Homosexuality in Church and Society: Mapping the Issues

A Traditionalist Overview compiled by Rev. Paul Burgess, M.A. (Cantab)

In the old days, there was sodomy: an act. In the late 19th century, the word 'homosexuality was coined: a condition. A generation ago, the accepted term became "gay": an identity. Each formulation raises the stakes one can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it's a fully fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole hearted acceptance gets you marked as a bigot the transformation of a crime against nature into a co-equal civic identity within little more than the span of one human lifetime is one of the most remarkable victories ever achieved by any minority group in the Western world. A minority that didn't even exist in a formal sense a century ago has managed to overwhelm and overhaul a universal societal institution thousands of years old. Mark Steyn, Chicago Sun Times political commentator The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science A masterful public relations campaign orchestrated by the pride extremists has achieved a transformation in public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as progress, it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a counter-culture restatement of Gnostic moral relativism. John McKellar, openly gay founder of HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) We are up against people and organisations that use a myriad of means and large amounts of money to foster deeply flawed visions of human love and corrupt the values of societyWe need to be willing to put in a similar level of effort to preparing the ground of society for the gospel. The re-affirmation of the ordered reality of human nature is the start of this process. Parliamentary Officer for the (Roman Catholic) Bishop's Conference in Scotland

John Deighan

A Compendium of

Issues and Arguments Surrounding The Same-Sex Debate

NOTE: This is a condensed reference work, not intended as an easy read on the subject! Homosexuality in the text of this overview may refer either to orientation or to behaviour depending on the context, which usually should make clear which meaning is meant. This overview provides material in the area of human sexuality to help those committed to a biblically orthodox (as opposed to a culturally determined) understanding of sexuality to think clearly, distinguish issues accurately and articulate arguments convincingly in the public arena. It is offered as a resource manual to provide a ready reference compendium of facts and issues related to the societal changes faced by Christians in this area of human sexuality and relationships, for developing: 1. A Christian apologetic for today (to explain the Gospel in terms that relate to our sex-conscious culture). 2. An educational programme for congregations (to teach a Biblical view of sexuality and equip church people to speak up for Biblical teaching in this area in the face of humanist / secular / revisionist opposition). Part of this programme must surely include a positive challenge to develop: 3. A mission to reach out to those caught up in homosexuality. It includes brief quotes as well as useful information and arguments in bullet-point form. Note on print style: Non-traditionalist views and quotations are printed in italics. Traditionalist responses / statements are printed in roman type. All textual sources (whether traditionalist or non-traditionalist) are also printed in italics. Biblical texts are printed in roman type.

CONTACT THE COMPILER: No doubt this overview is incomplete and in places requires correction. Any constructive comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. The writer may be contacted at: paulandcathie@gmail.com

CONTENTS
1. Homosexuality
A. B. C. D. E. Initial Clarifications Models of Sexuality The Nature of Homosexuality Recent History: The Politics of Homosexuality Issues Relating to Gay Rights Agenda

2. Same Sex Relationships and Marriage

A. B. C. D. E. Marriage and Society A Biblical View of Marriage Arguments For Same-Sex Marriage Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage

3. Homosexuality and The Bible

A. Biblical Authority B. Biblical Interpretation C. The Biblical Evidence

4. Homosexuality and The Church

A. Arguments For and Against Same-Sex Practice B. The Same-Sex Conundrum: Embracing Truth While Practicing Grace C. Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation for The Church D. Membership and Ordination of Those in Same-Sex Relationships E. Pastoral Considerations

5. An Apologetic Programme for Re-Education

A. The Opportunity B. The Psychology of Sexuality a. The Theology of Sexuality

Select Recommended Resources (Video, books and organization)

HEADINGS
1. Homosexuality
A. Initial Clarifications a. Recent History Trend in Public Opinion b. Key Issues re The Same-Sex Debate c. Origins, Pronunciation and Usage B. Models of Sexuality a. Complementary: The Biblical Design b. Androgyny / Unisex / Ambigender / Polgender: A Recently Popular View c. The Great Sex Charade: Sexuality as Indicator of Intimacy C. The Nature of Homosexuality a. An Identity, A Behaviour or An Inclination? b. Spectrum of Views on Orientation and Behaviour c. Causation: Gay Genes? Nature v. Nurture: The Scientific Evidence d. Other Unsupported Claims e. The Human Desire for Intimacy f. Grim Facts about Homosexual Practice D. Recent History: The Politics of Homosexuality a. History of A Western Cultural Revolution b. The Goal of the Gay Agenda c. Blueprint for Revolution d. A Clever Marketing Strategy: Spin e. Gay Lobby Tactics: Claiming the High Moral Ground f. Consequences of the Revolution The New Intolerance g. Societys Slippery Slope h. The Churchs Slippery Slope i. Plausibility of Same Sex Behaviour E. Issues Relating to The Gay Rights Agenda a. Chief Arguments Summarised For and Against Approval b. Liberties Threatened: Ensuring Justice in Governmental Decision-Making c. Potential Areas of Conflict d. Traditionalist Response to Homosexual Behaviour e. Values and Perception of Reality f. Prerequisites for Marriage

2. Same Sex Relationships and Marriage

A. Marriage and Society a. The Stabilizing Factors of Marriage b. A Question of Where to Focus c. Marriage and Relationships in Family Life and Society d. Can Marriage be redefined? (Humpty Dumpty) B. A Biblical View of Marriage a. Humanity in The Image of God (Biblical View) b. The Nature and Strengths of Traditional Marriage (Biblical View) C. Arguments For Same-Sex Marriage a. Arguments by Homosexuals against Exclusion from Marriage b. Political Stances taken by Gay Lobbyists D. Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage a. Objections to Same-Sex Marriage b. Why Complementarity Matters c. Imbalance Regarding Rights and Ethics


E. Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage a. Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage for Society b. Consequences for Those Who Oppose SSM c. Conclusion

3. Homosexuality and The Bible

A. Biblical Authority a. Understandings Within The Church b. Shift from The Written Word of God to The Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ c. The Affect of Our attitude to Gods Word upon Our View of Homosexuality B. Biblical Interpretation a. Crucial Tenets of Hermeneutics b. Skewed Hermeneutics c. The Re-Interpretation of What The Bible Says d. Loving, Committed, Long-term Relationships: How Relevant is The Bible Evidence? C. The Biblical Evidence a. The Key Texts b. Pauls Teaching in Romans c. The Seriousness of Homosexual Sin d. Conclusions Regarding Biblical Teaching

4. Homosexuality and The Church

A. Arguments For and Against Same-Sex Practice a. The Real Issue At Stake For The Church b. Traditionalist Stance c. Revisionist and Other Inclusivist Arguments B. The Same-Sex Conundrum: Embracing Truth While Practicing Grace a. Consider Love First, Rather Than Sex b. Make Careful Distinctions regarding Sexual Issues c. Balance Grace with Truth d. Responses to Those with Same-Sex Attraction C. Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation for The Church a. Trust Deeds of Independent Churches b. Church Finances c. Equipping the Congregation for Opposition d. Ex-Gays D. Membership and Ordination of Those in Same-Sex Relationships a. Adherence b. Membership c. Ordination E. Pastoral Considerations a. Pastoral Concerns b. Pauls beliefs c. The Situation Today d. Challenges for Traditionalists e. Psychology Testimony of James Loder f. Who am I? A Gay Man? Or A Son of God?

5. An Apologetic Programme for Re-Education

A. The Opportunity a. Significance of Apologetics for Today b. Types of Evidence c. The Educational Need

6
d. The Gospel Opportunity e. Personal Witness to The Truth f. The Media Still The Message B. The Psychology of Sexuality a. Core Identity b. Transgender Experience c. Avoid Validating a Feelings Narrative d. The Source of True Intimacy e. Therapy for Homosexuals with Unwanted SSA f) Integrity in Opposing Normalisation of Homosexuality C. The Theology of Sexuality a. A Biblical View of A Homosexual. b. Pricking Conscience c. An Apologetic of Love and Holiness d. Scriptures for Reflection Select Recommended Resources (Video, books and organization) Authors Cited

1. HOMOSEXUALITY
A. INITIAL CLARIFICATIONS a) Recent History Trends in Public Opinion Recent history of the permissive society: In the 20th century sexual roles were redefined once again. For a variety of reasons, premarital intercourse slowly became more common and eventually acceptable. With the decline of prohibitions against sex for the sake of pleasure even outside of marriage, it became more difficult to argue against gay sex. These trends were especially strong in the 1960's, and it was in this context that the gay liberation movement took off. (Homosexuality, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011) A Washington Post poll showed the swing towards acceptance of gay marriage in the last decade in which the NO vote dropped from 55% to 36% while the YES vote crossed over from 41% to 58%.

Note, however, evolving attitudes to marriage must not be confused with the contentious notion of marriage itself evolving. [See 2.C.a) Arguments by Homosexuals against Exclusion from Marriage]

b) Key Issues re the SS Debate For Society at large: The Elephants in the room: o Is homosexuality natural or unnatural / abnormal? (Nature or Nurture?) [See 1.C.c] o Has homosexual practice been proved empirically to be harmful? (Healthy or Unhealthy?) [1.C.h] o Can homosexual practice be morally justified or not? (Good or Sinful) [1.B.b,c, 1.C.b,c, 1.D.e,f,
1.E,g,h, 2.A.a,c, 2.C.a,b, 2.D.a,c, 3.A-C, 4.A.c, 4.C.c, 4.D.b,c, 5.A.a,e, 5.B.c, 5.C.a,c,d]

Whose wisdom guides public opinion? o Gods revealed Word? [3.A-C] o Human rationality informed by scientific findings? o One pressure groups propaganda? [1.D-E]

[4.A.b]

For the Church: Whose wisdom guides church decisions? o Gods revealed Word? If so: [3:A-C] Which parts are relevant? [3.C] How should they be interpreted? [3.B] How seriously does the Bible take the consequences of SS practice? [3.C.c] o Scientific evidence? If so: Who has provided the most reliable evidence? [1.C.d] What is this evidence? [1.C] o Public consensus? If so: Why should opinion polls be relied upon to establish truth? [1.D.e, 2.C.b]

8
c) Origins, Pronunciation and Usage: Whereas same-sex relationships have been around since before the dawn of history, the term homosexual first appeared in print 1869. o The homo element of Homo-sexual comes from the Greek word homos meaning same and is pronounced hom-o (as in Thomas). o It should not be confused with the Latin word homo meaning man and pronounced home-oe (e.g. Homo sapiens, the first syllable as in home). Homosexual refers to the same-sex orientation in general, rather than to any male component of same-sex. Homosexuality is primarily about the same-ness of the sexual partners, not their male-ness. Homosexual v. Gay. It is helpful to distinguish homosexual and gay. While the term homosexual simply describes an attraction that some have to others of the same sex (in the same way heterosexual describes attraction to one of the opposite sex), the label gay describes a socio-political identity and lifestyle that a high profile community of homosexually inclined persons adopt. Note: There is a certain group of homosexual men who do not seek fulfillment through coming out into a gay identity. These men have chosen to grow in another direction [e.g. celibacy]. The word homosexual names an aspect of such a mans psychological condition. But he is not gay. (R.S. Harris, Dept. of Anatomy, Bristol University) Generally, however, a homosexual is understand today to refer to a man who is gay, hence the linguistic confusion! (To compound the confusion, historically the most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys.) Homophobia first coined 1969. Homophobia / bigotry should be applied only to those expressing hatred / contempt of homosexuals as persons (e.g. labeling them queers / fags, etc.), despite the wider application by the gay lobby to describe anyone opposed to their agenda. To reject homosexual practice, by way of informed disapproval, should not be automatically construed as a rejection of the inherent dignity held by people who are attracted to their own sex. Rejecting or questioning ideology underpinning the gay worldview is often translated as a rejection of homosexual people, as persons. (R.S. Harris)

B. MODELS OF SEXUALITY
a) Complementary: The Biblical Design Here, maleness and femaleness are seen as important and positive differences, and as fundamental to reality and to the nature of each person. God created us, male and female, and it was good. (This stress on the reality and importance of sexual differences contrasts with androgyny male-female ambiguity.) Masculinity and femininitymaleness and femalenessare seen as co-operating in a mutually supportive fashion. (Note: This also contrasts with the age-old model of exploitive sexuality predominantly of women by men).

b) Androgyny / Unisex / Ambigender / Polygender: A Recently Popular View Sexuality understood as basically arbitrary, and of male and female as not only equivalent but as more or less interchangeable, except for minor differences in external genitalia and associated sensory pleasure. (Paul C Vitz, Prof. of Psychology, NYU) The androgynous understanding of sex means that any form of sexual pleasure is okay since there is no natural character to sexuality. It is an arbitrary social convention defined by each person. Once sex as recreation, rather than as procreation, is established, individual moral relativism goes with it. The result is the world of todays pornographic exploitation, in which sex with either sex, includingeven especially sado-masochistic sex, sex with children, and now sex with animals, is justified; if you enjoy it, its okay. (Vitz)

c) The Great Sex Charade: Sexuality as Indicator of Intimacy The great sex charade is the popular celebration in the media and in our society and culture at large of sexuality as the major indicator of intimacy between persons. Our culture is rife with the attention-getting power of sexuality, and we are saturated with the notion that sexual attractiveness is the key to interpersonal


success and true happiness. But we do not ask what is at the core of interpersonal success. Culturally coopted sexuality is a charade, a game designed to conceal the underlying reality it suggests. It is a deceitful rampant pretense to satisfy something in us that is far more profound, namely, the longing for an intimacy that ultimately ties us into the life of God. (James E. Loder, Pioneer in inter-disciplinary methodology in psychology, philosophy, and theology, Prof. of Christian Education, Princeton Theological Seminary) [See 1.C.f) The Human Desire for Intimacy; 5.B.d) The Source of True Intimacy]

C. THE NATURE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

a) An Identity, A Behaviour or An Inclination? Identity? Personal identity is properly constituted around sexual orientation. Self-identifying as homosexuals. Who goes around saying, Im a heterosexual!? This is the product of subjective value judgements rather than objective science. Homosexuality is not an identity, it is a behaviour. (Pamela D. Ousley, ex-lesbian). But it is also experienced as an orientation. [See 1.C.c) Gay Genes? Nature v. Nurture: The Scientific Evidence; 1.D.d) - A Clever Marketing Strategy: The Use of Spin; 5.B.a) Core Identity] Homosexuality as an identity did not emerge until 1870 before that the terminology referred to practices alone. (Michel Foucault, historian). While same-sex sexual behavior has long been recognized, heterosexual and homosexual as distinct human identities is a social construct that comes out of the 19th century, maybe a little earlier. Sexual identity is not a biblical concept, and I dont think this concept is true to the way God made us. Not many cultures have said sexuality is so important that, beginning in childhood, you need to explore it and think about it, and you cant be a healthy adult without expressing and knowing it. That, in my view, is a sign of a culture that has made an idol of sex. (Jenell Williams Paris, Prof. of Anthropology, Bethel University) Testimony of An Ex-Gay Person: The most tragic thing I have observed as it relates to homosexuality is that it utterly destroys the core part of who a person is. It robs identity. It doesnt reinforce it. Little by little it takes the man or woman that God created and the life He had planned for them and eats at it. Men dont become more complete in their masculinity; they (in a sense) fade away and settle for less than God intended. Its my same observation about women. (Anon. ex-gay) Homosexuality is something they have rather than something they are As soon as somebody has a homosexual inclination, they say, I am a homosexual. And I say, No. You are a human being, and you have homosexual desires. But you are first and foremost a human being. (- James Loder, Princeton Prof.) [See 4.E.e) Psychology Testimony of James Loder] Some have claimed they chose to become gay or bisexual, (e.g. as an experiment or for notoriety). [See 4.E.f)
Who am I? A Gay Man? Or A Son of God?] One UK survey conducted in 1994 amongst 19,000 people found 3.6% of men and 1.7% of women had ever had genital same-sex activity, but when asked about such activity in the past 5 years, the numbers dropped to 1.4% of men and 0.6% of women, suggesting for the majority it was a passing phase. Further of all surveyed only 1% of men and 0.3% of women were exclusively gay. (Wellings, Field, Johnson & Wadsworth, UCL Medical School)

An Addiction? - "This is an addictive sort of behavior and at the same time a kind of frigidity. You are not satisfied, so you increase the dose, with the result that you multiply the frustration." (Wolfgang Joop, Gay fashion designer)

b) Spectrum of Views on Orientation and Behaviour The Issue: what matters is not the urges that individuals may feel but what they do with these urges. A. Homosexual orientation / inclination, whether o Innate from birth (essentialist view: due to nature), or o Acquired / learnt through experience (social constructionist view: acquired by nurture) Reactions: o Most traditionalists have no issue with such orientation.

10
B. o Some react negatively to orientation as well as rejecting practice. Homosexual behaviour (sexual activity with same-sex partners) Range of Involvement: o From: A. None celibate homosexuals (with traditionalist values), o Through: B. Best-case only faithful monogamous sexual partnerships (revisionist values), o To: C. Worst-case promiscuity and depravity (amoral values). Reactions: o Condemnation (by traditionalists) of all non-celibate homosexuality. o Acceptance (by revisionists) of loving, faithful, committed, lasting, monogamous sexual partnerships (without judging). o Celebration (by gay activists) of gay relationships in general as gifts.

Is It Natural? Is It Normal? o Despite the claim that ones sexual preference is nobodys business but ones own, the intuition that there is something unnatural about homosexuality remains vital. (Michael Levin, JSTOR, The Monist, 02/04/84) o Gay activists portray their lifestyle as normal and healthy, equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts. Sex within marriage of a man and a woman is the normal outlet of intimacy. Homosexual sex is an abnormal use of bodily parts. o The majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to see same-sex attraction as signaling a mental illness. (Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse) [See 1.C.f) Grim facts about Homosexual Practice]

c)

Causation: Gay Genes? - Nature v. Nurture: The Scientific Evidence Claims made regarding natural causes of homosexuality: o Homosexual intercourse is natural animals do it! Natural has a scientific meaning (i.e. as found in nature) that differs from its theological meaning (i.e. according to Gods ordering of creation). Patterns of behaviour found in nature do not always conform to biblical standards of human morality. It is natural for some animals to prey on others. The Fall accounts for disorders found in creation, including biologically induced homosexual behaviour. o Homosexuals cant be blamed for expressing their natural tendencies. Human sexual attraction is a spectrum rather than a division (straight v. gay). Less than 1% are totally gay. Flawed natural tendencies should subject to restraint. The primacy of self-expression is a non-Christian philosophy that denies any internal conflict between Spirit and flesh. o lts normal and natural because wired that way! Its in my genes! Most homosexuals have been children of two heterosexual parents. So, one might ask, whence this gay gene? There is no gay gene as such. (- Dr David de Pomerai, Biology Prof. at Nottingham) Many other factors and influences involved also. o Sexual orientation is biologically determined at birth. Familial, cultural and other environmental factors contribute to same sex attraction. Debates over homosexuality are often presented in terms of a false dichotomyeither a person is born gay, or a person chooses to be gay. The truth lies between these two extremes. For the most part, people do not choose what sexual feelings or attractions they experience. Each of us does, however, choose the sexual behaviors in which we engage. (Family Research Centre) o Un-argued Presumption: Born Gay. I knew I was different to other boys almost from the age of 7 or 8. I have absolutely no doubt that I was born gay, yet I find it bizarre that some find that difficult to accept. There are still misguided souls who believe that people choose to be gay. (Radio presenter Iain Dale). Comment: No debate as to what his feeling different at 7 or 8 was caused by. No exploration of the different theories of emotional and environmental development or biology, no discussion around whether his feeling different from other boys was the trigger for developing homosexuality at puberty OR an expression of him already being intrinsically homosexual. There is no grappling with the various theories around genetics, hormonal and other influences in the womb, no examination of the multiple twin-studies on the subject which explore the variances in genetic / non-genetic components of homosexuality and their wide variability across the sexes. Gosh, we could at least have explored the male sibling evidence which is a brilliant text book example of how the same empirical evidence can be interpreted in both a nature and nurture way. (Peter Ould, Orthodox Anglican blogger on human sexuality)

11
The possibilities surrounding causation: o Are homosexuals: 1. Born that way? (Nature) Some claim there is a biological factor in alcoholism and criminality. But this doesnt make such behaviours acceptable. The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation thantheir height For all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.) To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choice and sin' and give the religious right intransigents a stick to beat us with. (Marshall Kirk, neuro-psychiatrist, and Hunter Madsen, social marketing expert). o Or: 2. Do they become homosexual through their environment? (Nurture) The answer is that no one knows, and it doesnt matter, because though Our urges may be programmed; our behaviour is not. (Barry Seagren, apologist). We all struggle with desires either inborn or acquired from social influences. o Or: 3. Do they become attracted to those of their own sex either through choice? (Neither nature nor nurture) I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line Ive been straight and Ive been gay, and gay is better. And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. (Cynthia Nixon, Sex And The City star. Note: this is a minority view in LBGT circles!) Cynthia said she hasn't always been gay and finds it 'offensive' that people say she has. She continued: Why can't it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we're just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don't think that they should define the terms of the debate. Homosexual behavior as a symptom of a disorder rather than a genetically inherited lifestyle: o "Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relations, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender-identity, and develops homosexually. (Joseph Nicholosi, Clinical Psychologist) 2006 Danish study of 2 million people concluded: o Childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood. o No support for genetic influences on same-sex preference. o No evidence for intrauterine transfer of hormone effects on social behaviour o No association between same-sex attraction and number of ... older brothers o No evidence for a speculative evolutionary model of homosexual preference o Substantially higher concordance for homosexual orientation has been reported in previous research [on twins]. We believe that previous work is largely incorrect as a result of reliance on nonrepresentative samples. (Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes, 2006) The Scientific Evidence o The argument that homosexuality is biologically determined, and is therefore not amenable to change, continues to find little support in science. Monitor on Psychology, the official magazine of the American Psychological Association, there is another study that emphasizes the fluidity of homosexual attraction. Dr. Ellen Scheter of the Fielding Graduate Institute presented her research at the recent meeting of the American Psychological Association. Her qualitative study included indepth interviews with 11 women who had been self-identified as lesbian for more than 10 years. All of these women were in heterosexual relationships which had been ongoing for more than a year. (Greer, M. 2004. Labels may oversimplify women's sexual identity, experiences. Monitor on Psychology, 35, 9, p. 28.) o Neurological influence: Suggested differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals remain unproven and controversial. (David de Pomerai) o Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that "a biopsychosocial model" best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." (R. Friedman, M.D. / J. Downey, M.D. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993)

12
o When assessing biological factors, if a balanced scientific study of causation is to be made, it is important that psychosocial factors are also assessed. The crucial thing from a scientific point of view is to follow the evidence rigorously. Contrary to my instinctive intuition, I find myself driven to the conclusion that homosexuality originates overwhelmingly in nurture rather than nature. (Dermot OCallaghan, Contributor to The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality A response to its discussion of causation, and Co-author of Out of Harm's Way: Working Ethically with Same-sex Attracted Persons. Questions of harm, evidence and practice) Gay activist Peter Tatchell rejects the flawed theory which claims a genetic causation for homosexuality.

The Limits of Science: o Scope: Science is the arbiter of what is positive. This represents a paradigm shift within the discipline of practising psychologists who decided to embrace the minority narrative of homosexuality. The social sciences do not contain within themselves adequate resources to adjudicate among conflicting ways of understanding the good. Such judgments are the domain of religion, theology, & philosophy. (Stanton Jones, psychologist) o The Moral Realm Inaccessible via Science: Reviewing Pim Pronks even-handed, nuanced treatment of homosexuality that disagrees with everybody, Gene B. Chase observes: No evidence on the level of what is' can lead to a conclusion about what ought to be. No historical evidence, no biological evidence, no sociological evidence, no psychological evidence can force a moral conclusion. These sciences simply do not have the tools to lead to the moral realm. Thus Pronk disagrees with almost everyone's argument for homosexuality. John Boswell's argument from the frequency of homosexuality in history, even in the Church's history, John McNeill's argument from the psychological experience of gays who claim that homosexuality is normal for them, Evelyn Hooker's argument that gays are not per se socially deviant, arguments from hypothalamus studies-all of these arguments are easy to dismiss. Is' does not mean ought'! The Integrity of Science Compromised o Integrity: Politics and science go hand in hand. In the end it is gay activism which determines what researchers say about gay people. (Vern Bullough, Humanist Sexologist, quoted in Out of Harms Way) [See 1.D.e) Gay Lobby Tactics] Conclusion: o 1. Little scientific evidence to support the notion that homosexuals are innately conditioned in their orientation. Homosexuality originates overwhelmingly in nurture rather than nature. This does not mean that it is necessarily a chosen condition. o Or 2: The best scientific evidence points towards a complicated combination of nature and nurture in the development of sexual orientation and identity. (Peter Ould)

d) Other Unsupported Claims

Gays are as psychologically healthy as straights. Homosexual orientation associated with anxiety, substance-use disorders and suicidal thoughts. [Homosexual relationships are intrinsically insecure.] [See
1.C.g) - Grim Truths about Homosexual Practice]

Homosexual relationships are basically equivalent to heterosexual ones. Cuts against a fundamental gender-based given of the human condition, thus often the cause of distress. Sexual orientation cannot be changed and attempts to change are harmful. Many homosexualities mean some are more malleable than others. Motivation plays a part also. [See 4.E.e) Psychology Testimony of James Loder] There is no conclusive scientific evidence, one way or the other (APA 2009:23) that sexual orientation changes efforts (SOCE) are successful. Neither is there clarity on the nature of orientation nor a consensus on how to measure it. (Michael R Davidson, ex-gay educationalist, pastor, psychotherapist). Gender is a social construct; therefore I can do what I like with whom I like. A push in Sweden to eliminate gendered behaviour in children is based on the ideological notion that gender is mostly socially constructed. The preponderance of scientific (biological and psychological) evidence indicates that the social gender engineering proposed in Sweden is wrong. Male and female are different but equal and the equality agenda is damaged rather than served by trying to eliminate difference. (William Reville, emeritus professor of biochemistry) Also male and female being differently constructed sexually, we ignore the Creators


purpose at our peril. Note: Many gay people also object to this notion as it conflicts with their notion of a gay gene determining gender. e) The Human Desire for Intimacy

13

Intimacy and Sex: o To share a life of intimacy with another is the way most men and women are meant to live whole and holy lives. Such relationships are about more than making babies. They are about making love, because to do so is to be fully human. An affirmation of companionship at the beginning of time (Gen 1) + new discoveries about sexual orientation in the natural world = a radical challenge to previously confident assessments of the morality of gay relationships. (Stephen Hough). Intimacy and sex are not coterminous! Abraham had an intimate relationship with God. Jonathan and David were intimate friends, but with no suggestion of a sexual relationship (other than what some would read into it!) [See 5.B.d) The Source of True Intimacy] Outlets in Music and The Arts: o Music and the arts were always a tolerant environment for gay men. Everyone draws on a central emotional core in the act of creativity, and when the normal outlet of intimacy is blocked, the heart will find alternative ways to express itself, sometimes with enormous intensity. (Stephen Hough, pianist and composer, gay Roman Catholic) Sex within marriage of a man and a woman is the normal outlet of intimacy. Homosexual sex is an abnormal use of bodily parts.

f) Grim Facts about Homosexual Practice Sexual Health: o Dr. Timothy J. Dailey (Former Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies, Family Research Council) maintains that homosexual activists downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle and portray their lifestyle as normal and healthy, equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts. Hollywood and the media propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual. That the reality is different was recently conceded by the homosexual newspaper New York Blade News: Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness. (Bill Roundy, "STD Rates on the Rise," NYBN, Dec. 15, 2000) Homosexual activity is breeding a culture of sexual irresponsibility. The US Centres for Disease Control notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly twothirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800). Mental health: o Homosexual orientation is often associated with anxiety, substance-use disorders and suicidal thoughts, because homosexual relationships are intrinsically insecure. A national survey of lesbians in America found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness: (J. Bradford, et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62, 1994) Research supports a relationship between homosexuality and personal distress (e.g., rates of depression, substance abuse and suicidality), though not all homosexuals are distressed. Some view the distress as indicating something inherently wrong with homosexuality; others view homosexuals who are distressed as a reflection of societal prejudice. (Jones & Yarhouse) o Homosexuality is not formally recognized as a mental disorder in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). However, some mental health professionals disagree: a few years following the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, the majority of psychiatrists in America viewed homosexuality as a pathology, and the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to see same-sex attraction as signaling a mental illness. (Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse)

14
Dangerous and Life-Shortening o A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy. [See 5.C.c) Scriptures for
Reflection]

Higher prevalence of promiscuity: o The classic study of 156 males in homosexual relationships by gay couple psychiatrist McWhirter and psychologist Mattison, described in The Male Couple (1984), found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years. Outside affairs, the researchers found, were not damaging to the relationships endurance, but were in fact essential to it. The authors say: The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel, (Joseph Nicolosi). By comparison the heterosexual rate of infidelity is much lower, despite high divorce rates: 23% men, 12% women were categorized as unfaithful in an American survey of over 1,000 marriages. Research on maladaptiveness is inconclusive primarily because of the lack of agreement as to what constitutes maladaptiveness. The clear evidence of relational instability and promiscuity among male homosexuals must figure as problematic for Christians. (Jones & Yarhouse)

D. RECENT HISTORY: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

a) History of A Western Cultural Revolution The Emergence of Gay Awareness o The Kinsey Report (1948) claimed that 10% of people are homosexual. (This figure is generally revised today to between 1.6% and 3%.) This led to the following popular assumptions: Out of the moral fog of the last few decades, the notion emerged that 10% equals normal, and normal equals natural, and natural equals acceptable. (Thomas Schmidt, author) Genesis of Stonewall o If we take off the rainbow-colored glasses and objectively explore this phenomenon we call gay rights, we find that It grew out of the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s. To be precise, the June 11, 1969, Stonewall riot when a group of homosexuals at New York Citys Stonewall Inn resisted police commands to disperse is widely regarded as the birth of the gay liberation movement. (David Kupelian, Columnist, editor of Whistleblower magazine) AIDS epidemic. o The sympathy factor: Then came AIDS, identified in the 1980s, a sexual plague threatening to wipe out millions. As a public relations matter, AIDS was daunting. This modern plague, if not handled brilliantly in the court of public opinion, could result in homosexuals being widely shunned. On the other hand, perhaps the sympathy factor could be harnessed and multiplied to advance the activists cause. The movement definitely needed help. (David Kupelian) o Significance for the Gay campaign: As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of Americas special protection and care. At the same time, they warned, it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it? (Kirk and Madsen, Harvard educated authors of After The Ball, 1989) Democracy Untethered from Its Judeo-Christian Roots Caves In to: o Egalitarianism: When democracy, in the sexual revolution against established moral values, became untethered from its Judeo-Christian roots of self-restraint and responsibility, it was open to domination by a philosophy of radical egalitarianism where the political drive towards everincreasing equality was intolerant of traditional boundaries and constraints. o Humanism: Traditional faiths have been replaced by liberal humanism, which is now established as the unthinking creed of thinking people. (John Gray, Professor of European Thought) o Relativism: The objectivity that once allowed us to be sure what we were and what we stood for has been all but eroded. Our culture has been upended by moral and cultural relativism, the doctrine

15
that denies any hierarchy of values, but is doctrinaire in its enforcement. (Melanie Phillips, author and broadcaster) Libertarianism: Freedom has been an important value of a Christian society. But when faith diminishes in society as Christian teaching is forgotten or ignored, the moral responsibilities involved in the belief system also fade as materialism increases and meaning to life is sought in the pursuit of pleasure; freedom becomes libertarianism. Today society has become sexualised by exposure to television soap operas, advertising and the film industry, aided not least by a powerful and clever gay lobby who have not only emerged in the last two decades as a dominant influence in governmental, legal, educational and even some business institutions, but also as an agency to marginalise religion in society.

b) The Goal of The Gay Agenda The Present Reality: A Social Revolution o A massive social experiment over the past 30 years has resulted in 1960s values dominating the evolution of family structures: personal fulfillment elevated over old-fashioned concepts of duty and responsibility. "We may or may not like it but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality." (Justin Welby) o Full acceptance of homosexuality within church and society involves a radical reinterpretation of gender, marriage, family and sexual morality and nothing less than a revolution in social terms.
[See 1.D.f) Societys Slippery Slope, 1.D.b) The Goal of The Gay Agenda]

The Planned Stratagem: A Strategy to Change Attitudes o Archbishop Justin has recently spoken of a revolution in Western culture, which we cannot ignore. This revolution has not been violent, or a spontaneous grassroots response to oppression, but the result of a planned manipulation of popular philosophy and the takeover of institutions and sources of information which shape us. The origins are in European and North American academic Marxism; the practical plans developed and shared in popular books such as After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen. The spokespeople are articulate and angry activists, often celebrities. The strategy has been to disseminate widely the powerful ideas that homosexual practice is good, that being gay is an innate unchangeable condition, that gay people are oppressed victims, that those who say otherwise are hateful oppressors [and bigots], who must be either converted, branded as right wing lunatics, or cowed into silence through legislation. The last ten years have seen the effectiveness of this strategy to change attitudes within the church. (Andrew Symes, Executive Secretary of Anglican-Mainstream)

Transforming Society o Avowed Aim of Gay Agenda: Change societys values and norms. (Peter Tatchell co-author of GLF Manifesto, 1971): Aim at abolishing the family and the cultural distinctions between men and women. What is wrong is the in-turned emotional exclusiveness of the couplePeople need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow, and to learn about other human beings. The long-term goal of Gay Liberation is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. Our whole legal structure is supposedly based on Christianity whose archaic and irrational teachings support the family and marriage as the only permitted condition for sex. - We gay men and women do deny these values of our civilisation. It means a revolutionary change in our whole society. o Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family and transforming the very fabric of society. (Paula Ettelbrick, advocate for the LGBT community)

About Power, not Truth or Justice. o Gay rights is not about the attainment of truth nor social justice but the achievement of power. The battle centres on the control of public discourse through marketing and persuasion, to shape what society thinks about and how they think about it. [See 2.A.d) Can Marriage be Redefined? (Humpty
Dumpty)]

16
c) Blueprint For Revolution The Initial Strategy: In 1988, two Harvard-trained social scientists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote a clever homosexual marketing plan ''dismissing the movement's outworn techniques in favor of carefully calculated public relations propaganda . . . laying the groundwork for the next stage of the gay revolution and its ultimate victory over bigotry.'' (Kirk & Madsen) Overhauling of Straight America Detailed Strategy for Public Acceptance of Homosexuals Marshal E. Kirk and Erastes Pill (Hunter Madsen), 1987 The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the pubic is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion. (Opening sentence of The Overhauling of Straight America, landmark article by homosexual activists Kirk and Madsen) o Step 1: Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of ones fellows doing it or accepting it. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight American, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretation of Biblical teaching and exposing hatred and inconsistency Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated and backwards, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work here again. Hollywood is described by the authors as the best covert weapon homosexuals have to desensitize the mainstream. They applaud the fact that over the past 10 years (up to 1987) homosexual characters have become prominent in films and television programs. Step 2: Portray Gays as Victims, Not as Aggressive Challengers In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims). First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isnt willfully contrary - its only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you! Step 3: Give Protectors a Just Cause. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign. It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.

17
Step 4: Make Gays Look Good In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know this trick is so old it creaks. Step 5: Make the Victimizers look Bad At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights long after other gay ads have become commonplace it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstreams self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the fags they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Step 6: Solicit Funds: The Buck Stops Here Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years an unprecedented fundraising drive and because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

The Strategy Developed: Two years later in their book After the Ball, Kirk and Madsen stated clearly their plan for mass propaganda for converting America to promote the homosexual cause. After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's In this 432 page book (which became the authoritative public relations manual for homosexual pressure groups) they argued that: o Homosexuals had to change their image replacing that of drag-queens with that of attractive young people, middle-aged articulate women and smiling senior citizens. i.e. look main-stream and normal! o They needed to portray themselves as victims of society to make straights feel uncomfortable. Churches, with commitment to biblical morality, were to be portrayed as the oppressors (bigots). In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. They wrote: o .by conversion we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in longestablished principles of psychology and advertising. Working on the assumption that you can persuade someone to adopt a view without appearing to do so, the authors set forth eight graduated tactics purposefully adopted by the ''war conference" and cannily designed subliminally to persuade "straight" America that ''the gay alternative" is legitimate, acceptable, and good. 1. Communicate with others at their own level while curtailing gay "self-expression." 2. Appeal to the "ambivalent sceptics" or the "muddled middle." 3. "Desensitize" people to the subject by constantly talking about gayness (but hide the negative aspects). 4. Keep the message focused on gay issues (don't fight for other causes). 5. Portray homosexuals as victims, not as threats to the status quo. 6. Give potential supporters a cause they can relate to, such as antidiscrimination; don't ask them to support the practice of homosexuality per se. 7. Make gays look good: portray them as Everyman and Everywoman.

18
8. Make opponents look bad: portray them as evil and victimizing. According to Kirk and Madsen, each of these eight tactics had to be handled in such a way as to accomplish three things at once: A. Employ emotionally powerful images so as to "desensitize," jam, and convert the undecided and the confused. [See Three Phases of the Gay Campaign below] B. Challenge homo-hating beliefs and actions on a (not too) intellectual level. C. Gain access to the type of public media that "would automatically confer legitimacy" upon the message, while making sure that the message remains "both subtle in purpose and crafty in construction." Three Phases of the Gay Campaign. o Phase 1: Desensitization. Flood the market with normal-looking gay people doing normal things so that the public no longer takes a double look at people identified as gays. In this phase, it is good to have well-known ministers, priests and even bishops with good reputations stand up and proudly say they are gay. It is good to also write books for school children such as Joey Has Two Mommies. It is good for a parish to be gay friendly when a gay couple wants their adopted child baptized. (V.J. Peter) ''It is not overt coercion. It is one group's covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group.'' (Kirk & Madsen) I.e. conscious manipulation of you and me to change our Christian views without our realizing the manipulation involved. (Val.J. Peter, RC Headmaster) o Phase 2: Exaction Pricing, jamming (or Psychological Terrorism). The economic or emotional price being exacted from target groups for not buying the gay rights agenda, i.e. a scare tactic that says it is important to beat down anyone who opposes the gay agenda (V.J. Peter) ''Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches . . . by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step . . . with the latest findings of psychology'' (Kirk & Madsen). Call the opposition homophobic. Laugh them to scorn. Scare preachers by suggesting laws forbidding them to claim the Scriptures are opposed to homosexual activity. Make it a crime of hate speech. (V.J. Peter) o Phase 3: Conversion. ''Conversion of the average American's emotions, mind and will through a planned psychological attack.'' (Kirk & Madsen) Laugh to scorn the sacred Scriptures. Why would you rely on Scripture? After all, Exodus 21:7 talks about a good price for selling your daughter into slavery. Then there is Exodus 35:20 where you must kill your fellow employee who works on the Sabbath. You want people to live and let live. You want them to say, I changed my mind. Priests and bishops are very susceptible to what Rondeau calls the illusion of being informed and enlightened. Why? Because priests and bishops are pastoral people and, in this postmodern age, they need very much to be liked and they need to be seen as caring, sharing and compassionate. (V.J. Peters)

d) A Clever Marketing Strategy: The Use of Spin Positive Rebranding of Homosexuals. Call them gay (less offensive), not homosexuals. Call them a humble, long suffering minority, not a savvy group wanting recognition. ''Pederasts, gender-benders, sadomasochists and other minorities in the homosexual community with more extreme peculiarities would keep a low profile until homosexuality is in the tent. Only strong and favorable images of homosexuals should be displayed.'' (Paul Rondeau, Marketing expert) Linguistic Manipulation. Gay rights activists use rhetoric, psychology, social psychology, and the mediaall the elements of modern marketingto position homosexuality in order to frame what is discussed in the public arena and how it is discussed. In essence, when it comes to homosexuality, activists want to shape "what everyone knows" and "what everyone takes for granted" even if everyone does not really know and even if it should not be taken for granted. (See Anthony R. Pratkanis, Prof. of Psychology, Expert on Subliminal Persuasion, and Elliot Aronson, Social Psychologist) o Gay Rights itself is an expression that puts traditionalists on the back foot (at a linguistic disadvantage), suggesting homosexuals either have a right to something or are being denied the basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy. (Similarly the abortion rights movement framed their debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice, because it is far easier to defend an abstract, positivesounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies!)

19
Sexual Orientation: Sexual Disorder > Sexual Orientation Disturbance > Sexual Orientation > Affectional Orientation. Proponents of the social acceptance of practically all forms of sexual expression have sought to redefine the American vocabulary and impose a new terminology that casts harmful and objectionable behavior in a favorable light. At the same time, our historical understanding of many words is being challenged through societal pressure to conform to a politically correct philosophical agenda.The term sexual orientation disturbance was coined in 1973 when the American Psychological Association (APA) debated removing homosexuality from its list of sexual disorders. [Later], the word disturbance was dropped, and professionals and experts adopted the phrase sexual orientation. Activists [were then able to argue:] If a persons sexual attractions are part of their orientation, or genetic makeup, the thought goes, then those attractions must be completely natural and acceptable, regardless of who the subject of those attractions may be.. Interestingly, many pro-homosexual groups are [now] themselves declaring sexual orientation a misnomerarguing instead for affectional orientation or emotional orientation. Why? Because this new terminology takes the focus off of sexthe underlying behavior, which may include sodomy, that many in society find so objectionable. (Tim Wilkins, Founder of Cross Ministry (to gays) and More Than Words conferences) Manipulation of Language to Label Supposed Social Evils Homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to co-workers or friends, delivering a sermon; etc. These rights include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government. Other rights are protection from hate-motivated crimes, protection in accommodation, and employment security. (religioustolerance.org) By calling dislike of homosexuality homophobia and labeling the belief that heterosexuality (not homosexuality) is the norm as heterosexist, gay campaigners hope to abolish these supposed social evils and get homosexual behaviour firmly accepted as normal in a society that becomes indifferent to the form of relationships which individuals choose to enter or make the basis of their family life.

Marketing Strategy: o The "4 P's" of the traditional marketing paradigm: Product (conception), Price (economic and emotional price that is exacted from targeted groups for not buying the gay rights idea), Place (distribution channel), and Promotion (advertising, lobbying, etc).. Gay rights folks are not selling dishwashers or autos. They are selling an issue, namely acceptance and approval of their lifestyle, but the methods are the same. "What is pitched is differenta product brand versus an issuebut the method is the same. In each case, the critical thing is not to let the public know how it is done,"(Tammy Bruce, a self-described lesbian feminist) Thus homosexuality is packaged and sold as a competitive product in the marketplace, often through education and through positive media coverage. o First, you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then when your one little difference [orientation] is finally accepted can you start dragging in your other peculiarities , one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, Allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow. (Kirk and Madsen) In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other peculiar members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all. (David Kupelian, Columnist and editor of Whistleblower magazine) o Spin: Todays society is largely pragmatic, interested in what works rather than issues of absolute truth. Thus it is the artists of persuasion, spin doctors, that influence society now, whether they be lawyers, lobbyists, marketers or law-makers. Positive relabeling to hide origin: pressure put on medics to rename 'Gay-Related Immune Disorder' (GRID) as 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome' (AIDS). Positive spin put on homosexual sex:"[Homosexuals] hold sacred seeds.to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [homosexuals] have an enormous amount to teach this nation." (Elizabeth Birdh, Executive Director of the (American) Human Rights Campaign) The spin involves presenting opponents in a bad light. Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying[them] as

20
antiquated backwaters, badly out of stepwith the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion. (Kirk and Madsen) e) Gay Lobby Tactics Subterfuge: Orwellian subversion of truth by substituting propaganda o Acting The Victim. Pain of the victim precludes moral scrutiny. You skillfully master the techniques of invoking sympathy, hiding the truth and presenting a sanitized portrait of gay life. (John McKellar, Gay campaigner against gay extremist agendas.) [See 1.C.c) Causation, 2.C.b) Political Stances, 3.C.b) Pauls Teaching in Romans] I believe that one day the world will judge the witch hunt against homosexuals...as an unbelievable injustice perpetrated by supposedly 'moral' people against innocent groups, just as harshly as it judges the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust. Both the Church and the Nazis believed they were acting in good faith." N. McLean, Burlington, ON. Letter to the editor, The Globe and Mail, 1998-APR 11 Objecting to a vociferous campaign should not be confused with a witch hunt against a particular group of people. Note: when a Roman Catholic bishop claimed that both Hitler and Stalin challenged Christianity with the notion that what they were doing was progress, he was castigated by gay advocates. Traditionalist have good grounds for fearing a witch hunt against themselves by gay activists once they achieve their objectives. Gays discriminated against. Britains 3.7 million gay people dont deserve to be secondclass citizens in their own country! What should be discussed as a behavioural lifestyle issue thus become a civil rights issue! (Does prohibiting bigamy make would-be bigamists second-class citizens? Or under-age teenagers?) Placing limitations on who can marry is not about citizenship status, but about standards of morality and appropriateness. "Any society that flatly denies the fact that one or two citizens in every ten have strong homosexual interests, and structures its laws and values around this denial, is, to this extent, seriously ill." Kirk and Madsen, After The Ball). Note: Kirk and Madsen admitted in their 1989 work that the fact of "10% of the population is gay" is actually propaganda. "To one extent or another, the separabilityand manipulabilityof the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign." o The gay call to right a wrong, claiming the high moral ground. Spotlight on rights of a tiny minority wronged by society by being excluded from marriage. What about the rights to a healthy lifestyle of the next generation? What of the medical ethics of encouraging a medically dangerous lifestyle? What about the societal ethics of destroying the family as we know it? What of the parental ethics of deliberately denying children both a mother and a father? What of the morality of homosexual behaviour itself? (Another elephant in the room!) Common homosexual practices such as anal sex, fisting, and anonymous sex what homosexuals actually do and with how many they do it must never be a topic. But note: It has been claimed that by a gay writer that gay liberation was founded on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity. (Gay author Gabriel Rotello) o Skewing Research: Social researchers findings conditioned by gay activism. [See 1.C.c) Causation] o Concealing Intentions over SSM: Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. (Masha Gessen, author and former Russian director of Radio Liberty.) o Giving the impression that each step in their ambitions is the last! (See 1.D.g) Societys Slippery Slope] o Feeding Legal Misinformation: Courts today are being influenced by attempts by same-sex advocates to rewrite history to portray evidence of same-sex marriages in past centuries. So if the argument is made, marriage advocates must be prepared to counter any such historical distortion. (Dale M. Schowengerdt)

21
Over-egging The Scientific Evidence o Therapies for Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction. The American Psychological Association commissioned a task force on Appropriate Therapeutic Response to Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) [Their 2009 Report] acknowledges that there is no clear indication of the prevalence of harm, because of a lack of rigorous research. [Yet the various UK medical organisations speak of severe threat to health [BACP], overwhelming evidence [of] considerable emotional and psychological cost [UKCP], can be deeply damaging [RCPsych], is discredited and harmful [BMA]. Clearly the claims are going far beyond the evidence found 9and not found0 by the APA. Influencing The Media o The movement began influencing public opinion through the media. Note in the UK: Broadcaster Andrew Marr, has said (2006): The BBC is not impartial or neutral Its a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a cultural liberal bias. Indoctrination in The Schools o Onslaught on marriage from childrens earliest years. E.g. Elementary picture reading book (2-5s) Daddys Roommate begins: My Mummy and Daddy got a divorce last year. (p.1). Now theres somebody new at Daddys house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together. (p.2). Being gay is just one more kind of love. And love is the best kind of happiness. (p.3). The themes of adult selfishness, divorce, and same-sex union converge in "Daddy's Roommate." This story is particularly sad. The little narrator here has no name! This isn't surprising, since children in these books exist to affirm their parents. What is alarming is that the educators, who stand firm behind these books, and who routinely tout the self-esteem catechism in schools, overlooked the sagging sense of self exhibited by the books' tots. The nameless narrator tells us his parents have just divorced. With nary a reference to the sadness of this event, he blurts out; "Now there's somebody new at Daddy's house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together, work together, eat together, sleep together." From here on in it's pretty much detailing the good times the dwarfed child spends with the two larger-than-life men. Mommy, like the child, is a conduit in the service of the men's outing. She tells no-name boy that Daddy and Frank are gay and that "being gay is just another kind of love." "Daddy and his roommate are very happy together," chants the child, "and I am happy too!" So long as Dad has found his true self, so will the boy arrange his feelings accordingly. It's a cruel farce that has a child spouting homilies in the service of a parent's project. (Amazon.com reviewer). Introducing kindergarten and grade one students to alternative behaviours and lifestyles is psychological pedophilia. You dont have to engage solely in physical contact to molest a child. You can diddle with their minds and their emotions. (John McKellar) o Is this supported by the Church? In his most widely anticipated address since taking over the leadership of the Church, the Most Rev Justin Welby insisted that it was now absurd and impossible to ignore an overwhelming change in social attitudes But he insisted that the Church could benefit and even begin to grow again if it was willing to respond radically and imaginatively to a changing world. He is understood to have approached Stonewall, which led the campaign in favour of gay marriage, to invite it into church schools to teach up to a million children about homosexuality in an effort to reduce homophobic bullying. (Report in The Telegraph., 5th July 2013) "We are therefore developing a programme for use in our schools, taking the best advice we can find anywhere, that specifically targets such bullying." (Justin Welby) Paul Rondeau has a different take about those who marketing sex to our children in our schools under the guise of sex education, anti-bullying, diversity, and tolerance. The outcome? Children who become long-term customers looking for contraceptives, STD testing and abortion.

f) Consequences of The Revolution The New Intolerance Reversal in The Public Domain o Changing Societal Norms: Homosexuality violates societal norms; however, mental health organizations have taken the formal position that societal norms have to be changed toward accepting homosexuality as a normal sexual variant. (Jones and Yarhouse) o Traditionalists now need protecting: Not long ago understanding marriage as between one man and one woman was not in the least bit controversial. Today we need a protection clause in legislation to protect from prosecution anyone who expresses publically (or even privately on their Facebook site!) such a biblical belief in marriage. [ See 1.D.f) - Societys Slippery Slope]

22

Intolerance Towards Traditionalists o Belittling traditionalists as old-fashioned and alarmist. The Equal Marriage bill passed despite dinosaur opponents proclaiming the end of civilization as we know it. (Nick Clegg, who also once referred to defenders of traditional marriage as bigots) o Heterosexuals and even homosexuals who do not tow the gay rights line are labeled as gay homophobes who place "the needs of their own cowardice above the reputations and even the lives of millions of others, a failing of the ethical test of life so great that if the [Christian] fundamentalists are even half right they'll go straight to hell." (Kirk and Madsen) Pressure on traditionalists to moderate personal beliefs and conform o Disparaging Traditionalists. Buying into the homosexual idea requires traditionalists to abandon their own beliefs, family teachings, or those taught by Christianity and other faiths for a position unsupported by facts, logic or proof. Paul Rondeau believes that gay activists, with the help of the media, portray those who refuse to buy, and especially any who dare to publicly opposethe gay rights idea as bigots, homophobes, heterosexists, ignorant, hateful, intolerant and so on. They position the accused in the same category as racists, sexists, elitists and other pejorative classes. Defense against such labeling requires a particularly sophisticated and, hence, both rare and precarious form of argument. To avoid being a racist, etc, it is easier simply to moderate ones personal beliefs. Remember that people want to hold right opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. A conflict arises between their own beliefs and a continuous flood, a shower, of homosexual-positive messages that cannot be turned off. (Paul Rondeau, Political commentator) o Increase in Pressure on Christians. E.g. A Christian teacher from London, under investigation because she refused to give a lesson telling children that all opponents of gay marriage are homophobes, was reported also under suspicion for being a member of a church, with a colleague demanding to know whether this impacts her job! o People today are exposed to external influences and internal desires that urge them into relationships that challenge and contradict the purposes of God. Nature and nurture in different combinations give people urges and orientations that, in the light of Genesis 2:24, expose them to sinful pressures not of their own choosing for which they nevertheless have to accept responsibility and make decisions about whether to resist or yield to them. Professional Pressure on Therapy Research and Practice o Since 1973, research in reorientation change therapy started to witness a decline, as practitioners were obliged to conform to the new official position that homosexuality was no longer a disorder. Such research has become professionally threatening, as funding and other support for such research has evaporated. o Any therapist in the UK offering to help a client to reduce unwanted SSA can now expect to be struck of the register of their professional body The primary reason is that all therapies geared to such a goal are now alleged to be harmful Yet, most thinking people will reject the suggestion that the risk of harm from such therapy is greater than the risks from having major surgery and hormone treatment to attempt to turn a man into a woman, or vice versa. If a man wishes to reduce unwanted SSAs, is it really plausible that this is more dangerous for him than to try to turn himself into a woman? (Michael Davidson,) Totalitarian Belligerence of political correctness. Cf.: o Discrimination against Christians opposed to same-sex relationships. o Social libertarianism in the public square. o Prejudice (cf. against homosexuals) redefined to include the expression of normative values. (e.g. prejudiced stance of public officials declining to officiate at gay weddings.) o Freedom of conscience swept aside in the cause of gay rights. o Partisan Government Promotion: I look forward to one day seeing the rainbow flag fly over every government building. (Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, PinkNews, 24/06/13)

23
Police Advert placed in PinkNews (Gay website magazine) Hounding of traditionalists o Police Role in creating subjective crime offense: Hate crime covers a wide range of behaviour, for example verbal abuse, racist or homophobic graffiti or physical assault. A crime can be classed as a hate crime if the victim or witness see it as being so. City of London police. o Shutting Down Opposition: The Rev. Stephen Boissoin was convicted of the heinous crime of writing a homophobic letter to his local newspaper and was sentenced by Lori Andreachuk, the aggressive social engineer who serves as Albertas human rights commissar, to a lifetime prohibition on uttering anything disparaging about homosexuality ever again in sermons, in newspapers, on radioor in private e-mails. Note that legal concept: not illegal or hateful, but merely disparaging. Dale McAlpine, a practicing Christian, was handing out leaflets in the English town of Workington and chit-chatting with shoppers when he was arrested on a public order charge by Constable Adams, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community-outreach officer. Mr. McAlpine had been overheard by the officer to observe that homosexuality is a sin. Im gay, said Constable Adams. Well, its still a sin, said Mr. McAlpine. So Constable Adams arrested him for causing distress to Constable Adams. In fairness, I should add that Mr. McAlpine was also arrested for causing distress to members of the public more generally, and not just to the aggrieved gay copper. No member of the public actually complained, but, as Constable Adams pointed out, Mr. McAlpine was talking "in a loud voice" that might theoretically have been "overheard by others." And we can't have that, can we? (Mark Steyn, Political commentator) o Could it happen in Britain? Censorship of Any Objection to a Gay Lifestyle: There is a project for a law in Brazil (PLC122) that will criminalize any opinion contrary to the gay lifestyle, even if it is philosophically or religiously based. Even without the law, there is a selfcensorship in the media, since most journalists are pro-gay. The question is: for how long will the elite allow us to have the internet? This week the web sensation in Brazil has been a video by a courageous doctor who exposes the dangers of anal sex. 100% of her gay patients had endocarditis, an infection of the heart valves caused by bacteria from feces. It leads to valve failure and even with a valve transplant, often leads to strokes. The numbers for prostate and rectal cancer are also triple the ones for the hetero population. 68% of chance of getting cancer is not something to tinker with. (Marcos, Brazil, July 2013)

Church under attack from gay protest groups. o Choice on offer to the Church by the secular media/political establishment: Bow to our will and well say how enlightened and nice you are; refuse and well attack you as sinister bigots. o Archbishop Careys 1998 Easter sermon disrupted by gay activists. Peter Tatchell (Outrage leader) climbed into Canterbury Cathedrals pulpit alongside the Archbishop shouting: Dr. Carey supports discrimination against lesbian and gay human rights. This is not Christian teaching Archbishop Careys opposition to gay civil rights is a perversion of Christs Gospel of love and compassion.

g) Societys Slippery Slope Note: Non-traditionalists have the advantage of gravity! Once SSM is conceded politically, it is difficult to reverse. The Progression of the Social Status of Homosexuality: Crime (in law) & sin (immoral behaviour) (by the church) (from Christ to modern times) > illness / pathological / psychological condition (by the medical establishment) (1900s) > normal biological state (by social scientists) (1973) > alternative lifestyle (gay activists) > social identity (by the gay community) (1990s)

24
Incremental Steps: from the normalization of homosexual behavior to full parity with heterosexual

behaviour to the suppression and eradication (demonization) of all who think, write or speak negatively about homosexual conduct and issues. (Canon Phil Ahey) [See 1.D.d) A Clever Marketing Strategy; 1.D.e)
Gay Lobby Tactics; 1.D.a) History of A Western Cultural Revolution]

False Assurances of A Soft Revolution. The greatest obstacle to halting the advance of the secularist culture has been a failure to recognise the ambition and goal of its protagonists. In seven short years there has been a massive transformation in the understanding of family life At each stage it has usually been the prevailing view in society that it is inconceivable that anyone would want to move beyond the proposals currently being examined and there has been a broad willingness to accept assurances that developments would go no further. It has been a soft revolution to which few have raised voices of protest. (John Deighan, Parliamentary Officer for the (Catholic) Bishop's Conference in Scotland) Western Culture Shift o Western culture at large moving steadily toward codifying opposition to homosexual practice as the equivalent of virulent racism and sexism. o Stanley Kurtz (Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center) observes that the gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law in America. o Recognition of polygamy, temporary marriages, incest and even pedophilia. Once the definition of marriage is changed to accommodate same sex unions on account of equality and human rights, Government will have no good reasons not to extend the definition of marriage to other combinations, such as three or more partner marriages. (Archbp. Tartaglia) Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, says that striking down the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman delegitimizes the moral argument against polygamy. It opens up Pandoras Box in how you define marriage in this country, he says. Why not have three men and two women marry if they love each other? Why limit it to two people? Now Pedophiles Follow Gay Tactics o Using the same tactics used by "gay" rights activists, pedophiles in America have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals. Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an "alternative lifestyle" or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. "Gay" advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophiles as minor-attracted people in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago. o B4U-Act provides workshops for mental health professionals (MHPs) and minor-attracted persons (MAPs). "Until you have experienced it yourself, you cannot possibly understand how powerful and healing it is to be in a room full of people who are filled with empathy and compassion and understanding." (-"Daneel") Its website states its purpose is to "help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear." Will traditionalists soon be called pedophobes?! UK Governments association with the LBGT lobby. The Governments launch of a consultation of LBGT people in the autumn for their next policy idea after redefining marriage. Equal marriage is an extension of those that have argued for and created social change over the generations. People should not be excluded from marriage, simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society and over the years, as society as evolved, so has marriage. Thats why Im proud that the governments equal marriage legislation is on track to become law. Equal marriage isnt just a question of fairness; its quite simply the right thing to do.We have come a long way since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 but the fact is there are still many people who feel ashamed, who have hidden or who are still hiding their sexuality, through fear of homophobia or transphobia. So this autumn, we are starting our LGB&T Call for Evidence, a consultation on what the next steps need to be. I invite the readers of PinkNews to write to me when the consultation opens, and tell me what they think are the biggest issues still facing LGB&T people in this country and where government needs to prioritise action to combat homophobia and discrimination. (Maria Miller, Equalities Mnister) Their response:


The first step is to acknowledge that human rights come before beliefs. If you did that no consultation would be needed. (Andrian Tippetts, human rights campaigner) h) The Churchs Slippery Slope

25

Accommodation Arguments: Even if we think homosexual practice is a sin, o Is this really an issue worth dividing the church over? o Doesnt the church have more important things about which to be concerned? o Werent the biblical injunctions aimed exclusively at exploitative practices? o Doesnt love and commitment at least moderate the severity of homosexual practice? Once one moral boundary is broken down (namely, sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage), the question of overall moral authority also breaks down, for the standards of measuring moral permissibility are driven by human desires, said to be led by the Holy Spirit. Thus James: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. This confirms that moral authority cannot be retained if we stumble on one part of the law. Compromise / Third way: look faithful (its a sin) but tolerate homosexual practice in the church as less than the perfect will of God (no worse than other sins). Encouraged by revisionists as moving an otherwise resistant church to incremental and transitional steps to normalizing homosexual practice, i.e. A compromise provides the transitional bridge to its full acceptance in the church. E.g. Is the C of S General Assemblys 2D motion (maintaining the churchs orthodox position on sexuality while allowing congregations to depart from it) the thin edge of the wedge.

i) Plausibility of Same Sex Behaviour Anecdotal impression of lovely guys! Appearing to be a nice guy does not preclude a darker side! (e.g. recent revelations about celebrities sexual abuse) There are many nice adulterers around! The medias impression of so many homosexuals in society. Unwarranted. Active: only1% of pop. The world has moved on! Traditionalists are just old-fashioned with outdated sexual ethics! Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next. (Dean Inge) Contemporary permissiveness (of all kinds) is damaging adults, children and families on a massive scale; homosexuality is no exception. We should distinguish good sex from bad sex. Good homosexual sex is not promiscuous or destructive. Biblical criterion for good sex is sex between a man and woman in faithful, committed marriage; all else is bad sex. Moving the goalposts does not make an immoral act moral. If there is commitment, monogamy, fidelity and love, its OK! This is an inadequate assessment of what constitutes marriage. What is crucially missing from the divine design is gender complementarity. Mankind is not at liberty to decide the criteria of marriage. Otherwise polygamists would be allowed to omit monogamy, and many homosexuals wanting open relationships would omit fidelity.

E. ISSUES RELATING TO THE GAY RIGHTS AGENDA

a) The Chief Arguments Summarised For and Against Approval Arguments for approval o Natural instincts (Psychological) o A so-called gay gene (more recently, but not proven) (Biological) o Human rights (e.g. to pursue behaviour that does not harm others) (Humanist) Arguments against homosexuality o Unnatural behaviour (Philosophical) o Associated health risks (Medical) o Unwanted societal consequences (Sociological) o Its sinfulness (Theological)

26
Equality and Discrimination (LBGT activists) v. Equivalence and Distinctions (Traditionalists) b) Liberties Threatened: Ensuring Justice in Governmental Decision-Making Shutting Down Opposition to The Gay Agenda o People do fear to express their opinions about homosexual behaviour. Professionals fear dissenting from the prescribed ideological wisdom about homosexuality. Politicians fear to say anything in public that would irritate the gay community, etc. The ideology of militant gays is being imposed on the West. It implies that the search for the truth about homosexuality, its causes and changeability, has almost become a forbidden activity. (Gerard van den Aardweg) [See 1.E.f) Consequences of The Revolution The New Intolerance] Civil & religious liberties at risk: o freedom of association (incl. choice of association / membership) o freedom of expression / to disagree o freedom of conscience (to not be involved) o freedom of parental nurture v. State indoctrination (political correctness) o safeguards (in conflicting values, where one right / liberty might trump another) Human rights (how invasive of the rights of others are my claimed rights?) c) Potential Areas of Conflict: Conflict may arise between 1. A public secular university enforcing anti-discriminatory rules as part of its educational mission, and 2. A student Christian organization within its campus maintaining its freedom to choose its members and to promote its particular Christian message about sexuality. While laws may not interfere with the religious beliefs and opinions of individuals, they can with their practices and their expressions of their beliefs! o o Can a man excuse his practices that contradict the law by reference his religious beliefs? No! To permit this would be to allow every citizen to become a law unto himself! Professed doctrines of religious beliefs cannot trump the law of the land!

The belligerence of political correctness. Cf.: o Prejudice (cf. against homosexuals) redefined to include the expression of normative values. (e.g. prejudiced stance of public officials declining to officiate at gay weddings.) [See 1.D.f) Consequences of the Revolution The New Intolerance]

d) Traditionalist Response to Homosexual Behaviour Highlighting the moral, psychological, health and material consequences of practice for: o Marriages, o Family Life, o Youth Development, o The Community. Traditionalist repugnance of homosexual practice seen by others as demonisation. They see it as equating homosexuality with promiscuity and the most offensive sexual practices, and since they all have gay friends who are not involved in either of those things, they just see it as demonisation. (Peter Ould)a) Ensuring Justice in Governmental Decision-making

e) Values and Perception of Reality Inclusiveness (NB: not without limits) Discrimination (NB: what grounds for?)


o Discrimination a neutral concept, its import being dependent on context. We should always discriminate against evil and for good (i.e. have discernment).

27

Phony comparison with Race: Christian black folk find gay activists attempt to liken their pursuit of special rights to civil rights movement abhorrent. In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex. (Minnesota Supreme Court) Same-sex intercourse is about sinful behavior, not neutral being.

Asking someone to adjust his/her values is like asking her/him to alter their sense of reality. Thus values are usually non-negotiable and not easily altered by reasoned argument. f). Prerequisites for Marriage o Who has a right to marry? On what grounds? o Does any minority have a right to belong to any group?) o Sexual otherness & complementarity

28

2. SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND MARRIAGE

A. MARRIAGE AND SOCIETY
a) The Stabilizing Factors of Marriage Its Unchangeable Nature: Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not meant to change with the times. We're not talking about music, fashion or art. We're talking about an institution whose four prohibitions 1. You can only marry one person at a time, 2. Only someone of the opposite sex, 3. Never someone beneath a certain age, and 4. Not a close blood relative - have been grounded in morality and in law for millennia. Humankind yearns for these stabilizing factors in our kaleidoscopic world and if we abandon these standards, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral. If gay marriages are permitted (a prerogative of the most decadent Roman emperors), why not polygamy? Why not brother and sister or parent and child? (John McKellar) Marriage and Familys Fixed Natural Purpose to Raise Children for Society. o Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural teleology) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential. But marriage is not defined by cultures, but described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage o Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole. o Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Familiesand therefore marriagesare logically prior to culture. Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. Thats why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids. (Greg Koukl, Christian apologist)

b) A Question of Where To Focus It is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good. (Archbp. Justin Welby, House of Lords debate) If SSM is not a faith issue (amongst other issues related to it), does this not down grade the significance of the biblical evidence to that of purely cultural values of the past? The underlying message of normalizing Same Sex Marriage is that any sexual attraction that is too strong to deny should be embraced as a part of your identity. [See 1.C.a) Identity, Orientation or Inclination? Also 5.B.a) Core Identity] Conjugal marriage has an inherent orientation to bearing and rearing children: o Its distinctive structure (mother, father and child) is designed for this. o It thus contributes to a stable society (of which the family is a microcosm), developing norms of behaviour such as permanence, monogamy and fidelity. Same-sex marriage is essentially a romantic union between two individuals: o A union of hearts and minds augmented by sexual intimacy, companionship and commitment to mutual support (sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life). o It lacks marital comprehensiveness and complementarity, bodily union (coitus), procreation of children.


c) Marriage and Relationships in Family Life and Society

29
The family is the building block of society, for it is in families that cultural and religious values are passed on that affect how society views conflicting worldviews about ethical behaviour. The ordering of family life and the procreation of succeeding generations are both intimately linked to family relationships and human sexuality whose legal understanding is today being remodelled by recent changes in legislation. (John Derghan, The Real Sexual Revolution) Marriage creates the most important relationships in life and has more to do with peoples morals and civilization than any other institution. Giovanni Vico first called it the seedbed of society. When marriage is honoured and works well, society also works well. Where marriage is relativised and replaced, society begins to disintegrate and its future stability is threatened. There is much less divorce, less child abuse, less pregnancy outwith marriage, less incidence of homosexuality and a significantly greater marital and family stability among the more orthodox Jewish communities than can be found in our society, or even within the church. Unions (not made in heaven) can exist outside of Gods will and blessing (e.g. prostitution). Divorce, allowed in the Torah injunctions, is not a license to do as we choose, based on a gratuitous claim that God understands my weakness.

d) Can Marriage be Redefined? (Humpty Dumpty) Redefinition has no logical stopping point. Its logic leads to the effective elimination of marriage as a legal institution Radical advocates of same-sex marriage dont think marriage should exist, at least not as a state-sponsored institution. They think marriage is simply an intense emotional union whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults want it to be. (Ryan T. Anderson) The resistance to same-sex marriage is not limited to Western culture with its age-old anti-homosexual hysteria and bigotry, but extends to almost every culture throughout the world. (Lubin / Duncan, 1998 Note how Western culture has changed since then!) Making Words Mean What You Want: The Humpty Dumpty Fallacy o The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.(Alice) The question is which is to be master thats all. (Humpty Dumpty) o Truth is not the issue. The issue is power. (Gene Edward Vieth, Professor of Literature) [See 1.D.b) The Goal of The Gay Agenda] o It has been said that He who controls the language, controls the debate. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the culture war over the issue of human sexuality. (Tim Wilkins) Equality of Right v. Equivalence of Rite! About Equivalence, Not Equality. Note: Secular assumptions about justice and equality differ fundamentally from Biblical concepts. o Equivalence (comparing like with like) distinct from equality (sharing equally). o Distinguishing equality from equivalence is not discrimination. Sexual intimacy of same-sex couples not equivalent to coitus union of heterosexuals. To object to a definition of motherhood that includes men is not discriminatory! To promote such a definition is irrational by the standards of both profound philosophy and common sense. Traditionalists are out to save the world from such madness! o Equal Rights? All have the right to marry, but to whom? There are certain generally accepted restrictions on the universal right to marry: e.g. a father cannot marry his daughter. Equating same sex relationships with marriage changes categories as follows: o Marriage itself redefined (as no longer between a man and a woman, but between two persons) o A total self-giving of male and female to become one flesh re-interpreted as a partnership of persons. o One flesh (union of male and female), stripped of Christian meaning, becomes an alliance of companions in a legal and socially-recognized unit. o Gender irrelevance abolishes male/female distinction producing a container view of the human body inhabited by the authentic individual. [See 2.E.a) Consequences of a same-Sex Marriage] o Mum and Dad replaced either by Dad/Mum 1 and Dad/Mum 2, or 1st & 2nd Parent!

30 B. A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE

a) Humanity in The Image of God (Biblical view) The image of God is corporate, relational and gendered. Designed for relationship and encounter. Must be understood in profoundly relational terms. Humanity is not just male and female, experienced either as an individual man or as an individual woman. We understand humanity from our understanding of God, not the other way round (which involves a type of mythological approach to God that self-deifies). Hence the cruciality of divine revelation. Gender belongs to our human existence, yet it has its transcendent reference in God. C.S. Lewis: Gender is a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Homosexual practice is a tampering with the image of God as imprinted on us - a relational disruption of the image of God caused by suppressing the truth about Gods identity and re-imaging him according to our desire. Gods Fatherhood is a strong corrective to many homo-sexuals dysfunctional childhood relationship to their father. [See 1.B.b) The Androgynous View of Sex]

b) The Nature and Strengths of Traditional Marriage (Biblical view) The covenant commitment that constitutes marriage reflects the inmost essence of the life of the Creator that characterises all his dealings with us. Part of Gods purpose for marriage including its sexual consummation is to help us understand something of Gods loving and intimate covenant union with His people. Introduced in the context of the creation narrative indicates marriage as an essential component of creation enabling it to run as intended, i.e. in a loving environment providing continuity from generation to generation. Accords with what God has revealed about his design for human relationships. o Gods plan is that marriage is about a man and a woman leaving their own families to become a new family. The proven foundation for the good of individuals, the protection of children and societal wellbeing which has stood the test of time. Gen 2:24: One pivotal verse in Genesis which is the point from which all the central New Testament treatments of the subject start. An authoritative statement about the Creators intention in making human beings in the sexual differentiation of male and female (not an historical account since Adam had no parents to leave!) The vocation of the woman is to provide for the man the mutually loving relationships that in himself he both lacks and longs for and that none of the animals that he names can satisfactorily offer. Man and woman long for each other and turn towards each other, to find their unrealised completeness.

C. ARGUMENTS FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE

a) Arguments by Homosexuals against Exclusion from Marriage A Right To a Life-long, Faithful, Intimate Relationship with Another: Making marriage available to everyone says so much about the society that we are and the society that we want to live in one which respects individuals regardless of their sexuality. As Lord Alderdice put it when arguing for civil partnerships

31
in 2004: One of the most fundamental rights of all is the right to have close, confiding, lasting, intimate relationships. Without them, no place, no money, no property, no ambition nothing amounts to any value.. It seems to me a fundamental human right to be able to choose the person with whom you wish to spend your life and with whom you wish to have a real bond. I couldnt agree more. (David Cameron, PM, Pink News, 18/07/13) o Few same-sex relationships last anyway nearly as long as heterosexual marriages. "Only 4% of gay men over 40 are in loving, committed, long term relationships" says Paul Angelo MHA, MBA, gay matchmaker and gay life coach from Miami. [See 1.C.f) Grim Truths About Homosexual Practice] o What about polyamorist marriages next? (Polyamory is the practice of having simultaneous intimate relationships with more than one person at a time, with the knowledge and consent of all partners.) Perel sees polyamory as the next frontier a way of avoiding having to choose between monotony and jealousy. We don't have a choice. We're in love with each other. We have a generation of people coming up who are saying, we also want stability and committed relationships and safety and security, but we also want individual fulfillment. Let us see if we can negotiate monogamy or non-monogamy in a consensual way that prevents a lot of the destructions and pains of infidelity. (BBC How Does a Polyamorous Relationship Between Four People Work? 19/08/13)

Doesnt singling out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage: o Deny their universal human rights? [See 2.A.c) Political Stances Taken by Gay Lobbyists] o Deprive them of equality before law? [See 2.C.b) Can Marriage be redefined?] o Represent discrimination based on sexual orientation, analogous to denying mixed race marriage status? [See 1.E.e) Values and Perceptions of Reality] o Stigmatize them and invite public discrimination against them? [See 1.D.e) Gay Lobby Tactics] o Deprive them of the financial, physical and psychological well-being that marriage enhances? Those who would enjoy the privileges of marriage must meet its qualifications and commit to its responsibilities. o Therefore has created an injustice. Whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policyWherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals. (Dennis Prager, radio chat-show host) Depriving gay people the right to marry is as immoral as racism. If opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or femalefemale marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is "universal" and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one - not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment -- ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. (Dennis Prager) If two people want to be happy in marriage, why stop them?(Hedonistic) Thats an equally bad argument for adultery! Personal happiness alone is no criterion of morality, though for many it is the ultimate goal in life, e.g.: When I was five years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote Happy. They told me I didnt understand the assignment and I told them they didnt understand life. (John Lennon) Those who exclude the significant minority of gays and lesbians are prejudiced and homophobic. (Dogmatic) Prejudice occurs without a person knowing or examining the facts. Taking a considered moral stance is not in itself evidence of a negative attitude towards homosexual persons, but simply of having the view that homosexual behaviour is immoral. o Commitment to include active homosexuals in a community does not preclude the call to them to transform their behaviour within that community. o Many Christians who experience same sex attraction reject same sex relationships on moral grounds. I dont feel that my marriage will be diminished in any way if same-sex marriage is introduced. (Alex Salmond) Who said it would personally? What would be altered is the social understanding of what

32
marriage entails. That would be diminished fundamentally. Imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement! One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick to include two different measurements. SSM is as meaningful as a square circle! Marriage is always evolving. SSM is just another stage in this evolution. There have been myriad changes within the institution. This confuses the practice of marriage with its nature. E.g. Dropping arranged marriages for love marriages does not change marriage; equating same-sex partners with husband and wife does, because it posits a different answer to the question: what is marriage? Attitudes to marriage are undoubtedly evolving.

b) Political Stances Taken by Gay Lobbyists Gay Goal: One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in our society is the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.(Robert Bork) Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same, too. -Nick Clegg Why has only a small proportion of gay people taken up CP? Do all those in CP want gay Marriage? Only 12 percent of co-habiting homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married. Homosexuals have a right to marry.(Humanist) Not everybody has a right to marry whom they wish. (E.g. Siblings) Same sex unions are different in nature and purpose from marriage. Same sex marriage is therefore not an issue about equality or human rights. It is an issue about the nature and meaning of marriage in our society. Whether personal rights should be prioritised over the common good is another debatable issue. [See 2.C.a) Marriage and Society] In recent polls a majority approve of same sex marriage. (Democratic) Determining morality is not a popularity contest. We should not be influenced by what most people think today! Hitler was once popular in Germany. [See 1.A.a) Recent History Trend in Public Opinion] SSM will strengthen marriage1 Bp. Nicholas Holtam told peers that allowing gay couples to wed would be a 'very strong endorsement' of marriage. No evidence for this. In Spain marriage rates fell precipitously after the legalization of SSM. Infidelity in SS relationships a frequent issue. According to a UK Government spokeswoman, In terms of the law, marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship. Not a Christian view of marriage! Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. (Masha Gessen, Gay activist) History has proved this true! [See 1.D.e) Gay Lobby Tactics; 3.C.b) Pauls Teaching Romans] Its a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that its a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. (Masha Gessen) The battle is not about access to the institution of marriage but about radically redefining and eventually eliminating it. For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the demands of homosexual organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) Thus Masha Gessen: I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I dont see why they shouldnt have five parents legally I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that babys biological father is my brother, and my daughters biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I dont think thats compatible with the institution of marriage. Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society. (Micah Clark)

 D. ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE

a) Objections to Same-Sex Marriage Speaking in the House of Lords debate on Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) bill, Archbp. Justin Welby, maintained that gay marriage undermines the good of traditional marriage because o (a) the gay marriage bill effectively abolishes, redefines, and recreates marriage in ways that are unequal and different for different "gender" categories; o (b) gay marriage abolishes the concept of marriage as "a normative place for procreation," o (c) gay marriage diminishes "the idea of marriage as covenant," and o (d) it weakens the family "in its normal sense" as our foundation for society. The extension of the right ignores the boundaries inherent in the traditional meaning of marriage. Obscures the difference between civil partnerships (legal rights) and marriage (moral responsibilities). Human rights (universal) distinct from civil rights (as a citizen of a country). Confuses homosexual unions with caring bonds of friendship, and sex with intimacy.

33

Equal love leads to unequal marriage. o Consummation and adultery cannot apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples! Marriage involves far more than a monogamous coming together of two people in love. In SSM: o Benefits of the Complementarity of man and woman lost. o Procreative purpose of marriage missing. Marriage is intentionally and primarily about children whom these omissions adversely affect.

b) Why Complementarity Matters It takes both an ovum and a sperm to make a baby (and ideally a father and a mother to bring up a child.) Lack of complementarity affects same-sex unions o Single gender input limits the couples relational development and stability. o Without reproductive connection only adoptive / surrogate (i.e. parasitical) family possible. A childs experience of parental role modeling is limited by only one gender. Boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways. Intact biological families provide the gold standard for the well being of children. (See L Marks, Same-sex Parenting and Childrens Outcomes Soc. Sci. Res. 41, 2012) o The weight of evidence indicates that the traditional family based upon a married father and mother is still the best environment for raising children, and it forms the soundest basis for society (Rebecca O'Neil, Author of Report: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, Civitas, 2002 http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php)

c) An Imbalance regarding Rights and Ethics The spotlight on rights of a tiny minority wronged by society by being excluded from marriage. But what about the rights to a healthy lifestyle of the next generation? What of the parental ethics of deliberately denying children both a mother and a father? What of the medical ethics of encouraging a medically dangerous lifestyle? What about the societal ethics of destroying the family as we know it? What of the morality of homosexual behaviour itself?

34 E. CONSEQUENCES OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE

a) Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage: Introducing same-sex marriage may well: Lessen marital stability by stressing emotional ties rather than bodily bonds. It is less able to exemplify the marital norms of permanence, monogamy and fidelity. (The track record of non-casual homosexual relationships is far worse than that of heterosexual married couples.) Induce public confusion about the responsibilities of marriage. Thus already there is a tendency to reduce marriage (formally a covenant union) to the level of a contract (covenant becoming a promise). Deprive children of their normal right to the benefits of having both mother and father. Children have a human right to be nurtured by both their biological parents. (See Article 9, UN Convention of Childrens Rights) By far, the scariest and most insidious corollary to same-sex marriage is same-sex adoption (already legal in some jurisdictions). This is blatant child abuse. Children need a biological mother and father. We know this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we don't solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by augmenting it. Children are not meant to be guinea pigs for social engineering experiments. All school children will be taught that as adults they can have marriage relationships with either men or women. Making Marriage Available to All Including Polyamorists? o Making marriage available to everyone says so much about the society that we are and the society that we want to live in one which respects individuals regardless of their sexuality. As Lord Alderdice put it when arguing for civil partnerships in 2004: One of the most fundamental rights of all is the right to have close, confiding, lasting, intimate relationships. Without them, no place, no money, no property, no ambition nothing amounts to any value.. It seems to me a fundamental human right to be able to choose the person with whom you wish to spend your life and with whom you wish to have a real bond. I couldnt agree more. (David Cameron, Prime Minister, Pink News, 18/07/13) So what about polyamorist marriages now? o Polyamory is the practice of having simultaneous intimate relationships with more than one person at a time, with the knowledge and consent of all partners. Perel sees polyamory as the next frontier a way of avoiding having to choose between monotony and jealousy. We don't have a choice. We're in love with each other. We have a generation of people coming up who are saying, we also want stability and committed relationships and safety and security, but we also want individual fulfillment. Let us see if we can negotiate monogamy or non-monogamy in a consensual way that prevents a lot of the destructions and pains of infidelity. (BBC How Does a Polyamorous Relationship Between Four People Work? 19/08/13) Introduce a genderless society: There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the manwoman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, mattersThis year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed Same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences (Dennis Prager) Produce poorer models of marriage: Exemplary homosexual households are the exception; most model for children a poor view of marriage as being transitory and not normally monogamous or harmonious but rather involving a high level of intimate partner violence (Dr. Maria Xiridou, Amsterdam Municipal Health Service): o Relationship duration. The vast majority of same-sex relationships are short lived or intentionally transitory. (In the Netherlands average duration: 18 months) o Monogamy versus Promiscuity. While three quarters of heterosexual married couples remain faithful to each other (while married), homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of

35
promiscuity (average of 8 sexual partners outside of their relationship per year!) Percentage reporting fidelity in a Dutch study: 85% married women, 75% married men, 4.5% homosexual men supposedly in relationship. Intimate Partner Violence. Comparative experience of violence within a relationship: Lesbians 11.4%, Married women 0.26%, Homosexual men 15.4%, Married men 0.5% .

b) Consequences for Those Who Oppose SSM Result in totalitarian intolerance of dissent about approval of same-sex marriage, including gagging / curtailment of freedom of speech. Loss of employment for those expressing traditionalist beliefs about marriage.

The redefinition of marriage to include same sex unions will bring with it State-sponsored discrimination and penalties in the courts and in the workplace against anyone who dares to question the rightness of same sex marriage, thereby riding roughshod over freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. (RC Archbishop Tartaglia) But note that discrimination can be positive: Just as we rightly discriminate between trained doctors and quacks to ensure our health and safety, so by upholding traditional marriage and discriminating against a same-sex life-style, we believe we are preserving the health and stability of society. c) Conclusion Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. Like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. While the destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, the cumulative damage is inescapable. [See 1.C.f) Grim Truths about Homosexual Practice.] Same-sex marriage rejects the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. (Ryan T Anderson, Researcher on Marriage and Religious Liberty)

36

3. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE

A. BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
a) Understandings within the Church of Scotland: a general overview of the position in recent history [Conservatives] believe and submit to the authority of the Bible as the infallible written Word of God. o This has a tendency to solidify doctrine and ethics as a fixed body of truth and right actions for all time. [Liberals] see the Bible as a record of the experiences of Gods people, bound by the times it was written in, and not necessarily infallible in the views it records. o This has a tendency to keep doctrine and ethics more fluid, an evolving body of truth and right actions that can be changed over time in line with new insights, spiritual experiences and changes in society. The acceptance of these broad views is the true mixed economy the Kirk has accepted for more than 100 years. (James Miller, letter to The Herald, 23/5/13)

b) Shift from The Written Word of God to The Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. It is thoughtful conformity to Christ - not unthinking conformity to either culture or textual prohibitions that should be our unchanging reference point. (Steve Chalke, Baptist minister and social activist) The Bible as "an account of the ancient conversation initiated, inspired and guided by God with and among humanity". What authority can a conversation carry? The Bible is rather an authoritative and accurate record of God's interventions by word and deed into particular historical circumstances, using many different genres, of which conversation is one sub-set.

c) The Affect of Our Attitude to Gods Word upon Our View of Homosexuality The Bible is flawed and fallible We have recently abandoned the texts tyranny over women, as we abandoned its justification of slavery, and soon well abandon its ignorant misunderstanding of homosexuality. (Richard Holloway, Bishop) [See 3.B.b) False Hermeneutics, 3.B.c) The re-interpretation of What The Bible Says] We now know better than the Bible, so dont have to read passages that are culturally conditioned as having authority over us. The liberal position hotly rejected by conservatives. Note: The serpent deceived Eve by asking: Hath God said?! The Church decides what is and what is not the Word of God. Consequences: o Speaks with a divided voice, being uncertain about what is truly the Word of God. o Loses authority to speak to the world. o Ceases to be salt, (no longer proclaiming to the world the mind of Christ). o Simply echoes what the world is saying. Appeals to what science supposedly says are based on a completely materialist, anti-supernatural and deterministic understanding of science and psychology. Instead of beginning with the given-ness of the Word of God or of man-woman in the Image of God, such appeals commence their understanding with the supposed given-ness of homosexuality and then revise their approach to humanity, marriage, sexual ethics, Scripture, theology, even God Himself, on the basis of it. Drinking from another well, they re-image reality.

 B. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
a) Crucial Tenets of Hermeneutics

37

Relevant textual sources: From where in Scripture should one construct, on the basis of accurate exegesis, an ethic of sexuality that relates to the contemporary issues surrounding same-sex relationships? While exegesis and historical research can more or less reliably recover the historical meaning of particular passages of Scripture, the hermeneutics or principles of biblical interpretation we bring to the text determine what series of texts are deemed applicable and which are not. (Pim Prock, author)

Genres sourced: creation stories, historical narratives, legislation, gospel accounts, epistolary exhortation and exposition. The reader must interpret a text according to its genre. o Narrative material is to be taken as descriptive of events and incidents, not necessarily as normative for forming the readers consequent behaviour. o Passages concerning law must be seen as either prescriptive or proscriptive and must be applied according to the purpose for which they were promulgated and in the time frame for which their enforcement was intended. Contextualisation: Take into consideration background context; avoid reading back into the text a modern situation or a personal bias (eisegesis). (E.g. Mat 19:12 read by apologists for homosexuality as a reference by Jesus to homosexual orientation.) [See 3.C.a) The Key Texts] The Big Picture: Crucially, we need to see the various biblical texts on the subject not only in their immediate historical and literary contexts but also in their canonical context, that is, the context of the grand biblical meta-narrative of salvation. Texts Significance in the total Canon of Scripture: Note: The degree of importance attached and consistency of stance is more significant than the number of references (or lack of frequency).

b) False Hermeneutics "The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation [of them] has."(Bishop of Salisbury)It ignores the plain reading of the Bible's uniform witness to homosexual practice as intrinsically disordered, contrary to God's creative will and sinful. It makes any interpretation of the Biblical texts valid, even where such interpretations ignore and even violate the plain reading and meaning of the text. (Canon Phil Ashey) Opponents of change may be dismayed by the growing number of theologians, and congregations, who believe that some same-sex unions can be spiritually fruitful, or may dismiss this as a passing trend. Yet other people see the journey towards acceptance as an example of the way the Spirit of truth continues to guide followers of Christ (John 16.12-14). (Savi Hensman, commentator working in Care and Equalities sector) That support for same-sex love can be found from theologians of every stripe may well indicate a shift in thinking of the theological guild. But the Spirit who guided the Biblical writers into truth does not contradict Himself in His leading today into all truth. The key issue remains: What saith the Scriptures? And as Peter wrote, First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, implies a disjunction between the Word of God and the Scriptures. This actually constitutes a very recent attempt to re-interpret theological language to allow for the ignoring of unacceptable passages. The expression contained in (Westminster Confession) is nothing other than a delimitation of what is Scripture; i.e. only Scripture is the true depository of Gods Word. Q of authority v Q of interpretation: a false distinction? The authority of Scripture is just Scripture properly interpreted. Heretics tended to interpret the Bible according to their personal wishes.

38
A pick and mix hermeneutic. In contrast the churchs great tradition in its reading of Scripture is a certain way of reading biblical texts that had developed since apostolic times. (Cf. the value of continuity for orthodox faith and practice.) Privileging one theme of Scripture (say, the love of God), at the expense of passages deemed in conflict with a pre-determined understanding of what that theme implies. An arbitrary and selective hermeneutic. Claims an interior and esoteric notion of love as its justification for revising the more-obvious teaching of Scripture yet this is an imported notion of love which is itself disconnected from how the Bible speaks about love. The trajectory of Scripture trumps proof texts. Cf. A form of 'trajectory' hermeneutics where themes develop within scripture, and the task of readers is to continue to develop those trajectories. Steve Holmes asks how do you trace a trajectory in scripture on a topic scripture says nothing about? Christianity is not about a book, but about a person who is the Word of God made flesh. We do not know more of the works of God than when we saw God at work in the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Our understanding of the truth does not grow and develop and improve beyond the point in history when we once looked the Truth in the face on the dusty roads of Galilee. There is nothing in the big picture of the Bible on sexual ethics that moves in the direction of support for homosexual practice. (Robert Gagnon, NT Professor)

The compass of Jesus. o His radical inclusion of societal outcasts. o His challenging of the perceived orthodoxy of the time. Rather than basing their approach on isolated proof texts, the [slavery] abolitionists built their case around the deeper resonance of the trajectory of scripture the compass for which is Jesus, who was radically inclusive of women and other social outcasts of his day, challenging social norms and perceived orthodoxy. (Steve Chalk) Levitical rules no longer apply in the new covenant. Some do, some dont! [See below] Context plays a part in how we interpret the Scriptures. Selectivity of traditionalists. Why single out texts prohibiting homosexuality when other things are prohibited which we allow today? Different things were prohibited in the Old Testament for different reasons, some not applicable today. Various types of OT law: o Ritual / Ceremonial (fulfilled in Christ) o Civil (specific to Israels life in Canaan) o Moral (eternal) Rulings on same sex relations are clearly of this type. In the New Testament Jesus statement about divorce (mark 10:111-12) is cited as an example of a text dismissed as not binding today. Are our conclusions determined by the method of interpretation we chose for a particular text? All texts should be universally interpreted according to their literary context both immediate and canonical and that of the whole corpus of the speakers sayings / authors writings in between. In this case, the immediate context concerns the pharisees legalistic dependency on documents of divorce, challenged by Jesus by showing the root issue in such casuistry is the adulterous spirit behind it. Jesus wider teaching concerns forgiveness for those prepared to sin no more. There will come a time when evangelical Christians have to repent of their attitude to homosexuality; it is no more sinful than wearing polycotton shirts. This is an allusion to the Levitical prohibition against the wearing of garments that are woven with two kinds of material. Its significance lies in that it forms part of the same so called Holiness Code that also condemns lying with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. This [latter is associated with] idolatry and the Canaanite practice of cult prostitution [not to] loving, responsible homosexual relationships. In addition to this, Christians should remember that the Levitical rules and rituals were given by God for the purpose of preserving the distinctive characteristics of Israels religion and culture. Consequently they are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Revisionists ask of Traditionalists: how [can] these two Levitical verses, taken completely out of context, remain relevant today when the many surrounding verses are ignored? Verses regarding, for example, the eating of shellfish, wearing mixed fibres, planting two different crops in the same field, or failing to build a parapet around the

39
roof of ones house (all terribly displeasing to God, some being regarded as abomination, others calling for the death penalty). (Elaine Ambrose, South London Metropolitan Community Church, a Revisionist church serving the GLBT community) The purpose of these instructions was indeed to order how Gods covenant people were to conduct themselves in distinction to the surrounding nations. But it contained various distinct types of regulations; some were moral laws, which are eternal and are to be distinguished from ritual laws, which were fulfilled by Christ and so have been superseded, and others were civil laws that served to emphasize Israels identity as a separate people under God in the Old Covenant. These also no longer apply. The prohibition of what we now term homosexual acts clearly comes under the category of moral law. The NT makes it clear that while Christ has superceded the laws ritual requirements the moral law has not changed but is rather restated more forcibly. The prohibition on homosexuality was never relaxed in the New Testament because of the seriousness of its sinfulness as Paul expounded in Romans. Law is living and flexible: always growing, adapting, changing shape. Christ distilled the complex religious laws of his time to love of that same God and of neighbour as oneself. The spiritual liberty and simplicity that resulted from this new, unified vision led to the breaking down of the divisive barriers. (Stephen Hough) Prohibitive Biblical laws cannot morph mystically at the touch of Christ into a permissive vision of liberty to do exactly what these laws proscribed! Otherwise Jesus would be calling black white! Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them. (Mat 5:17) Thus ceremonial laws would cease because they were fulfilled by Christs death, but by their very nature no moral law could be abolished. (Civil laws were dropped once their historical purpose was finished.)

c) The Re-Interpretation of What The Bible Says The Bible approves of slavery and the subjugation of women and the Church has moved on from these issues? If we have changed our minds about slavery and womens ministry, why cant we change our minds on homosexuality? Surely it is consistent and logical to now champion gay rights. While many changes on debatable issues have some biblical support, even some gay lobbyists admit the entire Bible evidence is against such a change on homosexual practice. While the Bible does not repudiate slavery directly, as the book of Philemon reveals, the biblical view of humanity inevitably leads Christians to abolish slavery and find other ways to deal with debtors and prisoners of war (Philemon 1:15-16). Likewise the Bibles view of women, emerging from the misogyny of the prevailing cultural norms, culminates in the radical equality we see in the New Testament (Galatians 3:28). With homosexual practice, we see no such development, nor does the Bible allow for the possibility of one. The Bible is uniformly negative about it. Whats more, unlike the issues of slavery and gender, it does not relate to a persons God-given worth but is a prohibition against a lifestyle that is chosen (even though same-sex attraction is clearly not). (Gregg Downes) Does the Bible really say what we think it does? (so we can take a different message from its text). Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience. No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has. (Bp. Nicholas Holton, Salisbury) Ultimately legitimate interpretation does not arise from a rational application of experience to select verses, but from an overall examination of the total canon of Scripture. [See 4.A.b) Revisionist and Other Inclusivist Arguments] Homosexuality only a marginal issue in the Bible, therefore no fuss should be made about it. This confuses frequency with importance. There are more serious sins to worry about! [See 3.C.c) The Seriousness of Homosexual Sin] That the Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behaviour must reflect the fact that homosexuals constitute a small minority of the population. The Bible is only against bad (promiscuous & exploitive) sex, not good (committed) sex. It never commends homosexuality: Walter Wink, biblical scholar and theologian: Simply put, the Bible is negative towards same sex behaviour, and there is no getting around it. The entire biblical witness puts practiced homosexuality, without exception, among the kinds of behaviour which give particularly striking expression to humanitys turning away from God.

Jesus never spoke against homosexuality (i.e. silent on the matter). Nor incest either! There is no indication he wanted to change sexual mores or depart from accepted Jewish wisdom on sex and marriage. He would have shared his countrymens repugnance at homosexual practice of any stripe as being

40
contrary to nature. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate affirmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first-century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. (Gagnon) Biblical values such as love, liberation, justice and inclusion of the outsider support gay relationships. (i.e. love trumps more negative texts) Love doesnt justify any sexual relationship; liberation can also be from SS attraction! Rights are derivative from what is right which in turn is based on what is real. Inclusion does not entail accepting every behaviour of the one included.

Anti-homosexual laws were formulated as part of a Purity Code only to meet the challenges of being different from the surrounding nations, i.e. a matter of identity. Gods people should still be seen as different in their moral behaviour from their godless neighbours. David and Jonathan exhibited a committed consensual homosexual relationship Eisegesis (reading into the story, as also with Ruth and Naomi being supposedly involved in a lesbian relationship. Those who try to argue that the intimate relationship of David and Jonathan was homoerotic simply fail to understand the Jewish cultural context and retroactively visit the assumptions of our own highly sexualized culture on the text, in an attempt to make the Bible say what it does not. (Greg Downs, Theologian in residence, Christianity,) We impart so much of our culture into the way we read the Bible that it keeps us from hearing the text. (Michael Holmes, Bethel University) Twisted exegesis: One gay blogger claims sexual orgies are an image of human community! What do orgies teach us about developing a queer theology? Well, as the Apostle Paul writes, "We who are many form one body." (Vincent Cervantes) An extreme case of theological eisegesis, with no regard for Pauls over-all teaching on the body of Christ or on sexual morality!

d) Loving, Committed, Long-term Relationships: How Relevant Is The Bible Evidence? The Bible does not address the contemporary issue of faithful gay and lesbian Christians living in committed long-term relationships. (Ron Ferguson), Scottish review 18/12/12 How does this issue relate to the historical practice of a married man living in committed long-term relationship with a mistress? Why does the deliberate long-term commitment to a single person make a practice condemned as in principle immoral any less immoral? Loyalty to another person is in itself no justification for disobedience to Gods plain command. [See 1.C.f) Grim Truths About Homosexual Practice]

C. BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
[This section is indebted to Robert Gagnons The Bible and Homosexuality] The Bible does not speak of same-sex attraction, but wherever it deals with homosexual practice, it speaks of it as unnatural and sinful. (David Randall, Minister) Note: Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-15, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:6-8) refer to the practices of Cult prostitution and are not relevant to the current debate. a) The Key Texts (and their Genres) Genesis 1 & 2 What did God create? (Genre: Creation Story) Important because o They reveal the sexual lifestyle that God intended for humanity. o They record the story of the origins of marriage. o Jesus refers to these texts as authoritative regarding what should be deduced regarding the subsequent issue of divorce (See Mat 19:4ff). o Paul alludes to them as substantiating his claim that God created humankind male and female; God instituted marriage as a heterosexual union. Genesis 19 & Judges 19

41
Important because o They reveal the decadence of the lifestyle of unbelievers outside of the Law o Revisionists claim: The sin of Sodom (and Gibeah) not homosexuality but a breach of hospitality. (Derrick Sherwin Bailey) But note: When know (yada) occurs in Genesis, 6 out of 10 times it refers to sexual intimacy. The immediate context of Lots gratuitous offer of women was sexual. Jude 7 interprets the incident as sexually immorality.

Leviticus 18 & 20 What is the moral law on sexual practice? (Genre: Law) Important because o They govern the lifestyle of believers under the Law. o Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable (Leviticus 18:22) has been seen as a classic verse clearly prohibiting homosexual activity. The Queen James Bible (the worlds first gay Bible, published to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Biblein a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible) translates as Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination. But this conflates v.21 with the previous verse, a condemnation of the practice of child sacrifice in the temple of Molech. o As part of the Torah (teaching with binding authority, referred to generally in the NT as the Law), this condemnation of same-sex relationships would have been accepted by Jesus unless he specifically had reason to revoke it.

Romans 1:24-27 Why did Paul condemn same sex acts? (Genre: Apologetic) Important because o It categorically condemns a homosexual lifestyle. Yet Romans 1:25-27 is interpreted by Revisionists as referring to a condemnation of perversion rather than inversion. Perversion is where a heterosexual chooses to experiment sexually with their own gender, but inversion is where a person has a homosexual orientation that he or she cannot help that is innate to them. This interpretation is mistaken, as the Bible authors knew nothing of the modern distinction between homosexual orientation and practice. (Greg Downes) Paul was concerned with behaviour, not orientation or identity, (a concept not existing before 1870 according to historian Michel Foucault). So any mention of men abandoning natural relations cannot refer to heterosexuals going against their natural orientation but rather that the practice of homosexuality contravenes natural law; it is not how the creator intended us to live. o It provides us with Pauls clear and authoritative denunciation of all same-sex behaviour as a particularly strong example of mankinds idolatrous determination to ignore God and do his own thing. o It shows how idolatry leads to impurity including homosexual activity, its sinfulness so severe that those who indulge in it risk exclusion from Gods Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9) Matthew 19:3-8 What would Jesus say? (Genre: Gospel Narrative: Teaching) Important because o It answers the question regarding divorce: What would Jesus say? From this it is possible to extrapolate what would be Jesus attitude to same-sex behaviour had he been asked. o It is sometimes said that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (as if this cancels out all the other verses), but Jesus squarely condemned sexual immorality in general (Mark 7:20-23) and quotes the Genesis 2:24 verse in his teaching as an expression of his Fathers will in creation (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7). (Greg Downes)

John 8:3-11 What would Jesus do? (Genre: Gospel Narrative: Action) Important because o It answers the question regarding adultery (punishable by stoning in Jesus day): What would Jesus do? Again, extrapolation is possible to discern Jesus view of same-sex practitioners. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 How serious is sexual immorality? (Genre: Letter: Teaching) Important because o It warns that sexual immorality has eternal consequences. o In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul includes those who practice the homosexual lifestyle among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Malakoi (literally soft to the touch) refers to the passive partner in homosexual sex. Revisionists claim: These verses refer to pederasty (the practice of keeping a catamite a boy kept for sexual relations with a man), and therefore have nothing to say

42
concerning the current debate as to whether consensual, monogamous gay relationships are an acceptable Christian option. Whether or not this is so, what is clear is that what is being prohibited here are actions homosexual behaviour not orientation. Galatians 5:19-21 What are the eternal consequences of sexual immorality (and other fleshly behaviour)? (Genre: Letter: Exhortation) Important because o It concerns the expected lifestyle of believers in Christ under grace (1 Timothy 1:8-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-27) o It states the seriousness of sexual sin. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Timothy 1:4b-11 What role does the Law play in the teaching associated in the Gospel? (Genre: Letter: Teaching) Important because o It shows that the Laws condemnation of immorality supports the Gospel. o In 1 Timothy 1:8-10 practising homosexuality is one example among many of the lifestyle of those who break the law of God. arsenokoites (literally male in a bed) refers to a person who engages in homosexual sex particularly the active partner. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-10 How should we behave today? (Genre: Exhortation) Important because o It reminds us of our Christian duty to avoid all immorality. (Romans 12:9; Hebrews 12:1) b) Pauls Teaching in Romans Paul has a category in which sex is rightfully exercised and enjoyedin marriage between a man and a womanand another category in which its not: for those outside such a marriage. His categories are not heterosexual and homosexual; they are married or unmarried. We impart so much of our culture into the way we read the Bible that it keeps us from hearing the text. (Michael Holmes, Bethel University) Pauls thesis is that people have suppressed the truth about God, even after they had formerly known it, which had led to idolatry (a lie concerning who God is), which in turn had encouraged same-sex immorality (a lie about what God had created), which in turn had resulted in spiritual death in the form of various paybacks of decadent behaviours. By exchanging the truth for a lie at each turn, they had violated nature and become unnatural in their behaviour and stood condemned and thus liable ultimately to exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven. Mutuality does not imply moral goodness for Paul. Idolatry in the Bible always involves a strong element of role-reversal; the creature perverting nature by making the Creator in his own image. Innate? What is undoubtedly innate in humanity is sin! Paul is not concerned with the innateness of personal passions but with the moral fitness of the actions they produce.

c) The Seriousness of Homosexual Sin Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offence abhorrent to God. Note: It is one of several sins described as an abomination in Gods eyes. The others are: idolatry thoughts and acts of the wicked fortune telling dishonest business practices (a false balance) lying (being devious) arrogance adultery remarrying a divorced wife murder sowing discord among bothers condemning the righteous anything which is exalted by men sacrifices of the wicked prayers of those deaf to Gods law cross-dressing. If all these other behaviours are equally abhorrent to God according to Scripture, the Bible can hardly be described as homophobic (Scottish police have declined Gideons Bibles because they condemned homosexuality; Bibles are homophobic, Scots Police told). Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things


like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

43

The complementary otherness of creation ordinance is the foundation of sexual relations. Taking away the two gender basis for sexual union leaves no moral basis for limits to what kind of sexual unions are permissible. Anything goes! Thus the violation of foundational matters is worse than the violation of structures built on the foundation. Incest is wrong because it flouts the otherness of sexual bonding because of the involvement of close relatives; even more does homosexual sex flout this otherness. Human sexual differentiation and pairing is uniquely integrated into Gods image. One cannot engage in any extra-marital sexual behaviour without doing harm to this divine imprint. Homosexual practice has eternal consequences.

d) Conclusions Regarding Biblical Teaching The whole sweep of scripture is, without exception or deviation, a heterosexual narrative from the creation of Adam and Eve, through the poetic affirmation of heterosexual love in the Song of Songs, right up to the finale of the book, when Revelation concludes using a heterosexual metaphor to speak of the return of Christ (Revelation 22:17). (Greg Downes) At the heart of a biblical theology of sexuality [is] a story of warped desires being disciplined and reordered. The breaking of the proper relationship of mutual love and companionship between husband and wife is explicitly cited as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3:16); after this, while the remnants of God's good gift of sexuality will occasionally be celebrated (as in the Song of Songs), the broader biblical witness is more about difficult and demanding sexual disciplines. When Jesus commends faithful monogamous marriage, his disciples are simply incredulous - this calling is impossible! (Matthew 19:10); when Paul gives advice about marriage and singleness, it is not about fulfillment, but about the disciplining of desires (1 Corinthians 7:1-9); ... In later Christian tradition, marriage was understood as an ascetic practice, a way of training oneself to be fit for heaven. (Steve Holmes, theological teacher) "Same-sex intercourse falls short of the Christian ethical ideal, because it is a deficient act in the wrong context." It is a deficient act because it "loses the symbolic dimension of two-becoming-one present in malefemale sex." And it is in the wrong context because it "introduces into the friendship bond the language of exclusivity and permanence that properly belongs solely to marriage." (Stanley Grenz, leading Evangelical theologian) Why is homosexual practice wrong? Condemned by Scripture primarily because it ignores the divine design in nature, accelerates immoral behaviour in society and places the homosexuals own relationship with the Creator in jeopardy. The biblical proscription of same-sex intercourse, like those against incest, adultery, and bestiality, is absolute (encompassing all cases), pervasive (by both Testaments and within each Testament) and severe (mandating exclusion from Gods kingdom). Homosexual practice violates Gods purposes for human sexuality o Homosexual activity is neither the only nor indeed the typical form of our falling short in this area of sexuality (cf. Moses provision of divorce because of adultery), but it is a fundamental deviation from Gods purposes. Every text in Scripture treating sexual matters, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite for all sexual activity. o The Bible presents the anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and female as clear proof of Gods will for sexual unions. In its unnatural use of human anatomy, same sex activity is not fit for purpose. Essentially, the biblical argument is the natural law argument; what God wants for us is inscribed in our bodies and our natures. (Julie Rubio, Catholic Moral Theology, Symposium on SSM: Evolution?)

44

4. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH

[See Biblical Authority: Understandings within The Church] Note: Revisionists refers to those who claim not that the Bible is wrong (as old-fashioned liberals maintained) but that it needs to be properly understood so as to reveal what it really teaches. Homosexuality may be the single most divisive issue in the western church today. (Barry Seagren) In todays polarized climate it seems most of us either condemn homosexuals as evil corrupters of society or we fawn over them as noble victims and cultural heroes. We either accuse them of choosing to be wicked sexual deviants, or we claim utterly without evidence that gayness is an inborn, genetic trait. Reality, however, lies somewhere else. Deep down, people of conscience know homosexuality is neither an innocent, inborn minority characteristic like skin color, nor a conscious choice to become evil and to corrupt others. But without understanding what were really dealing with, were not only powerless to help others but easily confused and corrupted ourselves. (David Kupelian, editor of Whistleblower magazine)

A. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST SAME-SEX PRACTICE

a) The Real Issue At Stake For The Church A question of authority: Where does authority lie in the church? Is decision-making in the church to be controlled by the Word of God in Scripture, as has been believed through the ages or is it to be controlled by our own wisdom, by contemporary mores or by social pressure? (David Randall, Snr) Tolerance for gays is not and cannot be enough; o churches must either preach against the sin of homosexuality and help those caught in the bondage of that sin, o or they must fight for justice on behalf of the oppressed gay minority. There is no middle ground on this issue. (Gene B. Chase, Professor of Mathematics)

b) The Traditionalist Stance Reason for Opposing Homosexual Behaviour o `It is offensive to God and forbidden by Him and should therefore be shunned by His people. Homophobic Charge? o Avoid any irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals per se. NB: If 1.6% of UKs population is gay, expect a ratio of 1:60 in an average congregation.

c) Revisionist and Other Inclusivist Arguments Why Should Homosexuality Affect Heterosexuals? o Popular argument: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me? (Thomas Jefferson, American Founding Father.) A Gospel of Grace. o God accepts you just as you are! is a distortion of the Gospel of grace. God does not accept men and women as they are! There is a condition for inclusion in the Kingdom of God - the demand to repent! Stigma Makes Church Seem Unwelcoming to Homosexuals o Too often, those who seek to enter an exclusive, same-sex relationship have found themselves stigmatized and excluded by the Church. I have come to believe this is an injustice and out of step with Gods character as seen through Christ. (Steve Chalk)


o Welcome, affirmation, celebration, and advocacy all linked together by progressive churchmen, so if you dont celebrate or advocate homosexuality, you must be also an unwelcoming person!

45

A disease model of homosexuality is condescending to gays. o Note: Research on whether homosexuality is a pathological condition is not formally relevant to the moral debate in the church. Psychological abnormality and immorality are two different things, although sometimes they overlap. (Jones & Yarhouse) Our Presuppositions affect Our Interpretation of Scriptures. o Once it is recognized that our views on homosexuality are more determined by what we bring to the Biblical text than what we find in that text, the way will be clear for the churches to formulate a positive position on homosexual intercourse. (See Pim Pronk) Scripture and Scientific Progress o Science has shown homosexual orientation is natural and the Biblical authors mistaken. We dont need the Bible now! Militant lesbian Camille Paglia warned, we should be aware of the potentially pernicious intermingling of gay activism with science, which produces more propaganda than truth. [See 1. C. c) The Dominant Issue: Nature v. Nurture] Jesus, The Word, and Love o The Word of God is a living person, Jesus (rather than an ancient book, the Bible!) So what would Jesus say today? Jesus is the same today as yesterday and His words to us remain the same as recorded in Scripture, which He confirmed as Gods Word. There is no contradiction. o Jesus taught the primacy of love. Arent we too judgemental and not loving enough? Love must be married with passion for Gods holiness (e.g. Jesus in the Temple, and his injunction to his disciples to shake of the dust from your shoes where people rejected his message). The Christian is called to seek the redemption of the homosexual and his/her inclusion in Gods Kingdom. But this ethic of love has been confused with a notion of tolerance of a behaviour. Equal Covenantal Authority with Heterosexual Marriage. o Monogamous, permanent same-sex relationships are of equal covenantal authority to heterosexual marriage. But the template of covenantal marriage is being borrowed and overlain onto a relationship explicitly prohibited by Scripture. Charges of Inconsistency against The Traditionalist Opposition to Homosexual Practice o Scripture Texts: Other practices condemned which we dont hesitate to follow today. So why get het up over rules forbidding homosexual acts? Other practices were prohibited in the Purity Code for reasons that do not apply today, chiefly because then they needed to reflect the need for Gods people to be seen as different in their moral behaviour from their godless neighbours. [See 3.B.c) The Reinterpretation of What The Bible Says] o Openness to change: The Church has changed its mind on slavery, divorce, interest, women in ministry, so why not also on gay relationships? Each issue must be judged on its own merits. On the issues quoted the Bible provides debatable evidence, but on same-sex intercourse it provides no dubiety: it is forbidden. The principle of semper reformanda does not support all progressive liberal change. Drawing Parallels with The Abolition of Slavery. o Rather than basing their approach on isolated proof texts, the abolitionists built their case around the deeper resonance of the trajectory of scripture the compass for which is Jesus, who was radically inclusive of women and other social outcasts of his day, challenging social norms and perceived orthodoxy. (Steve Chalk, Christianity, Feb 2013) A Generation Thing! Climate of Opinion Changed o The younger generation is all for accepting homosexuals, so the church is damaging its mission. (Sociological) Since when has wisdom resided in the young rather than the old? The young are more susceptible to wrong ideas, (e.g. Rehoboams young advisers, I Ks 12). Significantly when President Obama made public his support for same sex marriage, he spoke of conversations with his daughters and about interactions with staff members and friends who are in same sex relationships.

46
But the fact of social change is never a sufficient reason for theological change. It is the embracing of social movements as the work of the Spirit that endangers the Churchs witness and discipleship. Those in thrall to a revisionist agenda will always perceive traditionalists as counter-cultural, fundamentalist or bigoted. A negative traditionalist attitude towards homosexuals alienates youth and undermines the Churchs mission. It is Liberal Christianity, rather than Evangelical Christianity, that is a small and rapidly declining section of the otherwise flourishing world-wide church.

Experiencing Good Gay Relationships o My experience of good same-sex relationships suggests the validity of same sex marriage. Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience. No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has. (Bp. of Salisbury) Experience is neither normative nor insignificant. As believers in the gift of revelation and the power of reason to discern the truly human, we are obligated to carefully consider our experience and test it against the weight of scripture, tradition, and the natural order. (Julie Rubio, Catholic Moral Theology, Symposium on SSM: Evolution?) Every Christian is called to have his or her experience conformed to the teachings of Scripture, and then to those of the great tradition of the Church down the centuries as it has reflected upon Scripture intelligently and in the Spirit. (Rt Revd Michael Scott Joynt, God, Gays and the Church) o Experience is itself a kind of text, and texts need interpreters. How often have we thought that we understood our experiences, only to realize later that we had only the barest understanding of our own motives and impulses? We all know how flexible memory can be, how easy it is to give an overly gentle account of our own motivations, how hard it is to step outside our lifelong cultural training and see with the eyes of another time or place To take personal experience as our best and sturdiest guide seems like a good way to replicate all of our personal preferences and cultural blind spots. Its necessary to look at least as hard for alternative understandings of our experience as for alternative understandings of Scripture. (Eve Tushnet, Catholic Moral Theology, Symposium)

B. THE SAME SEX CONUNDRUM Embracing Truth while practicing Grace

a) Consider Love First, Rather Than Sex. Revisionist emphasis on love and inclusion: The Church is trying to... answer the question, how big ... is Gods love for all of Gods children. (- Bp Jean Robinson, American Revisionist Bishop) Highlights one of two contrasting emphases: o The issue for revisionists: the extension of Gods love, i.e. inclusiveness (people) o The issue for traditionalists: the purity of Gods love, i.e. exclusiveness (sin) Evangelical revisionist Steve Chalke aims at our churches becoming beacons of inclusion. The importance of empathy: the capacity to recognize human feelings that are being experienced by another (not simply understanding truths about a condition / behaviour). Heart, not just mind! The homosexual search for love cf. some hymn themes that lend themselves to this application: o O love that will not let me go... 1 (Pain, angst) o O Jesus, I have promised... 2 (Commitment) o Let there be love shared among us... 3 (Reality) b) Make Careful Distinctions Regarding Sexual Issues Distinguish homosexual orientation from homosexual practice 4 [See 1.B.a)The Nature of Homosexuality] Distinguish different issues on the same-sex spectrum: o Unwanted same-sex attraction goal: celibate homosexuality struggles against temptations o Tolerated same-sex practice of others motive: all are welcome (in an inclusive church), especially the marginalized. o Celebrated same-sex practice, but within a loving faithful committed relationship goal: treating


o o same-sex union equally with heterosexual unions. Promiscuous same-sex practice consequences: AIDs, drugs, violence and early death. Vociferous campaigning of gay activists promoting an agenda of societal change.

47

Homosexuality is not an illness: we should look for sexual transformation in those who want to conquer their unwanted feelings, rather than for physical healing.

c) Balance Grace with Truth: Too often disagreement is misconstrued as hate. That's entirely NOT TRUE. I was seeking a way to convey my love but still stand strong morally. It's much easier to just "live and let live", but that's not love. (nehifamily, amazon.com, 28/08/12) Empathy with the homosexual condition without compromise of truth. Beware error of: o Sadducees (grace without truth) o Pharisees (truth without grace) (- W.P. Campbell, Presbyterian minister in California) 5 Can we be civil? Skyline Churchs Conversation on Marriage (Bp. Jean Robinson v Robert Gagnon 2012 6 That book! the question of biblical authority: how crucial? Where is Gods voice heard today? o Division in the Church: Gods Word abandoned! v God still speaking through His Spirit!

The question of interpretation: how to handle context and share understandings graciously (rather than dogmatically)? 7 In study groups asking questions as well as sharing beliefs and experiences. References and notes 1 O Love that will not let me go, I rest my weary soul in Thee; I give Thee back the life I owe, that in Thine ocean depths its flow May richer, fuller be.... O Joy that seekest me through pain, I cannot close my heart to Thee; I trace the rainbow through the rain, and feel the promise is not vain That morn shall tearless be. (- George Mattheson (1842-1906)) 2 O Jesus, I have promised to serve Thee to the end; Be Thou for ever near me, my master and my friend; I shall not fear the battle if Thou art by my side, Nor wander from the pathway if Thou wilt be my guide. O let me feel Thee near me; the world is ever near; I see the sights that dazzle, the tempting sounds I hear; My foes are ever near me, around me and within; But, Jesus, draw Thou nearer, and shield my soul from sin... O give me grace to follow my master and my friend. (- J.E Bode (1816-74)) 3 Let there be love shared among us, let there be love in our eyes... Give us a fresh understanding of brotherly love that is real. (- D. Bilbrough) 4 Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors. (-American Psychological Association (1999) 5 W.P. Campbell, Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christ-like Response to Homosexuality, Zondervan, 2010 p 50f 6 As a response to the toxicity that has been created by this searing social issue we wanted to create a civil dialogue where both sides could present their case for and against same-sex marriage. We brought prominent advocates on both sides emphasizing both religious and secular / philosophical arguments. 1,500 people witnessed a very civil and respectful yet ground-breaking dialogue on a very heated social topic. See http://vimeo.com/47223269 for video of the complete debate. 7 According to Robinson, context means everything, and when reading scripture, one should ask: Is the context described there similar to our context and therefore is eternally binding? The fallacy here lies in the fact that such timeless bindings would only last until a new context arises when, according to Robinsons logic, they would cease to be binding! Some other criteria is needed to determine the abiding application of any text, such as the nature of the original binding d) Responses to Those with Same-Sex Attraction Affirming a false identity o [Affirming church] believers can act like a false physician, telling people tempted by homosexuality that same-sex orientation is part of their identity and that they should accept it.

48
Judging a sinful behaviour o Or, we can act as judge, jury, and executioner, driving them away from the Saviour who loves them. Either way, we risk the same result: spiritual death. Inviting to freedom in Jesus o Or we can respond like Jesus would, with grace and truth: Come unto me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Those words called to me, weary and heavy-laden with sin...Shouldnt all Christians bear that message of freedom and hope? (Cheated by the Affirming Church: Contrary to what some churches teach, it is homosexuality and not its suppression that enslaves people like me, Christianity Today, 12 January 2004) It is insufficient for correct teaching to be in place if those experiencing SSA are not embraced and cared for pastorally. The LGBT world will readily welcome such people and make them feel they belong. Indeed, the Christian gay movement is more than ready to bring into their fold, people who feel the church has let them down because, among other things, it failed to love them.

C. CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CHURCH OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION

a) Trust Deeds of Independent Churches Independent Churches need to have clear statements in their trust deeds of their commitment to a biblical view of marriage. Without this they may be extremely vulnerable to legal challenge.

b) Church Finances Churches should be prepared to lose gift-aid if their charitable status is rescinded.

c) Equipping Congregations for Opposition Pastors need to teach their people how to handle with grace marginalisation (e.g. being looked down upon as morally deficient!) It hard to overestimate the power of story. Important to hear the stories of those battling against unwanted desires and listen critically to stories that invite acceptance of homosexual normality. Discernment of the spirits must be developed. (1 Jn 4:1)

d) Ex-gays Homosexuals who have either committed to celibacy or changed their behaviour / orientation will be on the front-line of attack as living contradictions of claims that sexual orientation is fixed or homosexual behaviour is normal and to be celebrated.

D. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP / ORDINATION OF THOSE IN SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS

a) Adherence Positive Approach: o Without signing up to a churchs beliefs and behavioural standards, homosexual adherents made to feel at home, welcome to attend worship and other church activities. o Pro-active effort made to minister to this small but significant section of society. Question: Should they be considered more than just regular enquirers / guests? When can they join the church and under what circumstances? When should they be considered as belonging to the household of God?

b) Membership

49

Shouldnt the Church be as inclusive as other institutions in society? Jesus taught radical inclusiveness as a core Kingdom value challenging his listeners to reach out to the poor, disadvantaged, outcast, etc, but not todays politically correct inclusiveness, where every minority group that it is fashionable to celebrate must be allowed unchallenged expression however contrary their ideas to Christian truth and morality as taught by Jesus and found in Gods Word. While the church welcomes all people, it cannot affirm all behaviors. Why do homosexuals find church such a dangerous place? [See 4.E.a) Pastoral Considerations] Have a pro-active Outreach and Support programme, involving homosexual persons appropriately in church life. Welcome warmly any self-affirming homosexual who comes into the church. Two views on membership: o 1. While all people are welcome as members, there are particular functional roles that carry a requirement to uphold the values of the church. o 2. Membership status should be granted only to those who commit to the churchs stance on homosexuality. Note: It is generally unrealistic to expect a high degree of immediate reformation of homosexual persons who have recently renounced their practice. What do we mean by being a member of a church? Can casual attenders feel welcome if they dont belong to a church? Discipline should always be maintained. Calvin gave three reasons for this: o That they who lead a filthy and infamous life may not be called Christians, to the dishonour of God. o That the good be not corrupted by the constant company of the wicked. o That those overcome by shame for their baseness begin to repent. Critique of Arguments for Granting Membership to Practicing, Self-Affirming Homosexual Persons (Points taken from R. Gagnons missing chapter from The Bible and Homosexual Practice, deemed too practical by the publishers for publication! Gagnon is a Presbyterian Professor. at Princeton Seminary) o Having a stable relationship justifies homosexual practice. According to the Bible, what is offensive about same-sex intercourse is not that it usually occurs in the setting of unstable relationships but rather that it violates Gods will and natures design for the pairing of the sexes. o The church is not a citadel of the morally perfect; it is a hospital for sinners. Jesus died for gays.. The hospital metaphor does not fit the Jesus who referred to adultery in ones heart as an offense for which one could be thrown into hell. We are called to become saints (not saved sinners continuing safely in our sins). If authors of the New Testament viewed repentance as a precondition for conversion and moral renewal as an essential mark of the Christian life, what justification does the contemporary church have for receiving people into the membership of the church without regard to immoral sexual behavior? James wrote to show that the credibility of a statement of faith hinges on behaviour. o Homosexual intercourse is not as bad as some other sins for which people are not denied membership, e.g. violence and materialism. To assert that violence and materialism are worse than sexual immorality is to confuse contemporary ethical valuations with biblical ones. Which causes more long-term pain to a spouse: a single act of domestic violence or a single act of marital infidelity? [Added to which many homosexuals in committed relationships have previously deserted their wives on coming out.] o Many practicing homosexual Christians exhibit the presence of the Spirit in their lives. So it cant be so bad! Sin is sin whether sexual or otherwise and, repented of, can be forgiven. All of us (however spiritual!) are guilty of sin, and open un-repented sin causes harm to the body of Christ and must be brought to book. (Though note: love must be shown and patience exercised with recent converts who fall from their avowed intentions, as with other newcomers to church life.) o Excommunicating practising homosexual persons is impractical and unenforceable. The church has to be interested in the moral conduct of its members if it is to be something other than just a club for socializing It has a moral duty to confront in a loving and gentle manner such persons who offend its moral standards. Gagnon observes: o Membership in the church is not a right. The church has a right to (a) define, on the basis of scripture, minimal standards of belief and conduct and (b) expel or refuse membership to any who cannot subscribe to such standards. Healthy boundaries between the church (as the sphere of Christs dominion) and the world (the sphere of Satans rule, in Pauls view) demand the expulsion of

50
o members who trample on the Spirit of holiness. Given an assessment of same-sex intercourse as sin, the church has to respond not just to homosexual behaviour but to homosexual persons out of humble, compassionate, and selfsacrificial service aimed at effecting the deliverance and transformation of others. [Question: How to balance discipline of behaviour with both compassionate outreach and acceptance of homosexuals (active or not) as persons?]

c) Ordination of Those in Homosexual Relationships The Issue of Official Recognition: The problem is that error is now being promoted denominationally rather than tolerated locally. (David Randall, Snr) Entails an overturning of the understanding of Christian marriage held by the universal church from its inception. A Church that recognised homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage would be promoting schism and would cease to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Those in ordained office serve as role models to the community and are therefore called to a higher standard of faithfulness to the demand of the gospel on moral life. (Robert Gagnon)

d) To Leave or Not To Leave Stayers: Because the church is a mixed economy of members of various persuasion (cf. the parable of the tares), and ministers have a vocation to tend the whole flock in their care. Leavers: Eric Metaxas tells of someone asking Dietrich Bonhoeffer whether he shouldnt join the German Christians in order to work against them from within; Bonhoeffer answered, If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction. (David Randall, Snr) For Church of Scotland Presbyterians: We are now in danger of abandoning Presbyterian Church government, or at least of becoming a mixed economy of Presbyterianism when it suits us, and Congregationalism when things get too hard and challenging, and when tough talking needs to take place. (Louis Kinsey, C of S Minister)

E. PASTORAL CONSIDERATIONS
[These need further development.] a) Pastoral Concerns We need to be asking How can I be someone who is holy and pure? How can I be someone whose life is a reflection of my faith and commitment to the Lord? Church as Community. The Church - each local church - should be the community in which we find our needs for intimate human relationship met, therefore a natural home for all lonely people, including those with homosexual longings. (Mat 10:29-39) Steve Holmes notes: One of the reasons same-sex relationships have become such an issue for modern Western cultures is we have located the answer to loneliness and the source of intimacy solely in our families (this is very unusual in historical terms). In which ways can the Church be equipped to respond to Christians distressed by SSA, who choose to live by orthodox teachings that place sexual activity solely within the covenant of heterosexual marriage? Homosexuals (their situation / struggles). The stories told by persons with homoerotic urges...make clear to us the genuine pain [of loneliness, self-loathing, and ostracism from others] that comes with sexual selfdenial...of ones primary or exclusive sexual frame of reference. (Gagnon) One tragic outworking of the Churchs historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated. (Steve Chalk, oasisuk.org)


o o o o o Making the church a safe place for gays (without abandoning other biblical principles) Being aware of those suffering personal pain or facing negative public attitudes (embarrassment, homophobia) Encouraging those battling unwanted desires Ministering to HIV/ AIDS casualties Being aware of the needs of homosexually inclined children in the church

51

Those affected by homosexual behaviour o Abused children o Abandoned spouses o Children brought up by homosexual parents

b) Pauls Beliefs: The eternal destiny of offenders was at stake. Being pastoral included tailoring the mode of correction to the degree of the offenders recalcitrance. Catering to extreme acts of sexual immorality would, over time, seriously erode the entire communitys posture toward sexual purity. Unbelievers had to have access to the communitys worship services as one important venue for hearing the gospel and having the opportunity to be transformed.

c) The Situation Today Faced by Churches (according to Anglican Communion: Listening report) All these people [who identify themselves as gays and lesbians], including those Christian gays, are asking for more understanding and an end to what they experience as exclusion and oppression. o Some are asking for pastoral care and friendship as they seek to live in conformity to traditional church teaching. o Others conscientiously believe they will flourish best and will grow in love of God and neighbour if they commit themselves to share their life with someone of the same sex in some form of special, loving, covenantal, sexual relationship similar to marriage. o Some are asking for such relationships to be blessed by the Church especially in those countries where there is now the possibility of legal recognition for such relationships in civil partnerships or same-sex marriage.

d) Challenges for Traditionalists What should heterosexual parents say to their homosexual son/daughter? How to remove any stigma attached to homosexual orientation without diminishing the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour? How to reconcile Gods love with the suffering and despair experienced by those overwhelmed by unwanted desires, e.g. strong attraction to other Christian men?

How to meet the loneliness experienced in family orientated churches that unwittingly exclude gays? How to minister to the longing for the physical and emotional closeness observable in families and couples? e) Psychology and The Possibility of Change (according to Christian Educationalist James Loder): Freedom of sexual expression and experimentation no freedom, but only fragmentation of personality as they pass through one sexual relationship after another. Its advocates are nave and unwitting agents of immense pastoral devastation.

52
The pioneering educationalist James Loder, after a life time of interviewing students, concluded that a deeply wounded human spirit was present in every case of homosexuality that he encountered. This discovery led him to recognize a deeper spiritual dimension of the problem. It is doing such a person no favor to say that homosexual expression of this aspect of his identity is just one choice among others. If he is not attacked in the night through his dreams, he will turn the powerful negative at the base of his psyche on others heterosexuals, the church, society at large or on himself in depression and dependency. (Loder) NB: Loders view has been challenged by revisionists and even some former SOCE (Sexual Orientation Changes Efforts) organisations who have succumbed to pressure from the Gay lobby. But the need of many persons troubled by SSA is so persistent and universal, as is the common sense insight that something is amiss with homosexuality, that therapy and other constructive efforts will always go on if not within academic psychology and psychiatry, then outside of it. (Gerard van den Aardweg, a Dutch psychologist specialising in homosexuality and marital problems.) Of the hubbub made over Dr Robert Spitzgers recanting of his 2003 reappraisal of the possibility for change, Aardweg observes: The whole thing is a media beat-up to support the agenda of the gay movement and the social and political powers that want to impose it on the population.

f) Who am I? A Gay Man? Or A Son of God? For Christians the teachings of our faith rather than secular constructs such as gay, lesbian, fluid and bisexual provide the organising principles for the integration of mental life and sexual behaviour. Christians who follow biblical teaching in matters of sexual ethics define their identity in terms of Christ and their faith in him, rather than by the nature of their sexual attractions. (Goddard and Harrison, Unwanted SameSex Attraction: Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support) No ones identity is ultimately determined by sexuality; rather it comes from their walk in the Spirit of God. In such a transforming context sexual orientation can change When the Holy Spirit visits a human spirit bearing the gift of Gods love and healing presence, the Holy Spirit brings to the human spirit the deepest and richest sense of intimacy the heart has ever longed for. (Loder) God showed me that the things I was looking for in a relationship with a man could only be satisfied in Him. Its been very hard. It wasnt as if as soon as I made a commitment to God that everything got better. But I would say that that my identity has changed: I see myself as a son of God, not as a gay man anymore The sexual temptations are still there, but my desire to be in a relationship with a guy has decreased significantly over the years. (Male in his 20s, Christianity, Feb 2013) [See 1.C.a) Identity, Orientation or Inclination? Also 5.B.a) Core Identity]

53

5. AN APOLOGETIC PROGRAMME FOR RE-EDUCATION

[This section needs further development.]

A. THE OPPORTUNITY
a) Significance of Apologetics for Today A morally bankrupt dogma requires dumping. It is time to take up the drawbridge of the liberal dogma of the past which has left us with the moral abyss of the present. (Dr. Helen Wright, President of the Girls School Association) Although the history of heresy has been the history of giving in to the spirit of the age, nevertheless heresies have been useful because they often attack an important but previously undeveloped aspect of our theology. As a consequence, Christian theology has often developed in response to heresies. (Paul C Vitz, Psychology Prof., NYU) Traditionalist believers must learn how to respond to Secular Gays as well as to Church Revisionists! Contemporary emphasis is on egalitarianism and sexuality. The combination has led to the promotion of androgyny or unisex: the notion that sexuality, male and female, is not fundamental to our nature, that all forms of sexuality are equivalent and basically arbitrary. From an androgynous perspective, male and female are not part of the nature of realitymuch less of the nature of who each person is. (Vitz) [See 1.B. b) The Androgynous View]

b) Types of Evidence Experience. [See 4.A. b) Revisionist and Other Inclusivist Arguments] Logical (non-religious) reason Religious (e.g. Judeo-Christian) beliefs and traditions

Note: Personal pre-suppositions will inevitably influence our thinking and conclusions c) The Educational Need The only solution is teaching an intelligent counterpoint. (-Janice Turner, on the role of Feminism today) The challenge for every movement is to remain facing out into the world, not inwards to carp and selfharm. And feminism has much to do. Not least addressing the unrestrained influence of internet porn on young people, its spreading of the body dysmorphia and a warped view of human sexuality. (The Times, 4/5/13) Equally applicable to apologetics about homosexuality.

Pointing out the consequences: It is far easier to resist homosexual practices if there is clear evidence that it causes suffering to other people (including God) than if one is just following Biblical precepts in dutiful obedience devoid of reflection. What programme of apologetics and education should be developed to teach an intelligent counterpoint to todays secular/revisionist view of human sexuality?

d) The Gospel Opportunity Honest Evangelism: "Salvation and repentance must be preached to homosexuals -- and to heterosexuals as well. East of Eden, not one of us has come before God as sexually pure and whole, even if we have never committed an illicit sexual act. Our ministry to homosexuals is not as the sinless ministering to sinners, but as fellow sinners who bear testimony to the reality of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. (R. Albert Mohler, Baptist Apologist)

54
Testimony of those who have experienced same-sex attraction: If my reading of the NT is correct, such [Revisionist] Christian leaders are leading people into destruction. I have to treat this a gospel issue. (Sam Alberry, St Marys, Maidenhead) One of the key things for churches is to realize this is not just a political issue, its a personal issue, and therefore we mustnt only speak of it in terms of government proposals and societal trends If, as churches, we get better at being family and being community, that will give us the prophetic voice to then speak into society; we will have a credible witness. o My experience is that talking about Jesus a lot his love of those on the margins, his call to give up everything in order to follow him, and his example as someone who renounced sex for the sake of the kingdom helps both gay and straight people see what radical discipleship looks like. (Andrew Wilson, New Frontiers elder) Christianity, Feb 2013) o

e) Personal Witness to The Truth Be alert: Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8) o Get informed: familiarise yourself with the arguments for a Christian view of sexuality. o Inform others: pray for Gods guidance about the best ways of influencing others. Discuss these matters with family members. Disseminate these arguments in your local church. Share this information with colleagues and friends, at work or school. Be strong: Always remember that the battle is the Lords (! Samuel 17:47) o Pray for boldness in standing firm if your efforts are unappreciated or strongly resisted. f) The Media Still the Message Judicious selection of testimonies (stories from experience). Images and pithy quotations to express key points.

B. THE PSYCHOLOGY
a) Core Identity For many SSA men, the deepest problem they must wrestle with is not sexual identity, but core identity. The original source of this struggle is not the more obvious problem in bonding with the father, but a breach in the primary attachment with the mother. For these men, their deepest-level problem is not about sexual orientation but about something more fundamental: identity, attachment and belonging. Gender-identity conflict and attraction to men are only surface symptoms. This is the problem that the media chooses to ignore, and which both sides of the debate fail to acknowledge. (Joseph Nicolosi,) [See 1.C.a) Identity, Orientation or Inclination? Also 4.E.f) Who Am I?] The Christian gospel asserts that our identity in Christ trumps all of our other human identities.

b) Transgender Experience Transgender people need our love and care, things they do not find in secular society, which is often a compartmentalized mix of desert and shallow oasis for transgender people. (Maggie Ellis, psychosexual therapist at livecentre.uk.com) Note: Transgenders can be heterosexual or homosexual!

c) Avoid Validating a Feelings Narrative The danger of giving inflated importance to the feelings of those who seek validation of their homosexual urges. Their stories can seduce hearers into seeing homosexual behaviour as natural. o Note their goal: the individuals rights rather than the communitys good is prioritized. o Focus of argument: the subjective realm of feelings predominate over the objective effects of behaviour. Pain becomes a pass for moral scrutiny. (Gagnon)


o Moral compass: individual moral autonomy challenges an overarching moral universe that makes a claim on all. No-one else can question what I feel! Consequently any notion of a divine revelation of truth is forgotten.

55

d) The Source of True Intimacy Sexuality generally, homosexuality in particular, is a deficient surrogate for a deeper longing that only the spiritual life can provide. The intensity of charismatic prayer releases the power of the spiritual life, a power that has the capacity to reorganize a personality in keeping with the relational image of God. (Loder) [See 1.B.c) The Great Sex Charade: Sexuality as Indicator of Intimacy] In his love, God yearns over the spirit he has put in us. What displaces his love and his desire for intimacy at the very core of ones being brings despair and a sickness unto death. The prohibition in Gods word is the urgent longing in God for an intimacy with his people that supersedes and displaces all others.

e) Therapy for Homosexuals with Unwanted SSA Seeking wholeness. o Today, new studies place the homoerotic drive in better perspective by showing us that it originates from the search for health and wholeness. Many homosexuals are attracted to other men and their maleness because they are striving to complete their own gender identification. From this perspective, we now better understand the nature of the homosexual person's struggle. And with this understanding, we can offer more than tolerance, but--for those who seek it--hope for healing. More than civil rights, we can offer a way toward wholeness... (Joseph Nicholosi) Typical Case: o Letter: I fought this temptation for years, but gave up on my prayer to be changed. I know being a homosexual is wrong; that is stated in the Bible. And I know that woman was made for man (for companionship, to help multiply God's people, to be a best friend, and yes, for sex). But I don't want a woman. I can't help it if I don't want sex with a woman, just like I can't help if I don't like cauliflower. Mr. Wilkins, I know homosexuality is wrong, but being with a woman is out of the question. Yes, I could marry a woman and force myself to have sex with her on occasion, but is that fair to her? Would that be fair to my kids? I need help. Please pray that God will change me. I fear His return is very near, and I know that I am not ready to stand before Him. o Response: No one, including God, says you must eat cauliflower. Translation: you do not necessarily have to be attracted to women, or even marry; the Bible never says every man must marry. You do, however, like potatoes very much, but [suppose if] the Bible forbids the eating of potatoes. Just because you like potatoes does not mean you have to eat them. Translation: you are attracted to men, but you do not have to be sexually involved with men. Remember, Adam and Eve liked the forbidden fruit but ate it anyway. You can choose to abstain from potatoes (homosexual activity). Rest assured that with time and obedience, your taste for potatoes will diminish and you may develop an appetite for cauliflower . Whether that leads to investing in a cauliflower plantation remains to be seen. Translation: Obedience to God's Word does not necessarily mean you must marry and raise a family. (Tim Wilkins)

f) Integrity in Opposing Normalisation of Homosexuality Our culture is polarized between those relentlessly advancing the full acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, indeed of all sexual variations, and those resisting those moves. As religious believers, we must confess our own culpability in creating the mess we are in. We were complicit, even if ignorantly and passively so, in the cultural embrace of the disease conceptualization of homosexuality. We off-loaded responsibility for the articulation of a thoughtful, caring, theologically rich, and pastorally sensitive understanding of sexual brokenness grounded in our various religious traditions by conceptualizing homosexuality as a disease, and so we were unprepared for the vacuum created by that explanations timely demise. The best ecclesiastical, professional, legal, and social policy will be founded not on falsehoods or grotesque and indefensible simplifications but on a clearheaded grasp of reality in all its complexities, as well as on a humble recognition of all that we do not know. (Stanton D Jones)

56

C THE THEOLOGY a) A Biblical View of A Homosexual Radical position: Biologically, essentially and intrinsically there is no such thing as a homosexual! No-one is intrinsically a thief, only one who is involved in stealing. What makes a man a homosexual in the biblical sense is when that man indulges in sexual acts with another man. We are not trying to change a personality, but to stop an immoral style of behaviour.

b) Pricking Conscience All of us homosexuals included have a conscience (that other-dimensional standard that God has tucked away inside each of us) that causes us inner conflict when were doing the wrong thing. But if we tumble into the grip of dark forces we dont understand and then start to defend our obsessions and compulsions, we inevitably come to regard our conscience as an enemy. And although we may be somewhat successful in drowning out that inner warning bell, what happens when this same rejected conscience factor appears in another person and gets too close to us for comfort? We feel threatened. Therefore, we feel compelled to silence the voice of conscience not just the one inside of us, but the one in other people, which tends to revive our own conscience with which were at war. This means we cant tolerate dissent. We simply cant stand it. It makes us want to scream. To the homosexual living in denial, then, even a loving offer of help from, say, a Christian ex-gay ministry or reparative therapy counselor (to help overcome homosexual addiction) feels like the most vile, abusive hatred. In fact, its real love which we misinterpret as hatred and bigotry simply because it causes us to confront a truth that is not welcome in us. (David Kupelian) c) An Apologetic of Love and Holiness Question: Why is God against something which, from the world's perspective, can only be seen as positive, pleasurable and good with no negative consequences? God had good reason not just to create human unisex hermaphrodites capable of procreating amongst themselves (in a similar manner to snails). How far are his strict moral standards regarding sexuality an inevitable consequence of his creational intention? C.S.Lewis conviction that behind every disordered appetite is some kind of warped virtue and that the ticket is to search for the virtue and help foster it. For any who venture into the Theology of the Body corpus of JPII, this same idea emerges pretty clearly. Concupiscence twists and warps the human appetites that should lead us to truth, goodness, and beauty. Grace can un-warp what concupiscence warps, particularly in the realm of purity, with resulting growth in virtue, a development JPII refers to as a mature purity.( Deacon Jim Russell, ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea, 09/08/13) Express the Good News proclaimed in Gods Word in terms of a Holy Loving God who wants us to reflect his image in which we were made, but from whose perfection we have fallen into unholy living, necessitating our redemption by Christ. Applicable to all irrespective of sexual orientation and therefore a neutral starting point. o E.g. Heterosexual adultery, child abuse or addiction to pornography equally issues as homosexual behaviour or unwanted homosexual desires. o We are all born incomplete and vulnerable to compulsive and addictive behaviour. As I said previously with respect to pride, its a constant struggle; you either control it or it controls you. My friend and colleague in the trenches, Reverend Ken Campbell, has often publically said that when he was a college student, his natural inclination was to chase every skirt. Thats because young males are constitutionally prone to libidinal excess. (Mark Steyn) In truth, we are all sinners. We all have a particular strong inclination to at least one particular sin. If we deny this, then we are liars. In the Same-Sex Relationships debate we may ask equally of both heterosexuals and homosexuals: o Where do you find love active in daily living? How do you identify true love? o How does Gods love influence your life-style? o How far do you aspire to leading a holy life?


o o o By what criteria do you judge what should constitute holy living? Is your life-style pleasing to our Holy God? What would make my life reflect more Gods love and purity?

57

d) Scriptures for Reflection: Pauls charge to Timothy In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5) o Application to today: In the face of such changes and departures from biblical norms neither run away nor compromise but rather to boldly proclaim the truth. Do it lovingly, do it patiently, do it without anger or homophobia but also call people to repentance. Dont sugar coat the truth, but speak it clearly, In this case give the biblical vision of what marriage and family life should be and promote it. Be an opinion leader not an opinion follower. (Canon Phil Ashey, American Anglican Council)

The stark choice: o Do not deceive yourselves; no one makes a fool of God. You will reap exactly what you plant. If you plant in the field of your natural desires, from it you will gather the harvest of death; if you plant in the field of the Spirit, from the Spirit you will gather the harvest of eternal life. (Gal 6:78, GNB) Positive thinking about desires: o Fill your minds with those things that are good and that deserve praise: things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable. (Phil 4:8, GNB) o You have been raised to life with Christ, so set your hearts on the things that are in heaven, where Christ sits on his throne at the right side of God. Keep your minds fixed on things there, not on things here on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Your real life is Christ and when he appears, then you too will appear with him and share his glory! You must put to death, then, the earthly desires at work in you, such as sexual immorality, indecency, lust, evil passions, and greed (for greed is a form of idolatry). Because of such things God's anger will come upon those who do not obey him. At one time you yourselves used to live according to such desires, when your life was dominated by them. But now you must get rid of all these things: anger, passion, and hateful feelings. No insults or obscene talk must ever come from your lips. Do not lie to one another, for you have put off the old self with its habits and have put on the new self. This is the new being which God, its Creator, is constantly renewing in his own image, in order to bring you to a full knowledge of himself. As a result, there is no longer any distinction between Gentiles and Jews, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarians, savages, slaves, and free, but Christ is all, Christ is in all. You are the people of God; he loved you and chose you for his own. So then, you must clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. Be tolerant with one another and forgive one another whenever any of you has a complaint against someone else. You must forgive one another just as the Lord has forgiven you. And to all these qualities add love, which binds all things together in perfect unity. (Col 3:1-14, GNT)

58
SELECT RECOMMENDED RESOURCES Video: To hear both sides of the debate communicating: Conversation on Marriage (Skyline Church, Ca. USA) http://vimeo.com/47223269 Books: Emphasis on truth: Embracing Truth, D. Torrance & J.Stein (Ed), Handsel Press, 2012, 6.95 Emphasis on grace: Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christ-like Response to Homosexuality, W.P. Campbell, Zondervan, 2010, $18.99 Encyclopedic study of what Scripture teaches: The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Robert Gasgon, Abingdon Press, 2001, 522pp [Note: This very thorough and widely acknowledged study is conveniently condensed in a descriptive review by Paul Burgess in Embracing Truth - see above.] Organisation: The Christian Institute, http://www.christian.org.uk Historical Writings: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Marshall Kirk / Hunter Madsen, 1989 (Gay manifesto/manual from the Gay War conference) Selling Homosexuality to America, Paul Rondeau, Regent University Law Review, 2002 (Expos of the gay marketing strategy) OTHER REFERENCES CITED Books, Pamphlets: Bailey, Derrick Sherwin, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, 1955 Bruce, Tammy, The New Thought Police, 2001 Campbell, W.P., Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christ-like Response to Homosexuality, Zondervan, 2010 Carol, Lewis, Alice through the Looking-Glass Davidson, Michael R., (with OCallaghan, Dermot), Out of Harms Way: Working Ethically with Same-Sex Attracted Persons, 2013 Gagnon, Robert, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2002 Goddard, A. / Harrison, G., Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction: Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support, CMF, 2011 Grenz, Stanley, Welcoming But Not Affirming, 1998 Hough, Stephen, An Equal Music, from The Way We Are Now, ed. Ben Summerskill, 2006 Jefferson, Thomas, Notes on The State of Virginia, 1781 Jones, Stanton L., & Yarhouse, Mark A., Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate, 2000 Kirk, Marshall / Madsen, Hunter, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, 1989 Lewis, C.S., Perelandra, 1943 Mcwhirter, David & Mattison, Andrew, The Male Couple 1984 Mohler, R. Albert, Desire and Deceit: The Real Cost of The New Sexual Tolerance, 2008 Nicolosi, Joseph , Dr., Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1997 OCallaghan, Dermot, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality2011 Paglia, Camille, Tramps and Vamps, 1944 Phillips, Melanie, All Must Have Prizes, 1998 Pratkanis, Anthony R. / Aronson, Elliot, Age of Propaganda, 2001. Prock, Pim, Against Nature; Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality, 1993 Schmidt, Thomas, Straight and Narrow? 1995 Wink, Walter, Homosexuality and Christian Faith, 1999 Willhoite, Michael, Daddys Roommate, 1991 (ages 2-5; can also be read on-line)


Articles, Interviews & Talks Aardweg, Gerald van den, Can Homosexuals Change? Catholic Exchange, 04/06/12 Ambrose, Elaine, South London Metropolitan Community Church, 2010 Anderson, Ryan T., The Big Same-sex Marriage Lie, New York Daily News, 05/05/13 Anon, Cheated by the Affirming Church, Christianity Today, 12/01/04 Ashey, Phil, American Anglican Council Update, 07/07/13 Ashey, Phil, Leading or Following? American Anglican Council News 29/08/13 Bilbrough, D., Let there be love shared amongst us. Birch, Elizabeth, Address given at the "Exposed" Conference, University of California, Santa Cruz (Feb. 7, 1998) Bode, J.E., O Jesus I have promised Bork, Robert, quoted in The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, NARTH Bulletin, April 1999 Bradford, J. et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62, 1994) Cervantes, Vincent, Queer Theology, blog.vincentcervantes.com Chalke, Steve, Christianity, Feb 2013 Chase, Gene B. Christian Scholar's Review, xxvi, 4, Summer 1997. Clark, Micah, American Family Association of Indiana, June 2013 Dailey, Dr. Timothy J., The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Family Research Council, 27/06/05 Dale, Iain, Attitude Magazine (Gay lifestyle magazine), 10/08/13 Deighan, John, The Undermining of The Family: Where Are We At? Faith Magazine, Dec 2007 Downs, Gregg, Christianity, Feb 2013 Ellis, Maggie, How do we minister to transgender people? Christianity, Feb 2013 Ettelbrick, Paula, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund: Religious Beliefs 2003 Ferguson, Ron, Scottish Review,18/12/12 Friedman, R., M.D. / J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, Spring l993 Frisch, Morten, / Hviid, Anders: Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes, 2005 Gessen, Masha, quoted in The Big Same-sex Marriage Lie, New York Daily News, 5/5/13 Gray, John, Christianity, Feb 2013

59

Greer, M., Labels May Oversimplify Women's Sexual Identity, Experiences in Monitor on Psychology, 2004 Harris, R.S. SSA in the Church, briefing paper for Anglican Mainstream, May 2012 Hensman, Savi, Journey Towards Acceptance: Theologians and Same-Sex Love, TitusOneNine weblog 27/10/12 Holmes, Michael, Homosexuality A Christian Response, Bethel University, Faculty Forum Vol 56.No 2 Holmes, Steve, Christianity, Homosexuality & Hermeneutics: Creating Counter-Cultural Communities EA, 15/01/13 Holton, Nicholas, Bp., Letter to Lord Ali, reported in the Telegraph, May 2013 Hough, Stephen, An Equal Music, The Tablet, April 2006 Johnson, A.M, / Wadsworth, J, / Wellings, K, / Field, J, Who goes to sexually transmitted disease clinics? 1996 Jones, Stanton D, Same-Sex Science, First Things (internet) 2012 Kinsey, Louis, coffeewithlouis.wordpres.com, 2013 Kirk, Marshall / Pill, Erastes, Overhauling of Straight America, in Guide Magazine, 1987 Koukl, Greg, Marriage is a Social Construction, Stand to Reason, str.org, 31/03/13 Kupelian, David, Why Conservatives Are Abandoning The Gay Issue, WND Commentary, 08/16/10 Kurtz, Stanley, Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road To Polyamory, WeeklyStandard.com, August, 2003 Lubin, Peter / Duncan, Dwight, Follow the Footnote or the Advocate as Historian of Same-Sex Marriage, 1998 Loder, James E, The Great Sex Charade and The Loss of Intimacy, 2001

60
Marks, L, Same-sex Parenting and Childrens Outcomes - Soc. Sci. Res. 41, 2012) Marcos, (Brazil) on HenryMaKow.com /2013/07) Marr, Andrew, 2006 cultural liberal bias BBC Mattheson, George. O Love that will not let me go McKellar, John, HOPE, Gays Dont Want Same Sex Marriage, August 2003 McKellar, John, quoted in Homofascists Silenced Gay Dissident John McKellar, henrymakow.com, 03/07/13 Miller, James, letter to The Herald, 23/5/13 Nicolosi, Joseph, My Old Friend, John Paulk, Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, 2009 O'Neil, Rebecca, Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, Civitas, 2002 Ould, Peter, peter-ould.net, 11/08/13 Ousley, Pamela D, Understanding the Deception of the Homosexual Identity, 2009 Paris, Jenell Williams, Homosexuality A Christian Response, Bethel University Peter, Fr. Val J, The Selling of Gayness in America Pomerai, David de, CEN letter, 2011 Prager, Dennis, Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage, townhall.com, 30/10/12 Queen James Bible, The, 2012 religioustolerance.org Reville, William, Gender Is Not A Social Construct, The Irish Times, 13/09/13 Robinson, Jean, Bp., Conversation on Marriage Debate, July 2012 Rotello, Gabriel, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, Penguin Group, 1998 Roundy, Bill, "STD Rates on the Rise," NYBN, Dec. 15, 2000 Rubio, Julie, Catholic Moral Theology, Symposium on SSM: Evolution? 26/5/12 Schowengerdt,Dale M., Defending Marriage, Regent University Law Review, 2002 Scott-Joynt, Michael, Bp., Foreword to God, Gays and the Church, 2008 Seagren, Barry, Homosexuality, Address, 1998 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Homosexuality, 2011 Steyn , Mark, Theres No Stopping Them Now: Chicago Sun Times, 07/13/03 Steyn, Mark, Gagging us Softly, SteynOnline, 29/08/11 Symes, Andrew, Anglican-Mainstream.net, 15/08/13) Tartaglia, Philip, Archbishop, Pastoral Letter, 2011 Tatchell, Peter, GLF Manifesto, 1971 Tippetts, Adrian, Pink News, 02/07/13 Turner, Janice, The Times, 4/5/13 Tushnet, Eve, Catholic Moral Theology, Symposium, 26/05/12 Veith, Gene Edward, Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 1994 Vitz, Paul C, The Father Almighty, Maker of Male and Female, art. In Touchstone, 2001 Washington Post poll, 2013 Welby, Justin, Archbishop, General Synod of the C of E, July 2013 Wildmon, Tim, Quoted in Is Polygamy Next? Koinonia House eNews, 2/7/13 Wilkins, Tim, "Sexual Orientation": How a Misnomer Has Become Mainstream, Family North Carolina Magazine, Mar/Apr 2008 Wilson, Andrew, Christianity, Feb 2013 Wright, Helen, Dr., reported in The Independent, 24/11/11 Xiridou, Maria, et alia, The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam, AIDS 17, 2003

 About the compiler:

61

Paul Burgess has ministered in both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland and is Prof. Emeritus of Gujranwala Theological Seminary, Pakistan, where he specialized in curriculum development, hermeneutics and study methods. He has written Hewn Stone (Handsel Press), a guide to the history of Carberry Tower, the former Church of Scotland Conference and Training Centre, where he was Warden, and has contributed to the Lion publication, The Message of the Bible, and more recently, Embracing Truth: Homosexuality and the Word of God (Handsel Press). He has posted material on the internet (Scribd.com) on How to Exegete Bible Passages, TE Curriculum, TE Bibliographies, and Same-sex Issues, and contributes occasionally to Anglican-Mainstream. He has launched biblefamilies.webs.com to promote Bible Families, an international fellowship that encourages families in Pakistan, America and the UK to pray and read together, using Selina Hastings Childrens Illustrated Bible.