Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality is an aberration. It was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders as a result of political pressure, rather than as a result of research. Robbie Dean covers this in the first myth about homosexuality.

Robbie Dean’s 4 Myths of Homosexuality

The myth that homosexuality is normal, healthy and desirable. Their view is: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured, we are normal, healthy and natural people." Contrary to that we have statements such as the biblical statement in Romans 1:24-32 which clearly states that homosexuality, whether it is male to male or woman to woman, is unnatural. Second, we have to recognize that every human being is distorted and warped by the fall. We don't have a right to look down our nose at others because of their sin. But what we do have a right to do is take a stand for what ought to be, what is the absolute, but in a non-judgmental manner. Third, just because something feels right doesn't make it right. Remember, to someone who was born blind, blindness seems normal. The Bible defines what normal is, not our feelings. So our conclusion is that homosexuality is not natural or normal.

In 1973, due to pressure form the gay rights movement, the American Psychiatric Association [APA] declassified homosexual activity as a mental disorder. Let's look at why they did that.

First of all in the three years leading up to that were marked by extreme protests, physical violence, disruptions, and chaos at the meetings of the APA. Intimidation was the rule. Finally in 1973 they mailed out a ballot to the 25,000 members of the APA and only twenty-five percent (about 6000) responded, and fifty-eight percent of those voted in favor of declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Dr. Charles Socarides, who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality had some interesting comments to make regarding this. He said: "Militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to psychopathology of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums. In other places he referred to the decision of 1973 as the "medical hoax of the century." (At the time he wrote this he has been involved in the study of homosexuality for over twenty years and was one of the nation's leading experts on homosexuality) In 1977, as a follow-up to the 1973 decision, ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, and sixty-nine per cent of those polled said that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation. Eighteen per cent of the members polled disagreed with that statement and thirteen per cent weren't sure.

Is homosexuality healthy? Only ten percent of homosexuals are relatively monogamous or, in terms of the Institute For Sex Research, relatively less promiscuous. Sixty per cent of homosexuals have more than two hundred and fifty lifetime sex partners. Twenty-eight per cent have more than a thousand lifetime sex partners. Seventy-nine per cent admit that more than half of their sex partners are strangers. Lesbians, though they are less promiscuous than males, are more volatile and unstable in their relationships. This does not fit anyone's definition of that which is healthy.

In contrast, the Bible says that any sexual activity outside of marriage is fornication and is a sin, and therefore is destructive. Sin by definition is self-destructive. There are forty-four references to fornication in the Bible, all in he context of describing it as sin. Homosexuality is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible in a positive context.

Congressman William Denemier made the comment that "if homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural then homosexuals must look at their own conduct in an entirely different light and explain it in less satisfying terms." This is the point. They keep pressing this issue that it is normal, healthy and desirable because if it is not then they have to do some serious self-examination. In arrogance, none of us like to do any self-examination. Our sins make us comfortable, thank you very much, and we just don't want to change. (I don't know why they get the right to legitimize their sins; I want to legitimize my sins!)

The myth that homosexuals are born that way. This is perhaps the most promoted widespread myth and the most erroneously held myth. There is, first of all, no evidence of a gay gene, none whatsoever. Just think about it: if there was a gay gene, and if homosexuality was inherited, it would have died out. This whole idea of a gay gene was allegedly substantiated by a 1991 study by Simon Levett who admits himself that he was biased in his analysis because he is a homosexual. It was a flawed study for a number of reasons. His research consisted of studying the brains of forty-one cadavers, including nineteen homosexual males. He found in his conclusion that a tiny area of the brain believed to control sexual activity was less than half the size in gay men than heterosexuals. This study was immediately seized upon as a reputable evidence that homosexuals are born gay, that there is something inherent and biological, and so it is not volitional and has nothing to do with environment, it has to do with their being born that way, they can't do anything about it. However, this whole study doesn't resolve anything because there wasn't enough data to determine whether or not the smaller hypothalamus was there at birth or whether it was the result of homosexual activity. Furthermore there were other problems indicated in the study. All nineteen of the homosexual men had died of AIDS. So what the smaller hypothalamus related to AIDS or sexuality. A second problem was that there was no way to know the sexual history of the alleged heterosexual men, some of them may have been bi-sexual. Third, there was no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamus's were the cause or the result of homosexuality. And finally, Dr. Levett admitted that it was not a dispassionate scientific study because he was homosexual himself.

Then there had been a twin study where identical twins were looked at who were both homosexual to see what the percentage of concordances where both of the twins are homosexual. William H. Master, co-director of the Masters and Johnston Institute well know for studies in sexuality, stated that the genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. John Decheko, professor of psychiatry at San Francisco State University, and also editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality, wrote in a 1989 USA Today article: "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish. Homosexuality is a behavior and not a condition and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits." This is from a homosexual. The twin studies were based on a study in 1991 by Bailey and Pellard and they admitted that there were methodological flaws in the study. The subjects they recruited were volunteers who volunteered through advertisements in homosexual journals, so there was a flawed study group to begin with. Other twin studies that have been done since then have failed to support their findings. They said that in 52% of the twins that they studied one was homosexual or both were homosexual, but nothing else has substantiated that number at all. Remember that if genetics were the determinate then the results would need to be one hundred per cent concordance because in identical twins they have the same exact DNA.

The myth that homosexuals make up ten per cent of the population. This has been quoted in periodicals and newspapers like USA Today-25-million Americans are homosexual; The Washington Times states, Ten per cent of men and five per cent of women are homosexual; The American Psychiatric Association said ten per cent of Americans are homosexual. Where do they get this number? It comes from a 148 study done by William Kinsey. In that study he looked at 5,300 subjects. Twenty-five per cent of those 5,300 participants in that study were prison inmates and forty-four per cent had had homosexual relations in prison. So it is a flawed study. Several hundred male prostitutes were also included in the study. So there was a loaded study group to begin with. Furthermore, his conclusion is really misstated. What he concluded was that ten per cent of white males were more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five. He doesn't conclude that ten per cent of American males are homosexual. His conclusion was vastly different from that but, as is typical of popular media, what you get is a distorted version of the conclusion that is popularized. In the years 1984 to 1988 there was the Forman study which concluded that only one point seven (1.7) percent of American males were homosexual. The University of Chicago in 1989 had a study which concluded that less than one per cent of American males were exclusively homosexual. (We have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine of the gay movement)

The myth that change is impossible. This just is not true. As believers we know that change is always possible. God is in the business of changing us from dirty rotten stinking sinners who are self-absorbed to believers who are mature and who bring their sin nature under control through walking by means of the Holy Spirit. The "fact" that change is impossible is contradicted by the large number of testimonials from ex-gays. We conclude that through the Spirit of God and the Word of God all sin can be dealt with. So we collapse the entire foundation for the gay rights agenda.

From Robby Dean’s Lessons on Genesis, Lesson #104, recorded September 13, 2005.

The chart below was taken, in part, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm a site which seems to reasonably present both sides of many religious issues. This chart gives us an overview of the two different interpretations being given to these passages.

The translation used in this table is the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, copyright © 1976-2000 by Jay P. Green.

Two Sets of Interpretations

Passage

Traditional interpretation by Orthodox Christianity

Common interpretation by Religious Liberals and Secularists

Genesis 19 This is the chapter where two angels of God go and destroy Sodom, Gomorrah and 3 other cities for their debauchery.

The implication is, same-sex sexual behavior leads to great degeneracy; and that resultant raping of strangers (which appears to be commonplace) is the reason why God will destroy these cities.

Condemns anal raping of strangers for the purpose of humiliation.

Leviticus 18:22 And you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is a perversion.

Condemns male same-sex sexual behavior, and is probably applicable to female homosexual behavior as well.

Condemns gay ritual sex in a pagan temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

All sex outside of marriage is condemned by the Bible; and certainly all of that connected with pagan rituals. This verse seems to be more basic than that. The latter suggestion of men having sex in a woman’s bed, put forth by some progressives, just seems silly to me.

Leviticus 20:13 And a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing, dying they shall die; their blood shall be on them.

Condemns male same-sex sexual behavior (although it may reasonably applied to female homosexual behavior). Death is prescribed for this transgression.

As above, this passage condemns gay ritual sex in a pagan temple and/or condemns males having sex in a woman's bed.

Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for even their females changed the natural use to that contrary to nature. And likewise, the males also forsaking the natural use of the female burned in their lust toward one another, males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving back within themselves the reward which was fitting for their error.

Condemns all male and female homosexual behavior as unnatural and shameful. This indicates that homosexual desires can be very strong. This entire passage will be exegeted later on in this study.

Describes a group of heterosexuals who, against their basic nature, engage in same-sex behavior during ritual orgies. The word which progressives often key in on is the word natural here, and they attempt to make the entire interpretation of this passage revolve around their interpretation of that word.

The progressive interpretation suggests that there is a basic sexual nature, which is not necessarily the case (male and female homosexuals commonly have sexual relations and relationships with those of the opposite sex). Studies have shown that, although there is likely a genetic component in homosexual actions, it is not determinative.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Although some conservative groups understand this to mean that sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell at death and that a person who is really saved will become a heterosexual. However, when taken with the verse that follows, many understand that these actions are wrong and typical of the actions of unbelievers. However, when a person is saved, he is cleansed of his sins by the blood of the Lamb. But being cleansed does not mean that he will never be tempted by this activity again; nor does it mean that homosexual activity will be resisted each and every time.

Many progressives understand that this passage refers to male child molesters, who will go to hell. The website that broke this down made it sound as if the children they molest will go to hell as well. The website suggests that this is a sticking point for some liberals.

1Timothy 1:8-10 And we know that the Law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully, knowing this, that Law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for lawless and undisciplined ones, for ungodly and sinful ones, for unholy and profane ones, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and if any other thing opposes sound doctrine,...

It is the Law which reveals to us that those named in this list have sinned against God.

Progressives believe that this refers to child molesters and some include in this, the children they molest.

Jude 1:6–7 And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.

The angels who sinned are being kept in everlasting chains of darkness to be saved for the final judgment of Rev. 20. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah will suffer the same fate.

Humans who have sex with other species -- angels in this case -- will go to hell at death.

These passages will all be covered in greater depth below. This is merely an outline of the views of orthodox Christianity and liberal theology.

This same website lists a number of more minor passages, with the “gay opinion” expressed as well. In each case, the orthodox understanding of the passage is the correct interpretation.

Hollywood movies and television try to sell heterosexuals on the idea that homosexuals are just like us, except that they prefer the same gender. This is not even close to the truth. In fact, there is a conscious attempt to suppress the truth of homosexual relationships and activities.

Uncomfortable Facts About Homosexuality

1)      There is an ongoing propaganda war about homosexual actions. It is nearly always presented as innate which can’t be changed, and the natural result of genetics (which things are not true). Men who are homosexual are generally portrayed, in the mass media, as men who were just born liking men. Other than that, they are just like us. Furthermore, the percentages of those who engage in homosexual activity are exaggerated. The way that homosexuality is presented is not an accident. It is intentional and it is propaganda. It is well-known among the politically active in the homosexual community that if you, a straight person, understand homosexuality as simply a result of genetics, then you are likely to believe that it is a valid lifestyle which should not be judged or looked down upon.

2)      At one time, homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness which psychologists and psychiatrists treated; However, this was removed as a mental illness as a result of political pressure by gay activists rather than by scientific research. What is particularly important about this is, it shows that there is a very aware, politically activist sub-group of homosexuals who recognized that this was the first step in getting homosexuality to be accepted as mainstream. Counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists who specialize in dealing with homosexuality are often ridiculed if they expect their patients to change their sexual orientation. This is important because this reveals the political savvy of homosexual activists.

3)      Although many cultural sources present homosexual attraction as simply something you are born with, studies, like Bailey & Pillard’s 1991 twin study (which has been replicated on several occasions) is that when one person of identical twins is homosexual, there is roughly a 50% chance his identical twin is also homosexual. Whereas, this is far above the norm, indicating that there are genetic factors involved; the correlation ought to be 100% if homosexuality is genetically innate. Or, to put it simply, there is no gay gene. However, just as there are genetic factors which can influence people to be alcoholics, the same is true of homosexual attraction.

4)      The percentage of those who identify themselves as homosexuals is around 2.8% of males and 1.4% of females. p. 54 of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (see below).

5)      The average number of long term partners for homosexuals is 50; the average number of long term partners for heterosexuals is 4. p. 54

6)      Homosexuals who are monogamous: <2%; heterosexuals who are monogamous: 83%. p. 54

7)      Given the difference between men and women, it is more likely that a homosexual coupling of women will be a monogamous relationship than a homosexual coupling of men. This does not mean that some homosexual men do not value or strive for a monogamous relationship; it simply means that men are men are men, no matter what their sexual preference. So, in practice, monogamy among homosexual males is nearly nonexistent.

8)      When McWhirter and Mattison published The Male Couple in 1984, their study was undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The authors themselves were a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist, the other a psychologist. After much searching they were able to locate 156 male couples in relationships that had lasted from 1 to 37 years. Two-thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. The results of their study show that of those 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than 5 years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. From Yahoo answers.

9)      Three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous, according to a limited study presented during the American Sociological Association conference held in Atlanta this week. Although the original study is difficult to find on the web, the results are cited in many places. The Family Research Council did an excellent article on marriages versus homosexual relationships.

10)    A 1978 study found that 43% of the male homosexuals have had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% have had sex with 1000 or more partners. 79% said that more than half of their partners were strangers and 70% of them were men that they had sex with only once. They key here is not the attraction but males souls interacting with other male souls. p. 55

11)    40% of homosexuals never use condoms with anal intercourse. p. 56

12)    When you put these things together, it is commonplace in a “committed” relationship not just to be unfaithful, but to be unfaithful with a stranger without a condom. A single act of unprotected sex with a 20–30 year old homosexual carries with it a transmission risk of AIDS of 1 in 165. p. 58

13)    A survey of 1001 adult homosexual and bisexual men revealed that 37% of them had been encouraged, coerced or forced into have sex with an older, more powerful person, 94% of whom were males. The median age at contact was 10; and the median age of difference is 11. p. 44

14)    Although it is common for homosexual groups and individuals to deny a relationship with males who prefer underage males, there is a constant attempt by the homosexual community to become involved with schools, either through bullying programs (which, in essence, promote homosexuality) or through reading materials designed for very young children. There is quite a push for counselors specifically for gay and maybe-I’m-gay students.

15)    Gay activists know that Ozzie and Harriet sells, so we are often sold a false picture of Ozzie and Harry.

         (1)     Therefore, when we are presented with the homosexual lifestyle, it is presented to us exactly as our own; the only difference is, Ozzie just likes guys and he always has. I recall an episode of Modern Family where the gay couple is having a jealous spat because one of them was friendly with another male—they smiled too nicely at each other or something along those lines. That’s not real. That is not a real problem in the gay community. The real problem is, the right kind of signals sent from one gay to another would mean a possible sexual encounter, not flirting.

         (2)     Let’s say, from a very early age, a male heterosexual could have sex nearly anytime he wanted to.

What sort of relationships would he have? How close would he be with his women friends, if, when Sue is mad, he can bed Mara? If Lonnie is busy, then Maria is available. Anyone who knows the nature of man recognizes that, many men would never grow up. They would spend as much time in the candy store as possible eating every piece of candy that they want. Getting married would be the farthest thing from their mind. In the homosexual world, that is the way it is. Both sides of a relationship, albeit a short relationship, are males. Therefore, even if they have breast implants, they are still males in their souls and they act just like a male would.

         (3)     So, when you watch reruns of Will and Grace and Will is looking for the right person just like Grace is, that is propaganda; it is not reality. Again, think about the male heterosexual. Let’s say there was a Will and Grace who married, and Will has opportunities, shall we say, available to him at all times from women; and Grace understands the male nature and not just tolerates it but expects it. That is what a male homosexual relationship would be like between Will and Grayson. Grayson knows that there are a number of men out there will to have a one-night-stand with Will; therefore, this is not just tolerated but it is expected. It is tolerated and expected by Grayson because he wants the same consideration. That is because they are both males.

         (4)     As one gay male put it, “It is easier to go out for a meal than to cook it at home.”

The Gay Liberation Front on Monogamy:

COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one 'right' partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over. It is inevitably a parody, since they haven't even the justification of straight couples-the need to provide a stable environment for their children (though in any case we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children.

Monogamy is usually based on ownership-the woman sells her services to the man in return for security for herself and her children-and is entirely bound up in the man's idea of property furthermore in our society the monogamous couple, with or without children, is an isolated, shut-in, up-tight unit, suspicious of and hostile to outsiders. And though we don't lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society's blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says 'we two against the world', and that can be protective and comforting. But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedy. Not that sexual fidelity is necessarily wrong; what is wrong is the inturned emotional exclusiveness of the couple which students the partners so they can no longer operate at all as independent beings in society. People need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow, and to learn about other human beings.

It is especially important for gay people to stop copying straight-we are the ones who have the best opportunities to create a new lifestyle and if we don't, no one else will. Also, we need one another more than straight people do, because we are equals suffering under an insidious oppression from a society too primitive to come to terms with the freedom we represent. Singly, or isolated in couples, we are weak-the way society wants us to be. Society cannot put us down so easily if we fuse together. We have to get together, understand one another, live together.

Two ways we can do this are by developing consciousness-raising groups and gay communes.

Our gay communes and collectives must not be mere convenient living arrangements or worse, just extensions of the gay ghetto. They must be a focus of consciousness-raising lie. raising or increasing our awareness of our real oppression} and of gay liberation activity, a new focal point for members of the gay community. It won't be easy, because this society is hostile to communal living. And besides the practical hang-ups of finding money and a place large enough for a collective to live in, there are our own personal hang-ups: we have to change our attitudes to our personal property, to our lovers, to our day-to day priorities in work and leisure, even to our need for privacy.

From: http://aflame.blog.co.uk/2010/07/07/the-myth-of-gay-monogamy-8930136/ which link covers more about open-relationships being the norm for gay couples, and not the exception. You will note that, the political homosexual movement is as much about depreciating/destroying marriage as it is about promoting homosexuality. We are dealing with a spiritual war in this world.

16)    Having a different approach to marriage, means that, many times a year, these committed couples will have sexual relationships outside of the marriage where they put themselves and their partner at risk for AIDS.

17)    One simple proof of the illegitimacy of long-term gay relationships is, there is no such thing as two virgin gay partners (that is, without any previous sexual experience) to become one. This used to be common in heterosexual relationships; that is, for a man and a woman to be sexually faithful to one another for their entire lives, prior to marriage and until death does them part. Although marriage between a male and a female virgin is less common today, it still occurs. Such a thing cannot occur for those who see themselves as gay. Two men never meet, fall in love, enter into a committed relationship, and then begin to have sex for the first time in their lives. However, this does happen among heterosexuals; unfortunately, not as often as it should (as that is God’s plan).

Most of these stats have come out of Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s excellent and highly recommended book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth; ©1996, A Hamewith Book. In those cases, the page number will be noted above. The studies are all cited within this book and most or all of them can be found on the internet.

This ought to make a person ask, if there is little or no fidelity in a gay relationship, then why gay marriage? Why push for an institution that shares little in common with a heterosexual union?

Why Gay Marriage?

1)      We straight people are sold a bill of goods when it comes to gay marriage. We think that Ozzie and Harry just want a life like Ozzie and Harriet.

2)      In nearly any medium-sized city, Ozzie and Harry can find a church that will marry them; they can have a big to-do wedding, and some of their friends and relatives will recognize this as a marriage and some will not. In other words, they can get a religious marriage and a socially recognized marriage. Gays are not interested in this; what they want is a legal marriage, seen by the law as exactly equal to a heterosexual relationship in the eyes of the law. Whether this is done in a church or whether those of their friends and family go along with it is secondary. That has been available to gays for a decade or more in the United States.

3)      The things which we hear cited, like visitations in hospitals, inheritance of property, etc. can usually be solved with a legal agreement. Since a domestic partnership is an option in most states, the paperwork already exists to deal with all of these issues. Not only were they minor issues to begin with—for a small minority of a small minority (married gays within the gay community), but they are issues which have been, for all intents and purposes, solved.

4)      Gay marriage is a political foothold, not a dream come true, for most gays.

5)      If gay marriage is legal, then they can force public schools to treat gayness no differently than heterosexuality; and this means exposure to children at the youngest age of the idea of Bill and Ted marriages; Bill and Ted forever relationships; Bill and Ted meet, fall in love, marry, and live happily ever after. It does not matter if such a relationship is atypical with gay men.

6)      If gay marriage is legal, gays can use hate crimes legislation in order to shut churches down if they teach what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. So there is no confusion, it does not matter who wins these cases. Gay legal activists find that suing can be very effective in order to get what they want, even if there is a good chance they will lose in court. The legal action alone can bankrupt a church. Many churches have begun to incorporate in order to protect themselves from these and other lawsuits.

7)      Similarly, gay legal activists can and will sue private businesses. Let’s say a Christian couple does photography or they are wedding planners because this is their life’s calling. They will not be able to deny doing business with a gay couple simply because they are gay. Again, they can and will be sued. Even if they win the suit, this can force them out of business because of the additional litigation costs.

8)      What does a male Lothario want? More willing female partners. What do male homosexuals desire? More willing partners. When we are sold the bill of goods that homosexuals are simply born this way and it is genetic, there are two things they accomplish with this lie: (1) we tend to be less judgmental if we believe this is completely a genetic predisposition and (2) we worry less about the corruption of young children because we believe that they are either born homosexual or heterosexual. It is not difficult to imagine a state-mandated gay counselor in every public school to deal strictly with gay issues; and counseling children before they reach puberty and while reaching puberty. Many males experience some same sex attraction or same sex dreams; and these things does not make a person a homosexual, but a state-mandated sponsor can exploit these things, and get paid for it. Males being what they are, what would happen if, young males just reaching puberty, have their first sexual experience with another male? Do you think that might affect them? This does not mean that every single male will be in danger of this occurring, but, since male homosexuals make up 2.8% of the population, it does not take too many confused young children (and how many children are not confused?) to double that number at a young age. Males have been seduced by males with breast implants made up to look like women (some look better than others) and young boys in puberty have been seduced by males with pornography. This sort of thing happens all of the time. This is one way that homosexuals engage other males into homosexual acts. Gay marriage would bring more gay programs into the schools, which means more potential liaisons for gays. They are not looking for a long-term partner or more committed homosexuals; just more partners.

9)      Let me offer you a parallel political situation. Far left liberals believe that healthcare ought to be a right and that a single-payer system is what our country needs (that is, the government simply picks up the tab, and we pay higher taxes to support this system). However, almost no politician will speak openly about a single-payer system because this will not get enough votes; so they sell expansions of medicare and medicaid; and they sell Obamacare. The latter is designed to move us toward single-payer, as it will drive most insurance companies out of business and it will cause many businesses to simply drop their medical insurance coverage. We’re sold on one system, but that is not the end game. We end up getting a system designed to move us toward a single-payer system. The same is true of gay issues: we are being sold on the idea of gay marriage as if this is the end game, but it is nowhere close to the end game. It is a legal foothold. It is a legal stepping stone.

If you don’t think that sexually-charged men will do whatever it takes to expand the number of willing sexual partners out there, then you just don’t know what men are like.

There are believers in Jesus Christ who struggle with their lusts. Some Christians who are drawn to the same gender do not believe that their lusts can be sinful, often because their desires seem so strong or natural. Therefore, they try to justify succumbing to their own desires. I don’t know if they understand that other believers also have lusts that they struggle with, or that they think their lusts are okay, because they feel natural.

Elaine from GayChurch.org Discusses Rom. 1:21–32

In Romans, we are introduced to a group of people who knowingly reject God. From this point on their lives begin to spiral downward and they commit all sorts of sins. One of which is turning away or "exchanging" what is "natural" to them for that which is "unnatural".

    Romans 1:21-31 (NAS)

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful."

The problem of course is, what is "natural"? The word "natural" comes from two Greek words phusikos (Strong's #5446) and phusis (Strong's #5449). These words literally mean that which is a persons "natural disposition" and something that comes "instinctively" to them. In other words, it is who you are naturally; without reprogramming, counseling, or any other form of behavioral modification that attempts to change your behavior to that which society has deemed acceptable.

It's not easy accepting yourself as a gay person. Like most everyone else who has come to terms with this issue. I fought the idea for years. This problem was only compounded by the fact that I was a Christian and had been taught that homosexuality was some sinful "choice" that I had made along the way.

She then tells her own personal story, which includes the line: Making love with Bill would be such an unnatural act for me that I would have to harden my heart in order to survive. Bill was a man she loved very much, but was not sexually attracted to. The conclusion, of course, is, her being with a woman is natural, and therefore, it is okay.

It has been my experience that most gay Christian churches take this approach; they often believe in Jesus Christ, but they do not want to treat homosexual behavior as sin. Because they have had homosexual desires for a long time, such believers (assuming they are believers) simply seek to justify having and acting on their lusts.

We have a similar approach by various cults, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses: they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, so, they are trained to go through all of the divinity passages found in the Word of God, and to offer up an alternate explanation. Now, if there were one or two alternate explanations, and the verse actually meant something after it has been explained away, that is one thing; however, it becomes clear after 5 or 6 or 10 passages that they simply reject the divinity of Jesus Christ, and are doing anything that they can to explain it away.

http://www.gaychurch.org/gay_and_christian_yes/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7d_gac_clobber_passages_what_is_natural.htm accessed July 10, 2012.

On the other hand, there are some who are homosexuals who recognize that the Bible does not support homosexuality.

Here is a view related to American law; but not directly related to the Bible.

Gay Marriage versus Natural Marriage and the Law (in a nutshell)

Sometimes the government favors an institution (marriage, churches, a free press) which is good for society at large, and this favoritism can be manifest in a number of different ways. Because marriage is the best place for a child to be raised, our government has, on occasion, given some tax breaks to a married couple or to a married couple with kids. Federal or state recognition of marriage is intended for the benefit of families and children; and as a recognition of a long-standing institution going back to the beginning of mankind. This is NOT done because natural marriage unions have DEMANDED this recognition; it is because marriage and family BENEFIT society.

Gay marriage advocates are not arguing that they benefit society; statistically, they do not. That is a door they do not want to open. Instead, their approach is, there are some benefits which natural marriages sometimes enjoy (NOT always; sometimes there is the "marriage tax"); and those in gay relationships are somehow losing out because of this (it is akin to roommates demanding the same privileges enjoyed by married people; roommates do not necessarily benefit society in any way, but they can certainly claim that those who are married are receiving some benefits which they do not receive).

Furthermore, if pro-homo types gain state or federal recognition, then they can use this club to attack churches and religions who brand homosexual acts as sinful.

This "club" which they would have will allow gay advocates to FORCE people, businesses and even churches to associate with them; and, at the same time, forbid people, businesses and even churches from saying anything negative about what gay practitioners choose to do. That is the end game (gay marriage is not the end game; it is merely a legal stepping stone—like civil unions were).

This was taken from a discussion on facebook; it is illustrative of the liberal approach to gay marriage.

Informal Discussion on Gay Marriage

[Argument for gay marriage]

Gay marriages DO benefit society just as traditional marriages benefit society. Marriage fosters commitment, stability and social capital. You say statistics do not bear this out. What is the source of your statistics? Gay marriages work exactly the same way as traditional marriages. You speak of "natural marriages" but being gay IS natural to someone gay. Being gay is not a choice - could you chose to be gay? Of course not. It works the same way in reverse. Gays are not solely advocating for the "marriage tax," rather they are advocating for the same privileges conferred on hetero couples such as:

1) A legally binding commitment

2) Hospital visitation rights

3) Family health insurance coverage

4) Inheritance rights

5) Tax benefits

6) Child custody and spousal/child support

However, the primary reason for wanting to get married is LOVE. It is really that simple. They LOVE their betrothed and want to commit. Who is telling you that the gay `agenda' is to force people into socializing with them and squashing dissent? That is simply not true and frankly sounds mendacious and homophobic (by someone clearly with an agenda).

My best friends in life have been gay men. I absolutely adore them. They add zest, comedy, and interest to a panoply of `homo' sapiens. Some people like mayo and some people like curry. I'm a curry kind of girl. I guess you are in the mayo camp?

[my response]

Homosexual acts do not benefit society; and gay marriages are not the same as natural marriages. Do you need the medical info?

Your list is not a list of rights.

Why are roommates not given the exact same benefits as married people? Are you anti-roommate? Are you a roommate-a-phobe?

If a brother and sister live together; or two sisters live together, do you propose that they receive these "rights" as well?

And obviously, if two gays define what marriage is, why not polygamy? Do they not deserve the same "rights"?

And if you know anything about the gay movement, you know that "marriage equality" is not the end game (just like civil unions were not the end game).

And if you don't think there is an agenda, then you have not really studied the gay movement objectively. What they have done has been quite measured and step-by-step.

Two questions for you: (1) what is the typical number of sexual partners for a gay man and (2) what was the first "political" move of the gay movement? Can you answer those two questions without google?

Btw, have you ever read this? The Communist Takeover of America — 45 Declared Goals.

Here are 4 of the goals:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Much of the agenda sounds like the "curry" lifestyle to me

The gay community is attempting to get its tentacles into everything. In case there is any confusion, all of these “points” are false and reflect the thinking of evil.

10 Biblical Based Reasons to Support LGBT Christians

(as taught The Reformation Project)

(however, the new-man Christian should understand these 10 reasons as 10 old-man rationales used as evil principles to support the evil practices of LGBT Christians)

1.      Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that good trees bear good fruit, but the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships has caused tremendous, needless suffering to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

2.      Sexual orientation is a new concept, one the Christian tradition hasn’t addressed. Many Christians draw on our faith’s traditions to shape our beliefs, but the concept of sexual orientation is new. Before recent decades, same-sex behavior was understood along the lines of gluttony or drunkenness—as a vice of excess anyone might be prone to—not as the expression of a sexual orientation. The Christian tradition hasn’t spoken to the modern issue of LGBT people and their relationships.

3.      Celibacy is a gift, not a mandate. The Bible honors celibacy as a good way of living—Jesus was celibate, after all—but it also makes clear that celibacy must be a voluntary choice made by those who have the gift of celibacy. Requiring that all gay people remain celibate because their sexuality is “broken” is at odds with the Bible’s teachings on celibacy.

4.      Sodom and Gomorrah involved an attempted gang rape, not a loving relationship. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is commonly assumed to have been the result of God’s wrath against homosexuality, but the only form of same-sex behavior described in the story is an attempted gang rape—nothing like the loving, committed relationships that are widespread today. The Bible explicitly condemns Sodom for its arrogance, inhospitality, and apathy toward the poor, but never for same-sex behavior.

5.      The prohibitions in Leviticus don’t apply to Christians. Leviticus condemns male same-sex intercourse, but the entire Old Testament law code has never applied to Christians in light of Christ’s death. Leviticus also condemns eating pork, rabbit, or shellfish, cutting hair at the sides of one’s head, and having sex during a woman’s menstrual period—none of which Christians continue to observe.

6.      Paul condemns same-sex lust, not love. Like other ancient writers, Paul described same-sex behavior as the result of excessive sexual desire on the part of people who could be content with opposite-sex relationships. He doesn’t have long-term, loving same-sex relationships in view. And while he describes same-sex behavior as “unnatural,” he also says men having long hair goes against nature, and most Christians read that as a reference to cultural conventions.

7.      The term “homosexual” didn’t exist until 1892. Some modern Bible translations say that “homosexuals” will not inherit the kingdom of God, but neither the concept nor the word for people with exclusive same-sex attraction existed before the late 19th century. While the Bible rejects lustful same-sex behavior, that isn’t close to a condemnation of all gay people and relationships.

8.      Marriage is about commitment. Marriage often involves procreation, but according to the New Testament, it’s based on something deeper: a lifelong commitment to a partner. Marriage is even compared to the relationship between Christ and the church, and while the language used is opposite-sex, the core principles apply just as well to same-sex couples.

9.      Human beings are relational. From the beginning of Genesis, human beings are described as having a need for relationship, just as God himself is relational. Sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person, and to condemn LGBT people’s sexuality outright damages their ability to be in relationship with all people—and with God.

10.    Faithful Christians are already embracing LGBT brothers and sisters. From denominations like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA) to organizations like the Gay Christian Network and the Reformation Project, Christians across the country are already putting their commitment to LGBT equality in action. They’re showing their fellow believers what it looks like to be a faithful Christian who fully affirms LGBT Christians.

This was emailed to me from Jim Brettell on July 30, 2015.

This answers the article above.

A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need

By Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon

PICTURE YOURSELF IN A WORSHIP SERVICE

The scene was familiar: a church filled with joyful Christians, singing well-known hymns, praising God with arms outstretched, enjoying beautiful, bountiful fellowship with each other.

There was one significant difference, though, between this gathering and one you probably attend.

All the participants were either homosexual or “gay affirming.”

Plus, they’re on a mission to change your mind and your congregation’s theology about homosexuality.

THE REFORMATION PROJECT

It’s being called a new Reformation, but this is a reformation the Church does not need.

These people are organized, serious, and single-minded—and you need to be ready for them, because and they are coming to your church.

The Reformation Project (TRP), founded by Matthew Vines, is one of a number of organizations in this movement hosting conferences around the country.

TRP’S MISSION

Their mission: “We are dedicated to training LGBT Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity through the teaching of the Bible.”

TRP’S STATEMENT OF FAITH

TRP’s statement of faith is standard Evangelical fare, including a commitment to “the inspiration of the Bible, the Word of God…the Triune God… [Jesus’] death for our sins, His resurrection and eventual return…and the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.”

TRP’S CONFERENCES

(revisionist pro-gay theology)

Their conferences engage all the relevant Scriptures and standard challenges to the gayfriendly view.

Drawing from the writings of legitimate scholars, they teach the conferees hermeneutics and theology combined with tactically clever and rhetorically compelling talking points.

Then they role-play the responses in a winsome and attractive way.

It’s essentially a Stand to Reason for revisionist pro-gay theology (another way of saying, old-man belief supported by an old-man rationale).

TRP’S CLEVER TWIST

TRP’s approach adds a clever twist, though.

Vines knows that an appeal to Scripture alone will not convince today’s Christian.

Believers also need a subjective prod.

To make his view most appealing, then, Vines wants to make sure every non-gayaffirming Christian has a pleasant encounter with a gay person, especially a “gay Christian”—to overcome what might be called the “ick” factor—the discomfort many feel about homosexuality chiefly because they have no gay family or friends.

This personalized approach is powerful. It’s easy to stigmatize and demonize the unfamiliar.

Even stalwart fundamentalists, though, frequently change their view once they discover, for example, a family member identifies as gay.

AN OLD-MAN RATIONALE

“Not that Kind of Homosexuality”

The current revisionist approach (The Reformation Project) seeks to simplify an apparently complex textual issue by making a single, uncomplicated point:

The kind of same-sex behavior condemned in the Bible is not what modern-day LGBT Christians practice.

THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED ON A SELECTIVE USE OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FROM ANCIENT NEAR EAST CULTURE

THE CULTURAL DISTANCE ARGUMENT

This is the “cultural distance argument,” (an old-man rationale used to support the old-man belief ) the claim that ancient same-sex behavior was exploitive, abusive, and oppressive—completely unlike the caring, committed, covenantal unions promoted by gay Christians today.

Scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality are said to apply only to the harsh and unjust practices, not to loyal, loving, same-sex intimacy.

OLD-MAN RATIONALE

This is an old-man rationale used to support the old-man belief that the Bible condemns homosexual practices that are expoitive, abusive, and oppressive, but permits homosexual practice that demonstrates a caring. Committed, covenantal union.

This old-man rationale must be viewed as an old-man rationale and must be rejected as an evil distortion of Scripture, when in fact, God condemns every form of homosexual relationship and practice.

This was emailed to me from Jim Brettell on July 30, 2015.

There are a number of people who think that the Bible is the only reason why people are against homosexual activity or gay marriage. Reasons why gay marriage is problematic for society, apart from Scripture.

The Negative Side of Homosexuality

1.      Homosexual acts are unhealthy, physically and mentally. Homosexual acts do not benefit society, but statistically are harmful to a society.

         1)      “It is unhealthy physically” is covered under Symptoms.

         2)      Suicide is much more common among LGB youth. In fact, in the US, gay teens are 5x more likely to attempt suicide. 30% of gay youths attempt suicide (this seems high to me).

         3)      These suicide rates are high even in more accepting European countries.

2.      Homosexuality is an aberration of nature; it is unnatural. Because of all the propaganda, people do not grasp this simple concept. Somewhere between 1–3% of people self-identify as homosexual; a much smaller percentage are exclusively homosexual. What makes something unnatural is, a very small percentage of people engage in that behavior.

3.      Homosexual advocacy groups continually try to place their agenda before children too young to even process what homosexuality is.

4.      Gays push hard to get their agendas into the public schools system. They write books, even for grammar school children, and push anti-bullying campaigns, which is another gay agenda approach. The next big push will be for gay-specific counselors for struggling gay children. A result of this, will be more experimentation among young people, who might not have experimented before. It is important to understand how fragile and easily confused a young person is; and how much authority figures can affect them. Obviously, there are some children who would never engage in homosexual actions; however, there are a considerable number who can be made to think, maybe I’m really a homosexual. After all, the gay propaganda has a huge percentage of Americans thinking this is strictly a genetic thing and there is nothing which can be done about it. If a large portion of the American population can be made to think that, then how much easier is it to confuse a young child.

5.      Why would we want to encourage young people to engage in behavior which is demonstrably shown to be unhealthy? The more that homosexuality is accepted, the more experimentation will be accepted. This experimentation can lead to a lifetime of homosexual activity, exposure to life-changing diseases, and possibly emotional and mental problems as a result.

6.      Homosexuality in practice tends to function more like addictive behavior than as an expression of natural desire.

7.      In all cultures and countries, when there is any acceptance at all of gay behavior and gay marriage, then they begin to file lawsuits, particularly against Christians who do not want to participate in gay weddings. They never go after large establishments (Kroger’s or Walmart), but they always go after small businesses run by Christians, often targeting them intentionally for ruin. Whether they win or lose is not the issue; the lawsuit by itself harms the owners of the businesses.

8.      To speak frankly, males are males are males; and when a man has developed a physical attraction to other men, then the next step is to increase the number of partners. If one can understand how a heterosexual male, if unrestrained, might engage in sex with a hundred different women; grasp how a homosexual male would be with willing partners. Therefore, increasing the number of willing partners is a goal many male homosexuals would have.

9.      

There are a lot of non-religious reasons to oppose STATE-RECOGNIZED same-sex marriage. (1) Their message to begin with is dishonest. Gay marriage is not illegal; it is not recognized by some states. BIG difference. (2) In every nation in the world, one man/one woman + children is the standard family (even under godless communism). So, what is the pressing reason to change this? (3) EVERY TIME same-sex marriages are state-recognized, they begin suing small Christian businesses. (4) The homosexual movement has, for decades, tried to get into grammar schools, Disneyland and the boys scouts. They have been writing pro-gay literature for 5 and 6 year olds. I don't want anyone telling a child of mine that it is okay if they want to experiment and find out who they really like.

All of the things listed above are detrimental to society. This is why gays never pursue their agenda by claiming that they are beneficial to society.

Although this is not a complete, word-by-word exegetical study, this should be in enough depth to give the context as well as a reasonable understanding of each verse.

The Exegesis of Romans 1:16–32

Scripture

Text/Commentary

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the Greek.

Paul is writing to the Romans, and he makes it clear that he is not ashamed or embarrassed about teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is, we are all saved by faith in Jesus Christ. This gospel went to the Jew first and then to the Greeks.

Rom 1:17 For in it is revealed God's righteousness from faith to faith. As it is written, "But the righteous shall live by faith." (Habak. 2:4b)

As we believe more doctrine, more of God’s righteousness is reveled to us. Righteous here refers to those who have believed in Jesus Christ (see Gen. 15:6). Faith to faith indicates that we believe doctrine, and that opens up more truth to us. Our daily life is based upon faith. We do not simply go to church and listen; we have to go to church and believe what we hear. That is essential to spiritual growth.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

God’s wrath is both revealed here in the eternal sense, that people who do not believe in Jesus Christ will face the eternal wrath of God; but there is also the temporal wrath of God—where individuals, groups and nations are under the wrath of God in time. Sodom and Gomorrah would be an example of such wrath; Jerusalem in a.d. 70 is another example of such wrath.

There are those who do everything that they can to suppress accurate teaching. We see that in the political climate in the United States where there are groups who work to shut down Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. There is a similar enthusiasm to shut down the teaching of truth. Schools were founded to teach the Bible; but it is nearly impossible to find Bible teaching in public schools, even though court decisions will allow for such a thing to occur.

Rom 1:19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them.

Knowledge of God is found in all men.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

God has designed for there to be parallels in our lives, things and relationships which we are involved with every day, which reveal the invisible things of God. Those who reject God are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.

Rather than recognizing and glorifying God, such people have become self-centered in their thinking, and they develop scar tissue on their souls.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

These are people who claim to be brilliant, but in this claim, are fools.

Rom 1:23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.

Instead of glorifying God, they glorify images.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves,

God therefore gives these people up to the lusts of their thinking, so that restraints to their behavior are removed. They dishonor themselves with their bodies.

Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

They have chosen to believe that which is false rather than to believe that which is true; and, therefore, they worship and serve the creature, who here, would be Satan.

Rom 1:26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.

God gives such people over to their vile passions. The natural function of a woman is in response to her right man; and for most, making a home for their family. However, this nature becomes corrupted.

Vile passions is made up of two words: the noun is the neuter noun pathos (πάθος) [pronounced PATH-oss], which means, 1) whatever befalls one, whether it be sad or joyous; 1a) spec. a calamity, mishap, evil, affliction; 2) a feeling which the mind suffers; 2a) an affliction of the mind, emotion, passion; 2b) passionate deed; 2c) used by the Greeks in either a good or bad sense; 2d) in the NT in a bad sense, depraved passion, vile passions. Thayer definitions only. Strong’s #3806. It is modified by the feminine noun atimia (ἀτιμία) [pronounced at-ee-MEE-ah], which means, dishonour, ignominy, disgrace. Thayer definitions only. Strong’s #819. God gives them up to or over to their vile passions, their depraved passions, their disgraceful passions.

The weird homosexual interpretation of this is, this describes a group of heterosexuals who, against their basic nature, engage in same-sex behavior during ritual orgies. Whereas Paul appears to be giving this passage a great deal of time and thought, and applying it to those who have given themselves over to homosexual lusts (a wider application would be to any sort of sexual lust outside of marriage), others twist and distort this passage to apply to such a small, tiny group of people that it seems foolish to spend this amount of time on it. Does this interpretation say that ritual orgies are okay, as long as you have a natural desire to engage in them? It is obvious that their weird interpretations are an attempt to remove the sinfulness from homosexual activity. Sorry—that just cannot be done.

Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

Men also turn away from women—from the natural desire for a woman—and these men burn in lust for one another, doing that which is wrong and receiving punishment for this wrongdoing.

Rom 1:28 Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate [= unfit, unapproved] mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

They refuse to consider God or to keep Him in their thinking, so God gives them over to a reprobate mind to do things which are not proper for men to do.

Key to the sinful activities listed below is a person refusing to have God in his thinking. They do not consider God’s standards; they do not consider God’s laws.

Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers,

Their souls become filled with unrighteousness, sexual immorality, and a host of other sins and temptations to sin.

Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

They talk about others behind their backs, they hate God, they are insolent, boastful, disobedient to parents, and they design and make things which are evil.

Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

They do not have a reasonable understanding of the world and their place in the world; they sign contracts and then they violate these contracts; they do not have natural affection (e.g., a father or mother toward their child). They do not forgive and they are unmerciful.

For homosexuals, which is what this study is about, they substitute their lusts for natural affection. This is how two men in a “committed relationship” can periodically go out and have sex with strangers, even though this could infect themselves and their “significant other.”

Rom 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

Not only do they do things which they know are wrong and worthy of death, but they practice these things regularly and give approval to others who practice such things.

Although this passage clearly deal with far more than homosexuality, the words found within this passage clearly refer to homosexual activities.

Robbie Dean on Same-Sex Marriage

1)      The idea of same-sex marriage is an attempt to meet legitimate needs, i.e. we all have needs for acceptance, approval, affection, love relationship, in illegitimate and ungodly ways. It is never the job of law to substantiate that which is evil.

2)      Secondly, homosexuals are outside of God's created intention for sex. There is a complimentary facet to the male-female soul and the male-female body. Just one example of this if you hadn't thought about it. When God lowered the boom in the curse and explained the different dynamics of the results of sin, the impact of sin on he woman was different from the impact of sin on the man. That had to do with the fact that the woman's soul is different from the male soul. So God has designed marriage to be one man and one woman because of the way He designed men and women.

3)      Marriage is an earth-bound illustration of Christ and the church. In Christ and the church there are two different entities, they are not the same entity.

4)      According to Romans chapter one the worship of the creature, even as that works itself out in illicit, unnatural sexual activity, is a form of idolatry. Romans 1:18ff. Same-sex relations are destructive and dangerous. Study after study after study documents this. It is unhealthy for society. What the proponents are trying to do is maintain a façade of normalcy and legitimacy. By legitimizing same-sex unions they want the sanction of law that their sins are just fine. And the next step is that anyone who says that homosexuality is a sin is going to be guilty of hate speech or some kind of criminal speech that won't be protected by law.

5)      The homosexual marriage and the homosexual lifestyle is not parallel to heterosexual lifestyle. In heterosexual marriages 57% last over 20 years. There is stability there and that is the purpose for marriage-to provide stability and the context for promotion and teaching of values to the next generation. Homosexual relationships average two to three years in length and only five per cent last over 20 years. They are incredibly unstable. Seventy per cent of men are faithful in a heterosexual marriage; eighty-eight per cent of women are faithful in a heterosexual marriage. But homosexual relationships are characterized by promiscuity and they have hundreds of sexual partners over a lifetime. In a heterosexual marriage the man and the woman are committed, and they are faithful and stable. In homosexual relationships men have traditionally three to five outside partners. (In Holland it is eight) In those who have been together for more than five years not one has been completely monogamous. In lesbian relationships they are volatile, there is domestic and emotional violence which is characteristic, and usually in the background of various lesbians.

Pastor Dean adds this: Quote from Reverend Troy Perry who is the founder of the Metropolitan Community Church which the largest homosexual church in America. This was in an interview in the Dallas Morning News: "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses. We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. You are honest about the other men in your life as well. Because we can't marry we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there is no deception. Each couple has to decide." So there is no such thing as monogamy or faithfulness, and they twist the meaning of these terms.

This is commonly done by liberals and socialists—they take terms which have one general meaning and tweak it or change it in order to sell that concept. Most recently, in politics, President Obama refers to federal spending as investments. An example of these sorts of investments has been in green energy, many of which were run or partially owned by Obama supporters or bundlers; and many of which went broke. However, we are told that this is a matter of investing and some investments pay off and some do not. Those on the left love to play similar word games as this.

Just as President Obama used green energy companies to funnel money back to his supporters, so homosexual activists have used bullying programs to get their message into the public schools (and using bullying programs gives them access to all ages of children).

From Robby Dean’s Lessons on Genesis, Lesson #104, recorded September 13, 2005.

When originally exegeting this passage (and others with David and Jonathan), it never occurred to me for an instant that these are gay men. However, this is a very popular theme in the gay community. The gay movement has two approaches to the Bible: (1) They hate it and they hate Christians and they do everything in their own power to cause harm or pain to believers; or (2) they attempt to coopt the Bible, and claim that there are many gay relationships found in Scripture. This is the one most often (and more incorrectly) cited.

Gays Distort the Relationship between David and Jonathan

This is taken from Religious Tolerance, written by Anthony Ashford, and accessed September 3, 2015.

David and Jonathan's Relationship:

On the Surface:

Our second pair of gay lovebirds, who most Study Bibles call “besties” instead, is King David and Jonathan.

The Whole Story (with some insight sprinkled in):

First, Jonathan got googly-eyed over David and instantly became “one spirit with David” when they first met. Then, Jonathan gives this man from a different royal family his most important possessions: his sword, his bow, and even the clothes on his back. (1 Samuel 18: 1-4)

Next, David left his own family to stay with Jonathan and his father King Saul. What was that about "man leaving his father and mother to cleave to his wife?"

Then, between chapter 19 and 20 of 1 Samuel, Saul attempts to kill David numerous times (while vicious, King Saul knew that David and his family might usurp his authority and one day reign his family's kingdom), but Jonathan instead protects his love, even though killing David would ensure Jonathan’s family’s reign would last.

Jonathan and David meet up after a terrible tragedy, and Jonathan makes a “covenant” before the Lord, that they will be together as (Bible’s interpretation) “sworn friends” and our families will be one together for forever. (1 Samuel 20: 40-41) (I don’t know about you, but, to me, that sounds like a wedding vow.)

Finally, long after Saul and Jonathan’s deaths, King David laments his love in the beginning of 2 Samuel, saying that “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” (Verse 26) King David even keeps his promise and does the unthinkable for a king, by raising Jonathan's child as his own.

I don’t know ANYONE can spin that verse right there into saying that “David and Jonathan had the coolest platonic bromance in the Bible.”

I also had an online discussion with a gay man, who made this same assertion, and his point was, David and Jonathan made a covenant together, so that meant that they were married, because marriage is a covenant between two people.

Let’s just take this in points:

1.      Nearly every male can speak to a close, non-sexual relationship which he has had with another male. This is normal. This is called friendship. It has existed since time immemorial. I recently exchanged, “I love you, man” with a friend of mine, where we have been friends for over 50 years. We discuss nearly everything under the sun. We like seeing one another and we like hanging out. We don’t have sex. Not only is this the norm for male friendships, but this is probably 90–99% of the way the male friends relate to one another. We can have deep feelings for one another, which does not include even a whit of physical attraction. I have had similar close relationships with perhaps 3 or 4 other men in my lifetime. It is common for the relationships to begin when men are young (in their teens). It is not unusual for these relationships to last for decades. And it is not unusual for these relationship to be non-touching, except for a handshake and sometimes a hug upon seeing one another first the first time in a year or three.

2.      When a man does not understand this kind of relationship (like the person who wrote the article above or the person I chatted with), he is in the minority. He is in a very small minority. This is completely an experiential thing, but talk to 10 men, and 9 or 10 of them will confirm that these relationships exist.

3.      Is it possible to prefer your best friend over your wife? Of course. It happens all of the time. Secondly, David had a shaky marriage to Saul’s daughter, but a good friendship with Jonathan. Therefore, him saying, in a eulogy, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.” (2Sam. 1:26b; ESV), is not unusual. This simply describes David at a very emotional time, remembering his friend Jonathan.

4.      Mr. Ashford says that Jonathan was all googly-eyed about David, as if he has some crush on David. This notion is inserted by Ashford and not found in the text. Did Jonathan look up to David; did he respect him? The text indicates that. I recall playing football in P.E. with a older kid named Ed Nagle. I was probably the worst play on the team, and Ed threw me a touchdown pass. I admired him; I respected him for doing that. I did not have a crush on him; I was not all googly-eyed over him.

5.      Giving some of your possessions to a friend in need is normal behavior; it is not a prelude to a homosexual relationship. Ashford has taken normal actions, normal words, normal feelings, and has inserted his own gay thinking into them. This is not exegesis; this is simply trying to take a series of passages and read into them what is simply not there.

6.      David was asked to stay at the palace to play music for Saul (1Sam. 16:15–19). This does not mean that David was married to Jonathan (or to Saul, or to any of Saul’s daughters—at that time). David was promised marriage to one daughter, but ended up marrying the younger daughter.

7.      The vow made between David and Jonathan goes like this. King Saul was going mad, he was paranoid, and he wanted to kill David out of jealousy. Jonathan was looking out for his friend, David; and here, will tell David what is going on so that David can escape Saul’s anger. 1Sam. 20:41–42 And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, 'The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.'" And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city. Saul, David and Jonathan all knew that David would become king (1Sam. 16:13 23:17 24:20). David and Jonathan were close friends. So, David and Jonathan agree here to put their friendship first, despite the crazy actions of King Saul. Nothing to do with homosexual acts.

8.      The Bible does speak of marriage and it speaks of covenants; and one might even understand marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman. This does not mean that, every time we read the word covenant, that we are talking about a marriage. In fact, everywhere that I can remember, covenant used in the Bible does not refer to a marriage. The word covenant occurs 285 times in the ESV Old Testament, and, although I do not want to go through these verse by verse, the first 10 uses have nothing to do with marriage; and, off the top of my head, I cannot recall a passage where covenant does refer to marriage (however, as I said, I don’t feel like looking at every single passage, so there may be exceptions to this).

9.      When David and Jonathan make a covenant, the details of that covenant are stated. What they agreed to was stated. A covenant is an agreement or a contract, where both parties agree to the same terms.

10.    When a man and a woman have sex, the Bible very often uses the euphemism to know, as in Adam knew Eve, and she had a son. We do not have any such euphemisms used with David and Jonathan.

11.    We have references to David being in bed with Saul’s daughter, but never with Jonathan.

12.    The idea that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship has absolutely no basis in fact. The Bible does deal with homosexuality and clearly and unequivocally condemns it. See the complete Doctrine of Homosexuality (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

What Ashford has done is taken his own perverse norms and standards, his own need to find homosexual actions everywhere he looks, and he lays this as a lattice over the narrative of young David. Peter spoke of such people in 2Peter 3:15–16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

An interesting observation that I have made is, when visiting “gay Christian” websites, in nearly every single instance, the words gay, homosexual etc. are always prominent. References to articles which distort the clear teaching of Scripture are often found, However, references to Jesus Christ, to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the cross of Christ are rarely displayed. You are far more likely to come across the image a multi-colored flag (the symbol of the gay movement) at one of these sites than a typical Christian symbol.

I hesitate to include this, but the gay movement at times attacks Christianity head-on, and, at other times, tries to coopt it, teaching lies about what the Bible says.

Perverting the Relationship Between Ruth and Naomi

From Religious Tolerance:

Ruth and Naomi's Relationship:

On the Surface:

This looks like a friendship of mutual convenience: two widowed gal pals move in together to share resources in a cold, hard world, until one of them gets married and has a bunch of kids.

The Whole Story:

Ruth and Naomi were once a part of a big happy family (in fact, Ruth marries Naomi's son), but disaster strikes and all the men of their family die. Ruth is a widow. Naomi and Ruth's other daughter-in-law, Orpah, are now widows, and the only logical thing for a woman (especially who did not have the societal benefits of being married and cared for by a man, in that time) to do would be to return to her own family. Naomi tells Orpah to return home, and she leaves her with tears in her eyes, but when she commands her widowed daughter-in-law Ruth to return home, Ruth makes a very special promise to Naomi, in Ruth 1: 16-17.

(A heartfelt plea and pledge of love and devotion, which is so lovely that it is repeated in many Christian heterosexual marriage ceremonies)

Soon after Ruth and Naomi work, live, and support each other as gleaners, Ruth meets Boaz, a 80-year-old distant relative of Naomi's dead husband, who sees the kindness and love between Ruth and Naomi, and marries Ruth (for the most part) to continue her family's legacy (an important tradition of that time).

Even after their marriage and blessing of children, her community celebrated that Naomi “has a child,” as seen in Ruth 4: 17, and they reminded Ruth that Naomi loves her very much, Ruth 4: 15.

So...how's that gay?

It does not do much justice to the lovers of this story to say that this promise, which is so powerful that it's used in marriage ceremonies, is not spoken by a person who was not truly in love with who she originally spoke it to.

In Ruth 1: 14, the King James Version of this verse says "Ruth clave onto her," at a moment when she should have return to her own family. In Genesis, marriage is portrayed as "a man leaving his father and mother, and CLEAVING to his wife." Ruth and Naomi have become "one flesh."

Not to mention, the Bible pays very little attention to the Boaz and Ruth's relationship, and so much more to Ruth and Naomi's relationship, even after her marriage.¹

The basis of the argument is the word cleave, which is dâbaq (דָּבַק) [pronounced daw^b-VAHK], and that word means (in the Qal stem), to cling, to cleave, to hold close, to keep close, to adhere. Strong’s #1692 BDB #179. As mentioned above, it is related to a man cleaving (clinging to, holding, embracing) his wife; but there are many times when this is not indicative of sex (in fact, Gen. 2:24 is not necessarily an exclusive reference to sex). We are told in Deut. 10:20 (11:22 13:4) to hold fast, to cling to God. I don’t mean to be blasphemous here, but does that mean that we are supposed to have sex with God? How preposterous! In Deut. 28:21, 60, Moses warns the children of Israel that God will make sickness cling to them. Again, are we talking about sex? Absolutely not!

This word is used much more often for us being told to cling to God; but we have its use in a human relationship in Gen. 34:3. Shechem had raped Dinah (Gen. 34:2), but, after the fact, his soul clung to her (v. 3). The soul does not refer to some physical part of the body, but to our thinking, our emotions, our volition, etc. This big galoot, who had just raped Dinah, suddenly realized that he really, really liked her. That is what is means for his soul to cling to her (the ESV reads: his soul was drawn to Dinah).

The point being, this word is not used to necessarily indicate a sexual relationship. Even when speaking of a man and a woman in general (Gen. 2:24), note two things: (1) we are speaking of a man and a woman and (2) when a man and a woman, in marriage, cling to one another, there is more to this than just sex.

Secondly, the Bible is said to pay not nearly as much attention to the relationship between Boaz and Ruth as it does to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. First of all, that does not matter; and, second of all, that is an incorrect observation. We find Naomi’s name used 22 times in the book of Ruth; and Boaz’s name used 21 times. So the Bible is not somehow setting up Ruth and Naomi’s relationship as something great and wonderful, but then Boaz comes along, and, well, it just is not as good.

Thirdly, the whole point of the book of Ruth, besides being a part of the line of David, is the relationship between Ruth and Boaz, as well as Ruth clinging to the God of Naomi and Naomi’s people.

Finally, Ruth was clearly and unequivocally married to Naomi’s son; and then she clearly and unequivocally is married to Boaz (Naomi’s son dies). There is no question about this. Yet somehow, this gay commentator reads into this narrative, an intervening relationship between Ruth and the mother-in-law of her late husband. (1) This is absurd and (2) this means that Ruth is straight, then she is gay, and then she is straight again.

The problem with these gay essays on the Bible is, they have a purpose, and that purpose is to justify gay relationships, homosexual activity, and gay marriage. They are not really interested in what the Bible says; only in justifying their own lusts. Therefore, they will take narratives and twist them dramatically in order to achieve this result. Peter speaks of such people in 2Peter 3:15–16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV) If you have gone through all 4 chapters of Ruth in a careful study, then it is clear that this writer is simply an example of the people Peter is speaking of.

¹ Religious Tolerance; accessed September 3, 2015.

See the Complete Doctrine of Homosexuality (HTML) (PDF).

The Abbreviated Doctrine of Homosexuality

Homosexuality in the Old Testament

1.      In the Old Testament, homosexual acts were not only sinful, but they were illegal.

         a.      You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable (Lev. 18:22; HCSB; see also Lev. 20:13). The word which describes such an act is tôwʿêvâh (תּוֹעֵוָה) [pronounced to-ģay-VAWH], meaning disgusting act, an abomination, abhorrent, an abhorrent act. Originally, this word was used to describe how the Egyptians felt about the Jews (Gen. 43:32 46:34 Ex. 8:26). This same word was often used for the abominations committed by the heathen of the land which God told the Jews to destroy (Deut. 18:9, 12 20:18 2Kings 21:2 2Chron. 28:3 2Kings 21:11 2Chron. 28:3). Strong's #8441 BDB #1072.

         b.      Homosexual activity in the Old Testament was punishable by death. Lev. 20:13

         c.      The point being made is, this was not considered a minor sin in the Old Testament. This is often downplayed on websites which argue that we are not under the Mosaic Law (which is true) and which say things like, “Well, the Old Testament also forbade the Jews to eat shellfish; how silly is that?” They often point to the Sabbath and Sabbath laws, and note that Christians do not obey those laws.

         d.      Populations which practiced homosexuality extensively were destroyed by God. In our study, the Sodomite population became involved in forcible rapes by many men. Gen. 19

         e.      Interestingly enough, the antichrist will not desire women. Daniel 11:37

Homosexuality in the New Testament

2.      The condemnation of homosexuality is carried over into the New Testament.

         a.      The clearest passage is Rom. 1:26–32: For this reason God gives them up to vile passions. For even their women change the natural use for what is contrary to nature. Likewise also the men, abandoning the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men with men performing what is shameful, and receiving the retribution within themselves, the penalty which is fitting for their error. And even as they do not like to have God in their full true knowledge, God gives them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with every unrighteousness, sexual perversion, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, depravity; whisperers, defamers, haters of God, insolent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do them, but also approve of those who practice them (VW).

         b.      Rom. 1:26–32 in the NKJV: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

         c.      Paul writes to Timothy in 1Tim. 1:8–11 But we know that the Law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the Law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers, for prostitutes, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust (VW).

                  i.       The first bolded word is pornos (πόρνος,ου,ὁ) [pronounced POHR-nos] which means, a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire; a male prostitute; a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator, the sexually immoral, one who practices sexual immorality, immoral men. Thayer, Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, and Arndt and Gingrich. Strong’s #4205.

                  ii.      The second word found is arsenokoitês (ἀρσενοκοίτης) [pronounced ar-sen-ok-OY-tace], which means, one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, [male] homosexual; one who has sex with younger men (boys), a pederast. Thayer, and Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, and Arndt and Gingrich Definitions. Strong’s #733. Of course, pro-homosexual Christian websites take issue with this word; but these definitions are based upon unbiased scholarship of 5 of the greatest Greek scholars. So, it boils down to, whose authority seems the most reasonable: that of “homosexual scholars” who want to allow for homosexual practices; or Greek scholars who are simply trying to determine what the meaning of a word is, despite their own personal shortcomings?

         d.      Paul wrote this to the Corinthians: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray. Neither [male] prostitutes, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1Cor. 6:9–11; VW).

                  i.       The term male prostitutes is pornos (πόρνος,ου,ὁ) [pronounced POHR-nos] which we already covered above. Strong’s #4205.

                  ii.      Adulterer can refer to a person who has committed actual acts of adultery against their spouse or spiritual acts of adultery against God. Strong’s #3432.

                  iii.      The word effeminate is malakos (μαλακός) [pronounced mal-ak-OSS], which means, 1) soft, soft to the touch; clothes that are soft to the touch; 2) metaphorically in a bad sense; 2a) effeminate; weakling 2a1) of a catamite; 2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man; 2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness; passive homosexuals; a man or a boy who allows himself to be used by a more dominant male homosexual; 2a4) of a male prostitute. Thayer, Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, and Arndt and Gingrich definitions. Strong’s #3120.

                  iv.     We have already studied Sodomite.

                  v.      Paul is describing categories of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. However, some of these people in the Corinthian church used to be this was and they are not any longer because they were justified by Jesus Christ and cleansed by the Spirit of God.

         e.      Paul wrote, in Gal. 5:19–21: Now those things done by the sinful, physical nature [of a person] are evident; they are these: sexual immorality, moral impurity, indecent conduct, idol worship, occultic practices, hatefulness, dissension, jealousy, angry outbursts, factious spirits, divisiveness, party spirits, envy, drunkenness, orgies [or, feasts, drinking parties], and things like these. I warn you again, as I have done before, that those people who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (AUV—NT).

                  i.       Sexual immorality is moicheia (μοιχεία, ας, ἡ) [pronounced moy-KHEE-ah], which means, adultery, adulterous acts. Thayer, Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, and Arndt and Gingrich definitions only. Strong’s #3430.

                  ii.      Moral impurity is porneia (πορνεία, ας, ἡ) [pronounced por–NĪ–ah],which means, 1) illicit sexual intercourse; 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.; 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18; 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark 10:11–12) metaphorically the worship of idols; 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols. Arndt and Gingrich add prostitution, unchastity, fornication, unfaithfulness of a married woman. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider add, every unlawful kind of sexual intercourse, disgraceful sexual immorality. First definitions from Thayer. Strong’s #4202.

                  iii.      Indecent conduct is akatharsia (ἀκαθαρσία, ας, ἡ) [pronounced ak-ath-ar-SEE-ah], which means, 1) uncleanness; 1a) physical; 1b) in a moral sense: the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living; 1b1) of impure motives. Arndt and Gingrich add refuse; immorality, immoral intent; sexual sins. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider add impurity. Thayer definitions given first. Strong’s #167.

Jesus and Homosexuality

3.      Most churches which believe that homosexuality is permissible claim that Jesus did not speak directly to the sin of homosexuality.

         a.      This does not mean that Jesus somehow supported homosexual activity or homosexuality within a committed relationship. The era of the Hypostatic Union was a hinge between the Age of Israel and the Church Age. It is clear that homosexual acts are not only prohibited but punished with death in the Old Testament; it is also clear that homosexuality was forbidden in the New Testament epistles. So, it would make little sense to say that Jesus lived in a short time period when homosexuality was acceptable.

         b.      Even though Jesus never said, “Homosexuality is wrong, don’t do it:” He did say, “I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.” (Matt. 5:17). The Mosaic Law, as already pointed out, was clearly against homosexual practices and even executed those convicted of committing homosexual acts. So, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the Law, becoming the Lamb who died for our sins (John 1:29 Rev. 13:8); but He did not negate any other aspects of the Law. In fact, if anything, Jesus expanded upon the Law of Moses (Matt. 5:20–30). In fact, Jesus did say, “Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and thus teaches the people, he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens, but whoever does and teaches [them], he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matt. 5:19; ALT)

         c.      Jesus clearly taught marriage between one man and one woman: And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female", and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt. 19:4–6).

General Biblical Notions on Homosexuality

4.      No one is condemned to hell for committing a homosexual act or for practicing homosexuality. All of our sins have been paid for by Jesus on the cross. We are condemned to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ. John 3:16, 18. However, committing a homosexual act after salvation is no different than committing any other sin. One person may be tempted to lose his temper, another may be tempted to chase after money or power, another may be tempted to be a skirt-chaser. These are the temptations which all Christians face. Your temptation is not any better or worse than mine. When we sin, we name this sin to God. In order to lesson the number of times we sin, we learn doctrine and begin to think with the mind of Christ. As Paul explains, Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus (Philip. 2:5). And be not conformed to [the thinking and philosophy of] this world: but be you transformed by the renovation of your thinking, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God (Rom. 12:2).

5.      For the homosexual: if you have believed in Jesus Christ—if He is the sole reason for your salvation—then you have eternal life. No one can take this eternal life from you; nor can you overrule this aspect of the plan of God. The Doctrine of Eternal Security (external links): Bible Doctrine Resources or Verse by Verse.

         a.      All believers, after they are saved, face many choices, because we all come out of some lifestyle or another. We can return to that lifestyle, we can attempt to be moral, or we can do what is required in the plan of God, which is to live the Christian life, which is a supernatural life. A General Introduction to the Christian life (HTML) (PDF)

         b.      Briefly, the Christian way of life is (1) naming your sins to God as you commit them; the shorter accounts that you keep, the more time that you log in under the power of the Holy Spirit. (2) Learn doctrine under the authority of a pastor who knows the Word of God, the original languages and orthodox theology. Here is a list of such resources (PDF). In my experience, I have found that it is better for the believer to be physically in a group setting rather than to study on their own (even under a good pastor-teacher).

         c.      Do not attempt to simply justify your lusts. All believers have lusts; and sexual lust is a normal thing. Acting on sexual desires outside of marriage is sinful. God only allows for sex within a heterosexual marriage. It does not matter if you really, really, really, really want to do something. That does not make such an act unsinful.

         d.      After salvation, homosexuals have a number of options open to them: date the opposite gender and get to know the person; do not attempt to have sex with them. Most male homosexuals have had sex with women; so, the idea that there is no sexual attraction whatsoever is generally bogus.

         e.      Also, it ought to be clear that there are men with more slender bodies (which is actually a thing in the homosexual world); and there are women who seem to have more masculine characteristics. God has designed the right man for every woman; and the right woman for every man. First, you get doctrine into your soul so that you are guided by doctrine and not by your lusts.

         f.       Or the homosexual can choose to live a celibate life.

         g.      Unlike some websites that teach, you must struggle against homosexuality in order to prove that you are saved, the Bible teaches that you are saved by faith alone in Christ alone (John 3:16, 18 Eph. 2:8–9 Titus 3:5). You may or may not choose to avoid sexual activity outside of marriage. However, what is different is, you have now become a child of God and you are subject to His discipline (Heb. 12:6). It is like any familial relationship—you are always your parents’ child, but now and again, they may whip you to the point that you wish you weren’t.

6.      The key to a lifetime marriage relationship is in the soul, not in the body; and this is where homosexuals miss the mark. When man wears women’s clothing, takes estrogen and even have breast implants, he is still a male in his soul. Such men can play-act like women, but when they are being normal, they are men (even if they look quite feminine). God designed the female soul to fit the male soul, just as He designed the female body to fit the male body. There is an fit of the souls as much so as there is of the bodies.

         a.      This is why our first marriage is Adam and Eve which is what Jesus Christ confirmed with the words: And He answered, "Have you not read that the Creator at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man must leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two of them must be one!' So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together man must stop separating." (Matt. 19:4–5; Wms NT). Paul affirms the male female relationship as based upon Adam and the woman in 1Tim. 2:13–14

         b.      This helps to explain Jer. 31:22b Y^ehowah has created a new thing in the earth: a woman shall encompass a man. The important verb here is the Poel imperfect of çâbab (סָבַב) [pronounced saw^b-VAH^BV], which means (these are Poel meanings), to go about [in a place]; to surround. Strong’s #5437 BDB #685. God created the woman to both encompass the man physically as well as soulishly.

         c.      It is the woman’s soul and the man’s soul together that require mutual fidelity. It is the way that they fit together that results in a monogamous relationship. Often, it is the woman who inspires fidelity in the man; and quite often the woman inspires men in many areas of endeavor. In fact, it is the woman who is the most inspirational creature on this earth (apart from our Lord). Remove the woman, and there is little reason for a man to live.

General Comments About Homosexuality

7.      Although homosexuality probably has a complex genetic component to it, it is not genetically predetermined. Just as some people have a predilection toward alcoholism, some have a predilection toward homosexuality. This predilection does not determine that a person will become an alcoholic nor does it determine that a person will engage in homosexual acts.

8.      Those who are committed homosexuals make up a very small portion of society: between 1–3%.

9.      There seem to be factors as a person grows up which also have an effect upon a person’s sexuality.

10.    Both men and women have engaged in same-sex encounters and have later been in committed heterosexual relationships.

11.    A disproportionate number of child predators (particularly pre-adolescent) are male homosexuals.

12.    Politically active homosexuals make strong attempts to introduce homosexuality as a neutral predilection to as early an age as is possible. Continual attempts are made to introduce children’s books which have two fathers or two mothers.

13.    Politically active homosexuals will sue schools, institutions, businesses, churches, pastors, and individuals in order to harass them and to insure their complicit silence.

14.    Although two virgins marrying is much more rare than it used to be, it still occurs. However, at no time has there been any two male or two female homosexual virgins who have “married.” Homosexuality involves activity.

15.    Faithfulness among male homosexuals, even in committed relationships, is virtually nonexistent.

16.    It ought to be noted that, any movement which is against the laws of divine establishment as found in the Bible (as the homosexual movement is) will have elements of Satanism. This does not mean that homosexuals will specifically worship Satan or anything like that, but they will support cosmic system policies. As a result, homosexual groups will be highly antagonistic toward Christianity or toward Bible doctrine. Having their actions designated as sins will cause many of them to be angry and antagonistic toward Christianity.

17.    On the other hand, there will be smaller groups who recognize the need for their own salvation, but be unwilling to give up their homosexual activities. Therefore, they will attempt to downplay and distort what the Bible says about homosexuality and they will try to develop homosexual relationships similar to marriage relationships in the Bible.

18.    

In the more expansive doctrine of homosexuality, all of these statements are confirmed by named studies. There is a great deal more detail given in the full doctrine.

You may find this to be helpful to sort out your thinking concerning this issue.

Symptoms

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover asks the question, what if you have a friend, relative or colleague who had a condition that was routinely associated with the following problems:

•       A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage

•       A 5 to 10 year decrease in life expectancy.

•       Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease—hepatitis

•       Inevitably fatal esophageal cancer

•       Pneumonia

•       Internal bleeding

•       Serious mental disabilities, many of which are irreversible

•       A much higher than ususal incidence of suicide

•       A very low likelihood that it adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is eliminated.

•       An only 30% likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected population of sufferers (although with a very high success rate among highly motivated, carefully selected sufferers).

Let’s throw in some other information: this condition very likely has a genetic component, although the problem itself is a behavioral one. Secondly, a person who is involved in this behavior is likely to continue in it, even if he recognizes the destructive consequences above. Thirdly, some people with this problematic behavior recognize it as a problem; while others do not believe it to be so. Finally, in resisting outside influence, such a person may involve himself heavily in a subgroup of people who have the exact same behavioral problem.

The problem we are speaking of is alcoholism; and most of us when dealing with close friends or relatives, recognize the destructiveness of this behavioral disease, if you will.

Now let’s consider a friend or relative with a very similar set of problems, all related to this person’s behavior:

•       A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage

•       A 25 to 30 year decrease in life expectancy.

•       Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease—infectious hepatitis which increases the risk of liver cancer

•       Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers

•       Frequently fatal rectal cancer

•       Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases

•       A much higher than ususal incidence of suicide

•       A very low likelihood that it adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is eliminated.

•       However, there is a 50% likelihood this behavior being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected population of sufferers (although with a very high success rate among highly motivated, carefully selected sufferers—sometimes as high as 100%).

The same things are also true as listed above: there may be a genetic predisposition, but the actual problem is behavioral. Individuals continue in this behavior despite recognizing its destructive effects. Some people with this condition see it as a real problem; others do not. Some will resist all attempts to help them. Finally, there is often an association with a subgroup or a subculture of those with the same problem.

This second condition is homosexual activity. Although the immune disease mentioned above is not as often fatal, it changes a person’s life forever.

The parallels between alcoholism and homosexual behavior are quite obvious.

From Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth; ©1996, A Hamewith Book; pp. 49–51.

Rates of Cure for Homosexuality

Shortly after the powers that be declared that homosexuality was not a mental disorder, they proclaimed that dogma that it was also impossible to change. Prior to that, it was taken for granted among psychiatrists in the field that a cure for homosexuality was possible - difficult, time-consuming, and uncertain, to be sure, but definitely possible - and they had the case studies to prove it. Conversion therapy is neither new, nor restricted to religious zealots, not ineffective.

There is a certain irony which is never mentioned. The naysayers have never come out with a study whereby the therapy has been applied to a large number of conscientious patients, and found to be 100% ineffective. On the contrary, there is ample evidence of cure rates of the order of a third to a half of patients. Indeed, in a high proportion of cases, change is spontaneous. Whitehead and Whitehead devoted a whole chapter of their book, My Genes Made Me Do It (downloadable here) to both spontaneous and assisted change. Dr Spitzer, who was largely instrumental in getting homosexuality taken off the list of mental disorders, nevertheless, to his surprise, discovered that a lot of people had made successful changes. You might also care look at the review by Dr Throckmorton. However, it essentially involves religion-based therapies. More detailed is that of Dr Phelan, who quoted 100-odd studies, some very old, some very new. I am glad I copied it when I first encountered it, because now it can generally be found on the net only minus the long list of references which gives it its value. For your information, therefore, I enclose the full review. I am sure he would not mind.

Is Gay to Straight Possible? What the Research Shows

By James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD, ICADC, Psy.D

Summary

Organizations such as the American Psychological Association have issued warnings against the use of therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation, however a vast amount of reports about change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are documented in the literature. The outcomes of interventions, using a variety of techniques, aimed at changing sexual orientation, are vast and varied and examined in this review.

Reports about change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual began to appear in literature as early as the nineteenth century. Charcot, in 1882, published a paper entitled, “Inversion of the Genital Sense.” Charcot, already famous for his treatment of hysterics through hypnotic induction, applied the same therapeutic modality to homosexual men and reported success when "the homosexual patients became heterosexual" (Horstman, 1972, p. 5). Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1892) also recounted a case of treatment success using suggestion and hypnosis therapies. Prince (1898) reported treatment of sexual paraphilias, including homosexuality, and stated that 70% were essentially improved or cured (Fine, 1987).

Psychoanalysis

The field of psychoanalysis manifested many reports. Freud suggested that a homosexual could change his or her orientation if desired (Freud, 1951). According to Fordham (1935), Jung helped a male homosexual change his sexual orientation through dream analysis and the break down of the negative child-mother bond, which had intensified his sexuality.

Following in the tradition of Freud, Gordon (1930) reported a case where his homosexual patient made a heterosexual adjustment. Stekel (1930) reported 3 cases of complete cure using psychoanalysis after a 1-year follow-up. Anna Freud (1949, 1952) referred to 4 cases that she claimed led to complete heterosexual orientation.

London and Caprio (1950) reported successful psychoanalysis with two men who reported becoming heterosexual. After 18 years of treating lesbian women, Caprio (1954) reported that many patients who resolved former childhood conflicts were restored to complete heterosexuality.

Citing his 30 years of practice during which he successfully concluded analysis of one hundred homosexual men, Bergler (1956) reported a 33% cure rate; these patients were able to function heterosexually, whereas, prior to treatment, they were exclusively homosexual. Ellis (1956) showed distinct changes in orientation with 11 out of 40 of his patients, or 28%, while 48% showed considerable improvement. Eidelberg (1956) claimed that 2 out of 5 cases were successful after a 3-year follow-up.

An unpublished report by the Central Fact-Gathering Committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association in 1956 was one of the first surveys that compiled results of treatment. Of those who completed treatment, eight were cured and 13 were improved. Another 16, who did not complete treatment, were also considered improved. In all reported cures, follow-up communications indicated full heterosexual role and functioning (Socarides, 1978).

In their study, Curran and Parr (1957) demonstrated one subject who completely changed in orientation and five who made a change toward heterosexuality. In Berg and Allen’s (1958) work, three out of ten homosexual males showed successful treatment in terms of the diminution of homosexual interest and actions. Hadfield (1958, 1966) reported a 53% treatment success rate after a 30-year follow-up.

Robertiello (1959) gave a report about a lesbian woman who became aware of unconscious memories after analysis with free association and dream interpretation. This awareness led to an oedipal resolution, whereby she arrived at a heterosexual adjustment. After a two-year follow-up, she maintained her heterosexual identity. Beukenkamp (1960) treated a male subject with group psychoanalysis, which resulted in the subject's reorientation to heterosexuality in both behavior and experiences. Monroe and Enelow (1960) treated four men using psychoanalytic methods, and after a five-year follow-up, found all of them heterosexually oriented.

I. Bieber et al. (1962), in a nine-year study of homosexual men, used an analyst team of seventy-seven members and provided information on two patient samples consisting of 106 homosexuals who undertook psychoanalysis. The results found that 29 out of 106, or 27% of those completing treatment, became exclusively heterosexual. I. Bieber (1967) found in a five-year follow-up that 15 out of 20 subjects, who they kept in contact with, remained exclusively heterosexual. After seven years, this success rate remained consistent (I. Bieber, 1969). The subjects were followed for as long as twenty years, and treatment success, defined by exclusive heterosexuality, was still confirmed (I. Bieber & T. B. Bieber, 1979).

Coates (1962) treated 33 males and reported an outcome in which 15% of the men resolved homosexual activity as a result of psychoanalytic intervention. Ovesey, Gaylin, and Hedin (1963) successfully treated three men and followed them as long as seven years, reporting that all of them remained heterosexual. Cappon (1965) reported a 50% treatment success rate for males, and 30% for females. Mayerson and Lief (1965) reported that 47% of their nineteen patients who had been in treatment were functioning heterosexuals after a follow-up with a mean time of four and a half years.

Mintz (1966) claimed to have successfully treated two out of ten patients during an eight-year period. Kaye et al.’s (1967) report of a research committee documented that 50% of homosexual women in treatment could be helped by the use of psychoanalysis. They also found that 56% of exclusive homosexual women treated made a shift to heterosexuality.

Socarides (1968) cited a 50% success rate in the psychoanalytical-based conversion treatment of homosexuals. Ten years later, treatment success was still supported; twenty out of forty-four patients (44%) treated by psychoanalysis had developed to full heterosexual functioning, having no homosexual thoughts, behaviors, or fantasies (Socarides, 1978).

Jacobi (1969) referred to 60 patients who were treated, in which six of them made a definite transformation to heterosexuality. While working with twelve homosexual women, Siegel (1988) found that more than half of them became fully heterosexual.

Berger (1994) described two cases of treatment success: One case “resulted in the patient marrying and fathering three children and living a heterosexually fulfilling and enjoyable life” (p. 255). The other was a "successful long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy treatment [which] helped relieve the patient of his original presenting symptoms and enabled him to become comfortably and consistently heterosexual" (p. 255).

Finally, a survey of 285 anonymous members of the American Psychoanalytic Association, conducted by MacIntosh (1994), revealed that out of 1,215 homosexual patients analyzed by those members, 23% changed from homosexual to heterosexual, and 84% of the total group received significant therapeutic benefits.

Behavioral Therapy

Behavioral-based therapies have not only been used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality, those with unwanted same-sex attraction, but are also used to treat a variety of sexual conditions, such as impotence, frigidity, voyeurism, exhibitionism, transvestism, fetishism, and others (Rachman, 1961). Davison and Wilson (1973) rated over two hundred behavioral therapists and found a mean of 60% who claimed success in treating homosexuality.

By use of adaptational therapy, a 40-year-old man who practiced homosexuality for 22 years was successfully treated; he ceased his homosexual behavior, married, and stated that he was completely cured (Poe, 1952). Albert Ellis (1959) by use of Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET), which he made famous, reported a patient changed to heterosexuality after a three-year follow-up. Shealy (1972) reported another patient changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality by use of RET.

Despite problematic behavioral intervention, Freund (1960) reported that 26% of his patients treated, who were exclusively homosexual, reached heterosexual adaptation. Stevenson and Wolpe (1960), by use of assertiveness training, reported treatment success of two homosexuals, which led to their establishment of heterosexuality. Treatment success was also confirmed at a four-year follow-up. Schmidt, Castell, and Brown’s (1965) treatment outcome, after assessment by independent raters, found 30% of the study's exclusive homosexuals had changed to heterosexuals. Serban (1968) reported treatment of 25 homosexuals using existential therapeutic approaches. He conducted a case review and concluded that after his subjects’ erotic perceptions were changed, so did the subjects’ sexual orientations.

Feldman, MacCulloch, and Orford (1971) reported follow-up results on research, done between the years of 1963-1965, with sixty-three male homosexual patients. They reported that 29% of the patients who had no prior heterosexual experience had changed. Change was indicated by the cessation of homosexual behavior, only occasional homosexual fantasies or attractions, and strong heterosexual fantasy, behavior, or both. Van den Aardweg (1971) related that nine out of twenty patients treated using exaggeration therapy were completely cured, meaning no homosexual fantasies or behaviors were reported.

Barlow and Agras (1973) found a 30% decrease of homosexual behavior in patients up to six months in follow-up, utilizing the flooding technique. Using avoidance conditioning, classical conditioning, and backward conditioning, McConaghy and Barr (1973) found one-fourth of their patients ceased homosexual behavior after a 1-year follow-up. Freeman and Meyer (1975) used behavioral approaches and reported a 78% successful treatment rate in patients who were exclusively homosexual after an eighteen-month follow-up.

Pradhan, Ayyer, and Bagadia (1982) demonstrated that by utilizing behavioral modification techniques, eight out of thirteen male homosexuals showed a shift to heterosexual adaptation that was maintained during a six-month and one-year follow-up. Van den Aardweg (1986a, 1986b) reported treating over one hundred homosexuals using cognitive approaches, and found that one-third of them had been radically changed in heterosexual adaptation.

Finally, the level of success in decreasing homosexuality claimed by behavioral therapists, is essentially a third or more in reported cases (Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler, 1971; Bancraft, 1974). As stated previously, a high percentage of behavioral therapists surveyed said that they were successful when they had a goal of helping patients achieve heterosexual shifts (Davison & Wilson, 1973).

Group Therapy

Group therapy is another modality that has shown treatment success. Eliasberg (1954) presented an account of group therapy with twelve homosexuals and found three members who were able to experience a shift from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Hadden (1958) reported that he treated three homosexual subjects where one experienced a shift to heterosexual adjustment. Smith and Basin (1959) treated two men in group therapy and noted one as having had marked improvement while the other sought heterosexual adjustment.

According to Litman (1961), a homosexual man was reported to have changed his sexual orientation facilitated by group therapy. Hadden (1966), after treating thirty-two homosexuals in group therapy, reported a 38% success rate in which subjects progressed to an exclusively heterosexual pattern of adjustment. Birk, Miller, and Cohler (1970) also reported a similar success rate of 33% and claimed significant improvements in a number of cases.

T. Bieber (1971) related over a 40% success rate by use of group therapy. Hadden (1971) confirmed a one-third success rate. Pittman and DeYoung (1971) expressed that two out of six, or one-third, of homosexuals treated received maximum benefit and established the goal of heterosexuality.

Truax and Tourney (1971) related that group treatment of thirty patients, compared to twenty untreated controls, increased heterosexual orientation, decreased homosexual preoccupation, reduced neurotic symptomatology, improved social relations, and increased insight into the causes and implications of homosexuality. Birk (1974) reported a 38% success rate after a six-year period from a sample of twenty-six subjects. Birk (1980) reported that ten out of fourteen, or 71% of men in treatment for over two and a half years, and who were exclusively homosexual prior to treatment, were heterosexually adjusted and married at follow-up.

Group therapy combined with other therapies has shown various treatment successes over a ten-year period (Ross & Mendelsohn, 1958; Finny, 1960; Buki, 1964; Mintz, 1966; and Miller, Bradley, Gross, & Wood, 1968). Like behavioral therapy reports, group therapy reports tend to reveal a treatment success rate of one-third or more of cases making a shift in orientation.

Sex Therapy

Sex therapists have shown success at treating homosexuality. Alfred C. Kinsey reported treatment of more then eighty homosexual men who had made satisfactory heterosexual adaptation (Pomeroy, 1972). In Masters and Johnson's (1979) treatment of ninety homosexuals, a 28.4% failure rate was reported after a six-year follow-up (Schwartz & Johnson, 1984). Masters and Johnson chose to report failure rates to avoid vague concepts of success. Although the failure rate was not equated in terms of success rate, it seemed valid to compare the success of their work with those reported in other studies dealing with change of orientation, according to Diamant (1987).

Hypnosis

As reported earlier, Charcot, in 1882, applied hypnotic induction to homosexual men and reported success in that "the homosexual patients became heterosexual" (Horstman, 1972, p. 5). Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1892) had similar findings (Fine, 1987). Cafiso (1983) related success in treating a homosexual man by strengthening his ego through hypnosis. This result corresponds with the positive reports of hypnosis from Regardie (1949), Alexander (1967), and Roper (1967).

Other Interventions

Whitener and Nikelly (1962) related that thirty homosexual college students in treatment showed good results, that is they became more masculine identified and became attracted to females. The Braaten and Darling (1965) study, also conducted on college students, showed that out of 76 male homosexuals treated in a college setting, 29% moved toward a heterosexual reorientation.

Dr. Nicholas Cummings is a past president of the American Psychological Association. During his twenty years as Chief of Mental Health at Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization (1959-1979) in San Francisco, he saw over 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, his staff saw another 16,000, and he reported a 27% reorientation rate (Cummings, 2007).

Spontaneous Change

Wolpe's (1969) patient, who was in treatment for assertiveness training, reported a spontaneous shift to heterosexual behavior, even when the focus was not on changing it. Fluker (1976), a medical doctor treating gay-identified men for sexually transmitted diseases (not homosexuality), learned from one of his patients, who was not in conversion therapy, that he no longer had homosexual inclinations and was happily married to a woman. Cameron and Crawford (1985) discovered that 2% of their random sample of 170 claimed they had once been homosexual, which was not reportedly due to any intervention.

Nichols' (1988) study mentioned a client who had spontaneously developed heterosexual interests and transformed from a bisexual to a heterosexual in mid-life. Shechter (1992) reported spontaneous change in a male client who had been in psychoanalysis (not for treatment of homosexuality).

Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994) found that based on a national survey, some people even change their sexual orientation without psychotherapy. Even without intervention, studies have shown that sexual orientation is not a unitary, one-dimensional construct (Weinrich & Klein, 2002).

Ex-Gay or Religiously Mediated Therapies

Christians view recovery from homosexuality to have taken place as early as biblical times, citing, "… and this is what some of you (homosexuals) were" (1 Corinthians 6:11, New International Version, emphasis added). Robinson (1998) reported on the interviews with seven men from Evergreen International, a ministry affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Robinson associated “change” of the subjects with nine components, one was that they adopted a new interpretive framework concerning the causes and implications of their same-sex attraction, and another was that they no longer identified themselves as gay.

Successful change of eleven homosexual men while they participated in a Pentecostal fellowship was reported by Pattison and Pattison (1980). On post measures, five of the eleven participants reported no homosexual fantasies, behaviors, or impulses. Mesmer (1992) surveyed more than one hundred people participating in ex-gay ministries who had reported leaving the homosexual lifestyle and found 41% of them had achieved complete heterosexual orientation.

Schaeffer, Hyde, Kroencke, McCormick, and Nottebaum (2000) surveyed 248 men and women at an Exodus International Annual Conference to determine if they were experiencing success in changing their sexual orientation and found a statistically significant effect based on changes over time. Exodus International is an umbrella organization of Christian ministries helping those with unwanted same-sex attraction. In a follow-up study of one hundred and forty of the original participants, Schaeffer, Nottebaum, Smith, Dech, and Krawczyk (1999) found that 61% of the male and 71% of the female participants had maintained abstinence from any same gender sexual contact in the past year of the study. Twenty-nine percent of this sample indicated that they had changed their sexual orientation (0 on the Kinsey scale) in the past year of the study, and 65% said they were in the process of change.

Assemblies of Persons Claiming Sexual Orientation Can Be Changed

Ex-gays have collectively stood up to be counted. On May 22, 1994, in Philadelphia, for the first time in history, the American Psychiatric Association was protested against, not by pro-gay activists, but by a group of ex-gays claiming that they had been cured and that cure was possible for others (Davis, 1994). This was repeated at their 2000 convention in Chicago (Gorner, 2000), and again at the 2006 American Psychological Association Convention in New Orleans (Foust, 2006).

Meta-Analyses

Clippinger's (1974) meta-analysis of the treatment results of homosexuality demonstrated that out of 785 homosexuals treated, 307 (40%) were cured or had at least made some heterosexual shift.

E. C. James (1978) concluded that when the results of all research studies up until that time were combined, approximately 35% of the homosexual clients recovered, 27% improved, and 37% did not recover or improve. Based on this finding, she concluded that pessimistic attitudes about the prognosis for homosexuals changing their sexual orientation are not warranted, saying: “Significant improvement and even complete recovery [from a homosexual orientation] are entirely possible …” (p. 183).

Goetze (1997) brought together seventeen studies and found a total of 44 subjects, who were exclusively or predominately homosexual, experienced a shift of some sort to heterosexual adjustment.

Jones and Yarhouse (2000) used meta-analysis to review thirty studies conducted between the years of 1954-1994. Of the 327 subjects from all the studies, 108, or 33%, of them were reported to have made at least some heterosexual shift.

Surveys of Consumers

Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts (2000), with large efforts from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), retrospectively surveyed 882 dissatisfied homosexuals with a seventy-item, client-answered scale. After receiving therapy or engaging in self-help, 20%-30% of the participants said they shifted from a homosexual orientation to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation. Of the 318 who identified as exclusively homosexual before treatment, 56 or 17.6% reported that they viewed themselves as exclusively heterosexual at the time of the study.

Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) interviewed 182 men and 20 women, who were consumers of sexual orientation conversion interventions, to find out how they perceived its harmfulness and helpfulness. The researchers recruited participants by advertising on openly gay and lesbian websites, in e-mail lists and newspapers, and via direct mailings to gay and ex-gay organizations. The researchers originally called for participants who failed and were “harmed” by change therapies. Of the two hundred and two participants, one hundred and seventy-six were considered as having failed conversion therapy, twenty-six as having been successful, twelve still struggling in that they reported "slips" or some incidences of homosexuality, six were not still struggling with same-sex attractions, in that they were managing them, and eight were termed to be in a "heterosexual shift period" (p. 253), in which they were rated as three or less on the seven-point Kinsey scale; they were self-labeled as heterosexual, they reported having heterosexual behaviors and being in a heterosexual relationship, and they denied homosexual behavior.

Spitzer (2003), from Columbia University, interviewed 200 subjects, who had participated in sexual reorientation processes, by using a telephonic sexual orientation interview consisting of 114 closed-ended questions. Prior to intervention, 46% of the males and 42% of the females reported exclusive same-sex attraction. After intervention, 17% of the males and 54% of the females reported exclusive opposite-sex attraction. By way of his findings, Spitzer stated, "Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians" (p. 403).

Karten's (2006) dissertation examined the sexual reorientation efforts of 117 dissatisfied same-sex attracted men who had undergone some type of intervention to change orientation. Using a seven-point sexual self-identity scale with one indicating exclusive homosexuality and seven indicating exclusive heterosexuality, he found that, on average, at the onset of intervention, men reported a mean score of 2.57 (2 = almost entirely homosexual; 3 = more homosexual than heterosexual), and at the time of the study (after intervention), he reported a mean score of 4.81 (4 = equally homosexual and heterosexual; 5 = more heterosexual than homosexual). The shift was statistically significant.

Conclusion

Numerous reports about change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual have been documented in the literature using a variety of therapies as detailed above. This documentation debunks the claim by some that there is no evidence of change. The outcomes of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation are vast and varied.

Without significant evidence, the American Psychological Association has made public releases in warning against the use of therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation (American Psychological Association, 1997). Because of public pressures by such groups, a shift in the treatment of homosexuality has evolved from amelioration to acceptance and normalization.

Author: James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD, ICADC, Psy.D. is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Board Certified Diplomate in Clinical Social Work, Internationally Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselor, and holds a doctorate in psychology. He is an addictions therapist for the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and is in private practice. Tel (614) 571-7093 / Email: jpmphelan@sbcglobal.net.

References

Alexander, L. (1967). Psychotherapy of sexual deviations with the aid of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 9(3), 181-183.

Allen, C. (1958). Homosexuality: Its nature, causation and treatment. London: Staples

Press. American Psychological Association. (1997). Resolutions related to lesbian, gay and bisexual issues. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html

Bancroft, J. (1974). Deviant sexual behaviour: Modification and assessment. Oxford,

England: Clarendon Press.

Barlow, D. H., & Agras, W. S. (1973). Fading to increase heterosexual responsiveness

in homosexuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 355-366.

Berg, C., & Allen, C. (1958). The problem of homosexuality. New York: Citadel Press.

Berger, J. (1994). The psychotherapeutic treatment of male homosexuality. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 48, 251-261.

Bergler, E. (1956). Homosexuality: Disease or way of life? New York: Collier Books.

Beukenkamp, C. (1960). Phantom patricide. Archives of General Psychiatry, 3, 282-288.

Bieber, I. (1967). Sexual Deviations II: Homosexuality. In A. M. Freedman, & H. I. Kaplan (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (pp. 963-976). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Bieber, I. (1969). Homosexuality. American Journal of Nursing, 69(12), 2637-2641.

Bieber, I., & Bieber, T. B. (1979). Male homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 409-419.

Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Grundlach, R., et al. (1962). Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study. New York: Basic Books.

Bieber, T. B. (1971). Group therapy with homosexuals. In H. I. Kaplan & B. J. Sadock

(Eds.), Comprehensive group psychotherapy (pp. 518-533). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Birk, L. (1974). Group psychotherapy for men who are homosexual. Journal of Sex and

Marital Therapy, 1, 29-52.

Birk, L. (1980). The myth of classical homosexuality: Views of a behavioral psychotherapist. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Homosexual Behavior (pp. 376-390). New York: Basic Books.

Birk, L., Huddleston, W., Miller, E., & Cohler, B. (1971). Avoidance conditioning for homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 25, 314-323.

Birk, L., Miller, E., & Cohler, B. (1970). Group psychotherapy for homosexual men. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 218, 1-33.

Braaten, L. J., & Darling, C. D. (1965). Overt and covert homosexual problems among

male college students. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 71, 269-310.

Buki, R. A. (1964). A treatment program for homosexuals. Diseases of the Nervous

System, 25(5), 304-307.

Byrd, A. D., & Nicolosi, J. (2002). A meta-analytic review of treatment of

homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 90, 1139-1152.

Cafiso, R. (1983). The homosexual: The advantages of hypnotherapy as treatment.

Rivista: International Journal of Psychological Hypnosis, 24(1), 49-55.

Cameron, P., & Crawford, J. (1985). Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.

Cappon, D. (1965). Toward an understanding of homosexuality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Caprio, F. S. (1954). Female homosexuality: A psychodynamic study of lesbianism.

New York: Citadel Press.

Clippinger, J. A. (1974). Homosexuality can be cured. Corrective and Social

Psychiatry and Journal of Behavioral Technology, Methods, and Therapy, 20(2), 15-28.

Coates, S. (1962). Homosexuality and the Rorschach test. The British Journal of Medical Psychology, 35, 177-190.

Cummings, N. (2007). Former APA President Dr. Nicholas Cummings describes his work with SSA clients. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.narth.org/docs/cummings.html

Curran, D., & Parr, D. (1957). Homosexuality: An analysis of 100 male cases. British

Journal of Psychiatry, 112, 1111-1114.

Davis, M. (1994, May 22). Protesters blast APA's position. The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B4.

Davison G. C., & Wilson, G. T. (1973). Attitudes of behavior therapists towards homosexuality. Behavior Therapy, 45(5), 686-696.

Diamant, L. (Ed.) (1987). Male and female homosexuality. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Publishing Corporation.

Eidelberg, L. (1956). Analysis of a case of male homosexual. In S. Lorand & B. Balint (Eds.), Perversions: Psychodynamic and therapy. New York: Random House.

Eliasberg, W. G. (1954). Group treatment of homosexuals on probation. Group Psychotherapy, 7, 218-226.

Ellis, A. (1956). The effectiveness of psychotherapy with individuals who have severe homosexual problems. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20(3), 191.

Ellis, A. (1959). A homosexual treated with rational therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(3), 338-343.

Feldman, M. P., MacCulloch, M.J., & Orford, J. F. (1971). Conclusions and speculations. In M. P. Feldman, & M. J. MacCulloch (Eds.), Homosexual behavior: Therapy and assessment (pp. 156-188). New York: Pergamon Press.

Fine, R. (1987). Psychoanalytic theory. In L. Diamant (Ed.), Male and female homosexuality: Psychological approaches (pp. 81-95). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Finny, J. C. (1960). Homosexuality treated by combined psychotherapy. Journal of Social Therapy, 6(1), 27-34.

Fluker, J. (1976). A 10-year study of homosexually transmitted infection. British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 55, 155-160.

Fordham, F. (1935). An introduction to Jung's psychology. New York: Harmondsworth/Penguin Books.

Foust, M. (2006, August 14). Ex-homosexuals protest APA's position on homosexuality. BP News. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2006, from http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=23786

Freeman, W. M., & Meyer, R. G. (1975). A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male. Behavior Therapy, 6, 206-212.

Freud, A. (1949). Some clinical remarks concerning the treatment of male homosexuality. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 30, 195.

Freud, A. (1952). Studies in passivity: Notes on homosexuality. In The writings of Anna Freud: Indications for child analysis and other papers, Vol. 4. New York: International Universities Press.

Freud, S. (1951). A letter from Freud. American Journal of Psychiatry, 107, 786-787.

Freund, K. (1960). Some problems in the treatment of homosexuality. In H. J. Eysenck, (Ed.), Behaviour therapy and the neuroses (pp. 312-326). London: Pergamon Press.

Goetze, R. (2001). Homosexuality and the possibility of change. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from http://web.archive.org/web/20050404162902/http://www.newdirection.ca/research/index.html

Gordon, A. (1930). The history of a homosexual: His difficulties and triumphs. Medical Journal and Record, 131, 152-156.

Gorner, P. (2000, May, 18) Analysts drop gay therapy discussion reorientation efforts off meeting agenda. Chicago Tribune, p. A1.

Hadden, S B. (1958). Treatment of homosexuality by individual and group psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 114, 810-815.

Hadden, S. B. (1966). Treatment of male homosexuals in groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 16(1), 13-22.

Hadden, S. B. (1971). Group therapy for homosexuals. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 5(1), 116-127.

Hadfield, J. A. (1958). The cure of homosexuality. British Medical Journal, 1(2), 1323-1326.

Hadfield, J. A. (1966). Origins of homosexuality. British Medical Journal, 7, 678.

Horstman, W. R. (1972). Homosexuality and psychopathology: A study of the MMPI responses of homosexual and heterosexual male college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Jacobi, J. (1969). Case of homosexuality. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 14, 48-64.

James, E. C. (1978). Treatment of homosexuality: A reanalysis and synthesis of outcome studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2000). Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the church's moral debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Karten, E. (2006). Sexual reorientation efforts in dissatisfied same-sex attracted men: What does it really take to change? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, New York, NY.

Kaye, H. E., Berl, S., Clare, J., Eleston, M. R., Gershwin, B. S., Gershwin, P., et al. (1967). Homosexuality in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 17, 626-634.

Lamberd, W. G. (1971) Viewpoints: What outcome can be expected in psychotherapy of homosexuals? Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 5(12), 90-105.

Litman, R. E. (1961). Psychotherapy of a homosexual man in heterosexual group. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 11(4), 440-448.

London, L. S., & Caprio, F. S. (1950). Sexual deviations: A Psychodynamic approach.

Washington, DC: Linacre Press, Inc.

MacIntosh, H. (1994). Attitudes and experiences of psychoanalysis in analyzing

homosexual patients. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 42, 1183-1207.

Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1979). Homosexuality in perspective. Boston: Little,

Brown.

Mayerson, P., & Lief, H. (1965). Psychotherapy of homosexuals: A follow-up study. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality. New York: Basic Books.

McConaghy, N., & Barr, R. E. (1973). Classical, avoidance and backward conditioning treatments of homosexuality. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 151-162.

Mesmer, R. (1992). Homosexuals who change lifestyles. The Journal of Christian Healing, 14, 12-18.

Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown.

Miller, P. M., Bradley, J. B., Gross, R. S., & Wood, G. (1968). Review of homosexuality research (1960-1966) and some implications for treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 3-6.

Mintz, E. (1966). Overt male homosexuals in combined group and individual treatment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 193-198.

Monroe, R. R., & Enelow, R. G. (1960). The therapeutic motivation in male homosexuals. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 14, 474-490.

Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A. D., & Potts, R. W. (2000). Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071-1088.

Nicols, M. (1988). Bisexuality in woman: Myths, realities and implications for therapy. Women and Therapy, 7(2-3), 235-252.

Nottebaum, L. J., Schaffer, K. W., Rood, J., & Leffler, D. (2000). Sexual-orientation: A comparison study. Unpublished manuscript.

Ovesey, L. (1969). Homosexuality and pseudohomosexuality. New York: Science House.

Ovesey, L., Gaylin, W., & Hedin, H. (1963). Psychotherapy of male homosexuality: Prognosis, selection of patients, technique. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 19, 19-31.

Pattison, E. M., and Pattison, M. L. (1980). "Ex-gays": Religiously mediated change in homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1553-1562.

People Can Change. (2006). Survey results: What past "Journeyers" say? Retrieved December 6, 2006, from http://www.peoplecanchange.com/pdfs/JIM%20survey%20results.pdf [dead link. The new link is www.peoplecanchange.com/jim/2007survey.pdf]

Pittman, F. S. III, & DeYoung, C. D. (1971). The treatment of homosexuals in heterosexual groups. The International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 21, 62-73.

Poe, J. S. (1952). The successful treatment of a 40-year-old passive homosexual based on an adaptative view of sexual behavior. Psychoanalytic Review, 39, 23-33.

Pomeroy, W. B. (1972). Dr. Kinsey and the institute for sex research. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Pradhan, P. V., Ayyar, K. S., & Bagadia, V. N. (1982). Homosexuality: Treatment by behavior modification. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 80-83.

Prince, M. (1898). Sexual perversions or vice? A pathological and therapeutic inquiry. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 25, 237-256.

Rachman, S. (1961). Sexual disorders and behavioral therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 118, 235-240.

Regardie, F. I. (1949). Analysis of homosexuality. Psychiatric Quarterly, 23, 548-566.

Robertiello, R. C. (1959). Voyage from lesbos: The psychoanalysis of a female homosexual. New York: Citadel Press.

Robinson, J. W. (1998). Understanding the meaning of change for married Latter-Day Saint men with histories of homosexual activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Roper, P. (1967). The effects of hypnotherapy on homosexuality. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 96(6), 319-327.

Ross, M., & Mendelsohn, F. (1958). Homosexuality in college: A preliminary report on the data obtained from one hundred thirty-three students seen in a university student health center and a review of pertinent literature. American Medical Association Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 80, 253-263.

Schaeffer, K.W., Hyde, R.A., Kroencke, T., McCormick, B., & Nottebaum, L. (2000). Religiously-motivated sexual orientation change. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 61-70.

Schaeffer, K. W., Nottebaum, L, Smith, P., Dech, K., & Krawczyk, J. (1999). Religiously-motivated sexual orientation change: A follow up study. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27(4), 329-337.

Schmidt, E., Castell, D., & Brown, P. (1965). A retrospective study of 42 cases of behaviour therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 3, 9-19.

Schrenck-Notzing, A.V. (1892). The therapy of suggestion for pathological appearances of the sex drive. Stuttgaart, Germany: Ferdinand Enke.

Schwartz, M. F., & Masters, W. H. (1984). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 173-181.

Serban, G. (1968). The existential therapeutic approach to homosexuality. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 22(3), 491-501.

Shealy, A. E. (1972). Combining behavior therapy and cognitive therapy in treating homosexuality. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 221-222.

Shechter, R. A. (1992). Treatment parameters and structural change: Reflections on the Psychotherapy of a male homosexual. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1, 197-201.

Shidlo, A, & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumer’s report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.

Siegel, E. V. (1988). Female homosexuality: Choice without volition: A Psychoanalytic study. Psychoanalytic Inquiry Book Series: Vol. 9. Hilldale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Smith, A., & Bassin, A. (1959). Overt male homosexuals in combined group and individual treatment. Journal of Social Therapy, 5, 225-232.

Socarides, C. W. (1968). The overt homosexual. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Socarides, C. W. (1978). Homosexuality: Psychoanalytic therapy. New York: Jason Aronson.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417.

Stekel, W. (1930). Is homosexuality curable? Psychology Review, 17, 443-451.

Stevenson, I., & Wolpe, J. (1960). Recovery from sexual deviations through overcoming non-sexual neurotic responses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 737-742.

Truax, R.A., & Tourney, G. (1971). Male homosexuals in group therapy: A controlled study. Diseases of the Nervous System, 32(10), 707-711.

van den Aardweg, G. J. (1971). A brief theory of homosexuality. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 26, 52-68.

van den Aardweg, G. J. (1986a). Homosexuality and hope: A psychologist talks about treatment and change. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.

van den Aardweg, G. J. (1986b). On the origins and treatment of homosexuality: A psychoanalytic reinterpretation. New York: Praeger.

Wallace, L. (1969). Psychotherapy of a male homosexual. The Psychoanalytic Review, 56, 346-364.

Weinrich, J. D. & Klein, F. (2002). Bi-gay, bi-straight, and bi-bi: Three bisexual subgroups identified using cluster analysis of the Klein sexual orientation grid. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 109-139.

Whitener, R., & Nikelly, A. (1964). Sexual deviation in college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34, 486-492.

Wolpe, J. (1969). The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon.

Woodward, M. (1969). The diagnosis and treatment of homosexual offenders: A clinical survey. British Journal of Delinquency, 9, 44-59.

Posted by Malcolm Smith at 21:04 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Related websites and articles:

http://ipost.christianpost.com/news/successful-therapy-and-counseling-for-dissatisfied-homosexuals-11050/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1179496/posts

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2004/apr/03/weekend.deccaaitkenhead (They are skeptical)

http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/ScientificExamination.pdf (VERY skeptical)

From http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2012/12/rates-of-cure-for-homosexuality.html accessed October 4, 2015.

I came across these recently (May 2, 2015), and found them interesting and relevant.

Interesting, Contemporary Articles on Homosexual Parents

Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent by Katy Faust 

(This was written before the Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage in 2015).

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting

I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost. By Heather Barwick

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

Robert Oscar Lopez: US Will Have To Pay 'Reparations' To Children Of Gay Parents -

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robert-oscar-lopez-us-will-have-pay-reparations-children-gay-parents

New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

`Quartet of Truth': Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex `marriage' at 5th Circuit

by Kirsten Anderson

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition

Donald Paul Sullins The Catholic University of America

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537 (The entire document can be downloaded from this page)

Bibliography

Some information was taken from links from these pages:

http://www.gaychurch.org/index.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

http://aflame.blog.co.uk/2010/07/07/the-myth-of-gay-monogamy-8930136/

http://phrasearch.com/Trans/DBM/setup/Genesis/Gen104.htm accessed August 15, 2014.

Additional links:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/BroSx/PDF/Shrtevid.pdf

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=12499

http://josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/

http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective

Here are bits and pieces from an excellent article printed in Imprimis, from Hillsdale College.

The Battle of Indiana and the Promise of Battles to Come by David French

[Regarding the Indiana religious liberties bill] the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty-although religious liberty is certainly at stake-but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself. This means that Christians are faced not with allegedly "minor" or "insignificant" theological changes to gain leftist acceptance, but with wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

The sexual revolution marches on and the Left's definition of "civil rights" has expanded-not only does it prohibit class-based discrimination in places of public accommodation, it now requires conscription into the revolution itself.

For example, it's no longer enough for employees to have access to low-cost contraceptives and abortifacients. It's the Obama administration's position that employers must provide them free of charge. It's no longer enough for bakers, florists, and photographers to provide service to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. They must participate in and facilitate any kind of action or ceremony their customers desire-no matter how offensive to their beliefs-so long as those ceremonies further the ideals of the sexual revolutionaries.

And just over the horizon are new, widespread battles over the very definition of what it means to be male or female. Simply put, the sexual revolution questions everything about sexual morality and identity-demanding changes in every aspect of traditional sexual morality and, consequently, orthodox Christian theology.

The gay rights movement is inseparable from the sexual revolution, and the sexual revolution is inseparable from the gay rights movement. The principles of radical sexual autonomy, freedom from any form of moral judgment, and government support to ameliorate the consequences of sexual libertinism are present in the fights over abortion, gay rights, and now transgender issues. Those who surrender on one issue tend to surrender on others as well. With similar moral principles implicated, similar moral outcomes result.

The combination of high stakes-with the sexual revolution confronting Christianity itself-and the continued resolve of Christian churches, church members, and conservative public intellectuals, means that the Battle of Indiana is not only indecisive in the larger struggle, it will soon be forgotten as new battles inevitably erupt. These battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to "live and let live"-to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.

For the time being, however, neither side looks ready to yield. So conservatives should be prepared for more-more battles over weddings, more campus intolerance, more boycotts, more buycotts, and more cultural anger and division.

To be sure, this is not the future that anyone desires, but for Christians, it is a far better future than one of isolation, censorship, and marginalization. In fact, for Christianity, this is nothing new. Cultural rejection is a scriptural promise and a longtime historical fact. As Christians in the Middle East and Africa face hideous violence, American Christians shouldn't feel overwhelmed in the face of relatively minimal persecution. Christianity has survived lions. It is surviving beheadings. It can certainly withstand Twitter.

When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other.

The complete article (April 2015 | Volume 44, Number 4): https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/