not explicitly rule that out, and given the Bible’s teaching on the widespread effects of sin, it would be understandable. Remember that God visits the sin of the fathers on the children, and that may well have some factor here. Furthermore, we are well aware that certain behaviors have chemical effects on the body (such as dopamine), that then creates a biological issue. On the other hand biology may not have any effect. My guess is that we will never know for sure.

But I would say we don’t need to know. The Bible declares certain things, including homosexuality, are sin, regardless of one’s genetics or biology. The answer to sin is not to argue about genetics, but to repent. So we say to someone, regardless of your feelings, we must live lives of repentance.

I recommend Ed Welch’s book Blame It On the Brain? It is an excellent work about these kinds of things (including all kinds of mental illnesses) and well worth the time. In his chapter on homosexuality, he says, “A biblical view acknowledges that there may be psychological and biological influences in the development of homosexuality. In fact, the Bible would warn us not to take lightly the vast number of possible influences” (p. 172).

In the end, it seems that me that arguing about biology is ultimately fruitless. A person may claim it is biological, innate, inborn. Can you really argue with them authoritatively? And will it help? Probably not to either question.

Much better to deal with issues of the heart. No matter what our predisposition, we are responsible to worship God in repentance. It’s not different whether it’s alcohol, despondency, violence, anger, or sexuality. An alcoholic may well have some genetic predisposition, but he is still required by God to not get drunk. A (insert your ethnic stereotype here, since it has already been invoked a couple of times) person may have a built in tendency to anger. So what? The Bible says it is sin, and no matter our biology, we are responsible to God for our sin. So repent.

The Bible calls us to live in self-control. The issue matters not.

It seems to me that arguing with someone over biology is exactly the wrong argument. It is not one that Scripture invokes. The scriptural position is about sin and repentance, not biology or tendencies. So that is how we should talk about it.

Let me quote some relevant passages from Desires in Conflict. After examining several studies that purport to show homosexual behaviors are genetically predetermined and showing why they are seriously flawed, Dallas writes:

There are more important points to be made regarding the “born gay” argument. First, inborn and normal are not necessarily the same. Even if homosexuality is something proven to be inborn, inborn does not necessarily mean normal. Any number of defects or handicaps, for example, may be inborn, but we would hardly call them normal for that reason alone. Why should we be compelled to call homosexuality normal just because it may be inborn?

Second, inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (like homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Studies in the past 15 years indicate a variety of behaviors may have their roots in genetics or biology [notice the qualifiers “may” and “have their roots,” not “are caused by”] . In 1983 the former director of the National Council on Alcoholism reported a number of chemical events that can produce alcoholism. In 1991, the City of Hope Medical Center found a certain gene present in 77 percent of their alcoholic patients. Obesity and violent behavior are now thought to be genetically influenced. Even infidelity, according to research reported in Time, may be in our genes!

Surely we’re not going to say that obesity, violence, alcoholism, and adultery are legitimate because they were inherited. So it is with homosexuality. Whether inborn or acquired, it is still, like all sexual contact apart from [heterosexual] marriage, immoral. And immoral behavior cannot be legitimized by a quick baptism in the gene pool.

Third, we are a fallen race, born in sin. Scripture teaches we inherited a corrupt sin nature affecting us physically and spiritually (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12). We were born spiritually dead (John 3:5-6) and physically imperfect (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). We cannot assume that because something is inborn, it is also God-ordained. There are mental, psychological, physical, and sexual aspects of our beings that God never intended us to have. Inborn, in short, does not mean “divinely sanctioned.”

Born in sin? Certainly. Born with characteristics that could make you prone to many conditions later in life, homosexuality included? Possibly. But born gay? Questionable. Very, very questionable. (p. 206-207)

So what “causes” homosexuality? Here’s what Dallas says:

It has been shown that there may be biological influences which could predispose a person toward homosexuality. The key word here is predispose, as in “having a tendency toward something.” People can be born with predispositions toward any number of problems—depression or alcoholism, for example—yet that doesn’t make the problems inevitable. It is the environment which brings predispositions to fruition…

I would argue that, like other problems, the roots of homosexuality vary from individual to individual…

[After counseling hundreds of men struggling with homosexuality] , I have seen a recurring pattern in case after case. Specifically, I’ve come to believe that homosexual attractions develop along these lines:

1. A child’s perception of his or her relationship to parents or significant others.
2. A child’s emotional response to those perceptions.
3. Emotional needs arising from these perceptions and responses.
4. The sexualization of those emotional needs. (p. 95, 97)

I think there are two extremes to be avoided. One extreme is the primary message we hear from the militant gay community, which is “I was born this way so I can’t help it and you can’t call it wrong.” We know that is absolutely false.

On the other extreme is the response, “No, you’re not born that way. It’s just a choice.” I would suggest with Todd and others that that is too simplistic. And here’s the key point: Even if it is true that homosexuals are not “born that way,” you will never convince a person struggling with SSA that this is true, so it’s a non-starter. Again, many of them don’t consciously remember making a choice to have SSA and if they could “choose” (as in make a one time choice) to make it go away, they would. Rather than debating with him whether he is born gay or not, why not go to Scripture and show him that regardless of how he can to be the way he is (although it is helpful to explore those things), the good news is he can change! “Such were some of you!” (1 Cor. 6:11).

[Larry]

The idea that some bent towards homosexuality may be inborn or genetic is not beyond the realm of possibility, just as it might be possible that things like alcoholism might be. The Bible does not explicitly rule that out, and given the Bible’s teaching on the widespread effects of sin, it would be understandable. Remember that God visits the sin of the fathers on the children, and that may well have some factor here. Furthermore, we are well aware that certain behaviors have chemical effects on the body (such as dopamine), that then creates a biological issue. On the other hand biology may not have any effect. My guess is that we will never know for sure.

But I would say we don’t need to know. The Bible declares certain things, including homosexuality, are sin, regardless of one’s genetics or biology. The answer to sin is not to argue about genetics, but to repent. So we say to someone, regardless of your feelings, we must live lives of repentance.

I recommend Ed Welch’s book Blame It On the Brain? It is an excellent work about these kinds of things (including all kinds of mental illnesses) and well worth the time. In his chapter on homosexuality, he says, “A biblical view acknowledges that there may be psychological and biological influences in the development of homosexuality. In fact, the Bible would warn us not to take lightly the vast number of possible influences” (p. 172).

In the end, it seems that me that arguing about biology is ultimately fruitless. A person may claim it is biological, innate, inborn. Can you really argue with them authoritatively? And will it help? Probably not to either question.

Much better to deal with issues of the heart. No matter what our predisposition, we are responsible to worship God in repentance. It’s not different whether it’s alcohol, despondency, violence, anger, or sexuality. An alcoholic may well have some genetic predisposition, but he is still required by God to not get drunk. A (insert your ethnic stereotype here, since it has already been invoked a couple of times) person may have a built in tendency to anger. So what? The Bible says it is sin, and no matter our biology, we are responsible to God for our sin. So repent.

The Bible calls us to live in self-control. The issue matters not.

It seems to me that arguing with someone over biology is exactly the wrong argument. It is not one that Scripture invokes. The scriptural position is about sin and repentance, not biology or tendencies. So that is how we should talk about it.

Greg,

Thanks for the extra info. I heard the report on the radio by Dennis Praeger and didn’t catch the part about the magazine.

I had forgotten how many times I need to repeat the same statements on SI in order to be understood. One of my least favorite things I have found on here is how people have a tendency to let their emotions get the better of them and to fail to listen to what other people say.

I will state it again and I will format it to make it clear:

I do not fully agree with the idea that homosexuality is related to a genetic factor. I simply do not see a biblical reason to disregard it out of hand.
I am simply defending that position (though I have serious questions regarding it) out of a sense of fair play and because the arguments I see being used against it are not valid arguments.

[christian cerna] A majority of homosexuals have experienced some type of sexual abuse during their childhood that shaped their impressionable minds.

You keep saying this, and then you challenge others to give any studies that support a connection between sodomy and genetics, but you never once even attempt to provide any evidence for this statement.

I also went to school with a young man who struggled with SSA and had been more feminine in mannerisms the entire time that I knew him.
Contrary to what some on here seem to think, he was not abused or in a worldly environment. He grew up in a Christian home in a Christian community and attended a Christian school for all of his education.

[mike harding] Sodom was overcome with homosexuality; it became the culturally accepted norm, as is being attempted in our culture. It was learned behavior, cultivated and conditioned by the sinful standards of Sodom, and rooted in the sinful nature of its citizens.

No one doubts that there is an element of social and cultural influence involved in this. The question remains how much? Where did the first sodomite in Sodom come from? When society doesn’t support a thing that you consider socially driven, then how does it start?

By looking at Romans 1, we see that God “gave them up” to such sins. God’s work in the lives of people is directly connected to this sin.
Yet, we see in James 1:13-15 that God doesn’t put temptations or lusts into men. Sin takes place because men give into their own lusts that are already in their hearts.
So, the conclusion can only be that the lust to commit sodomy is already in the hearts of some, and that God merely withdraws His restraining influence from them to allow them to fall into that heinous sin (see also Psalm 76:10 for the idea of God restraining the natural tendencies of man).

In the end my sole reason for even discussing this is the dismissive way in which some assume that they understand this issue and can address it as simple.
There is only one simple aspect to it: sodomy is a sin that should be repented of.

Larry,

One of our young people years ago went to prison for starting a fire in their college dormitory (pyromaniac gene? Just kidding). After three years in several different prisons with many different roommates that young person told me that approximately 80% of the prisoners were practicing homosexuality or experimenting with it while in prison. Sounds to me like depravity and environment as opposed to biological disposition. There is no question in my mind that the pandemic problem of pornography has significantly contributed to the increase of acceptance and involvement in sexual sin and unnatural behavior. If we were talking about necrophila, pedophila, pederasty, palingamy, bestiality, molestation, or incest instead of homosexuality, I don’t think the genetic predispostion argument would be foisted because of the current social abhorrence to those depraved and corrupt behaviors. The clear testimony of Scripture to homsexuality is revulsion as I have already demonstrated. The scientific and pscyological community is committed to a material philosophy and interpretation of all human behavior based on their evolutionary presupposition. The euphemisms and circumlocutions now being used in our society to describe this sinful disposition and behavior cannot be justified Scripturally. I understand where you and Greg are coming from. Since your final conclusions do square with Scripture, I think ultimately we are on the same page.

Pastor Harding,

To clarify, I am not convinced of a biological gene explanation at all. I think it highly unlikely at best. I agree with you about the goals of the scientific and psychological community

My only point was (1) that we cannot prove the biology argument either way either biblically (or scientifically), and (2) it doesn’t change anything since the ultimate requirement for sinfulness is repentance, and even if homosexuality is biological, it is also sin that needs to be repented of regardless of any contributing factor to the sinfulness.

Everything hinges on it being sin. Fighting the biological argument is fighting an argument that is ultimately irrelevant, or at least less than important. If we win the war about biology, we still haven’t solved the problem of being wrong; it becomes just another desire. If we win the war about sin, then biology doesn’t matter. Once we are convinced by the Spirit through the Word that something is sin that needs to be repented of, biology no longer matters. So my point is, don’t spend time and energy fighting a battle that ultimately doesn’t move you toward the goal of repentance. If someone says, “I was born this way,” we say, “Perhaps, but it is still sin.” If it’s biology, it is because we live in a world of broken bodies and souls due to the fall. And that needs repentance, even when it’s hard.

On the jail thing, while hoping to be delicate here, I imagine that given depravity and desire, that is likely a matter of convenience more than anything. Which is to say, in the absence of what you want, you take what you can get.

Thanks Larry.