ETHICSFORABRAVENEWWORLD

JohnS.Feinberg&PaulD.Feinberg
CrosswayBooksWheaton,Illinois ADivisionofGoodNewsPublishers

Copyright1993byJohnS.Feinberg&PaulD.Feinberg ISBN9814001384

Homosexuality

 CHAPTEREIGHT

Homosexuality
Homosexualshavecomeoutofthecloset.Thoughmanyarestilluneasyaboutgoing public,thereareequallyasmanyormorewhoarenotembarrassedabouttheirsexual preference.Theytellusthathomosexualityisgay,analternativesexualorientation,a geneticallyinheritedcharacteristic,andevencompatiblewiththeteachingofScripture. Itisdifficulttoestimateaccuratelyhowmanyadultsarehomosexuals,sincethat dependsagreatdealonhowonedefineshomosexuality.JohnMoneyofJohnsHopkins University,awellknownsexresearcher,definedahomosexualasonewhohadsixor moresexualexperienceswithmembersofthesamesex.Usingthisasthedefinition,he foundthat13percentofadultmalesweregayandabout7percentofadultfemaleswere lesbians.1 Amorerecentstudypublishedin1989usingdatagatheredfromadultmeninthe U.S.in1970and1989suggestslowerestimates.CharlesF.Turner,acoauthorofthe study, said that the estimates made about homosexuals were the most conservative possible,sincetheytookthelowestpossiblenumbersthatcouldbedrawnfromthedata. Therewasalsoalackofinformationfromwhichonemightestablishthetruenumber, whichcouldbehigher.Someoftheestimateswereasfollows.Atleast20.3percentof Americanmaleshadhadasamegendersexexperiencebytheageoftwentyone,and6.7 percenthadthatencounterbytheageoftwenty.Thestudyfurthersuggeststhatafterthe ageoftwenty,perhapsasfewas1.8percentrarelyhadasexualencounterwiththesame sex,1.9percentoccasionally,and1.4percentfairlyoften.2 Itisclearthathomosexualmenhavetraditionallybeenquiteactivesexually.In1982 a study of fifty AIDS victims done by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta discoveredthatthemediannumberoflifetimesexualpartnersforthesemenwas1,100, someclaimingasmanyastwentythousand.Themediannumberforacontrolgroup withoutthediseasewas550.Thisstudy'sfindingsareconsistentwiththoseofa1978 surveyof685gaymenlivinginSanFrancisco.PsychologistAlanP.Bellandsociologist MartinS.WeinbergoftheKinseyInstituteforSexResearchheadedastudythatshowed that15percentofthesemenreportedsexwithbetweenfivehundredandonethousand partners,whilemorethan25percentclaimedmorethanathousandpartners.Lesbians 2 Homosexuality

showedarelativelylowerrateofsexualactivity.Betterthan70percentreportedfewer thanninelifetimepartners,3percentclaimedtohavehadmorethanahundred,andnone morethanfivehundred.3 ThereisnoquestionthatAIDShasreducedpromiscuity,but howmuchisnotyetdetermined. GENETICSANDHOMOSEXUALITY Homosexuals have long claimed they are different not just in their behavior but constitutionally.Thatis,theyfeeltheirsexualorientationisnotamatterofchoiceor evenformedthroughinteractionwiththeirsocialenvironment,butsomethingtheywere bornwith.4Recently,therehavebeentwostudiesthatseemtoconfirmthatclaim,oneby SwaabandHofmans5 andanotherbySimonLeVay.6 Whilebothstudiesdealtwiththe hypothalamus of homosexual men, they were somewhat different. The Swaab and Hofmanresearchstudiedthevolumeofthesuprachiasmaticnucleus(hereafterreferredto asSCN)inhomosexualmen.TheSCNisacellgrouplocatedinthebasalpartofthe brainsofmammalians.Ithasbeenthoughttobeaprincipalcomponentofthebiological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral body rhythms.Thus,ithasbeenthoughttohaveinvolvementinsexbecauseofthevarying bodyrhythmsinsexualdesireaswellasthesexualchangesthatcomewithaging.The studyobservedthebrainsofthirtyfoursubjects.Therewasareferencegroupofeighteen male subjects who died of a variety of causes. There was a second group of ten homosexualmenwhodiedofAIDSandathirdgroupofsixheterosexualswhodiedof AIDS.Thislastgroupconsistedoffourmalesandtwofemales. 7Theconclusionofthis studyisthat"...thehumanhypothalamusrevealedthatthevolumeofthe...SCNin homosexualmenis1.7timesaslargeasthatofthereferencegroupofmalesubjectsand contains2.1timesasmanycells.8 SimonLeVayexaminedtheanteriorhypothalamusintheareathatregulatesmale typesexualbehavior.Fourcellgroups,calledINAH1,2,3,4,werestudied.Postmortem tissue was measured from three subject groups: women, men presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men.9 LeVay found there were no differences in the volumesofINAH1,2or4.TheINAH3,however,wasmorethantwiceaslargein heterosexualmenasinwomenandhomosexualmen.Thus,LeVayconcludedthatthere isasignificantdifferenceinthehypothalamusofheterosexualandhomosexualmen.He doescautionthathisresultsshouldbeconsideredspeculative.Moreover,theresultsof hisstudydonotallowonetodecideifthechangesinthehypothalamusarethecauseor consequencesofanindividual'ssexualorientation.10 ThecautionexpressedbyLeVaywasnotexhibitedbyall.Manyhaveconcluded thereisageneticreasonforhomosexuality.Ofcourse,thisclaimisextremelyimportant 3 Homosexuality

tohomosexualsforatleasttworeasons.First,ifhomosexualityissomethinginnateor constitutional,thenhomosexualsarenomoreresponsiblefortheirsexualorientationthan foreyecolororheight.Attemptstogethomosexualstochangetheirsexualorientation willalsobeuseless.Second,thisclaimhaspoliticalramifications.Ifthereisabiological basisforhomosexuality,thentherewillbepressuretograntthemminorityrightsstatus. Thisisaspecialcivilrightsstatusthatwouldprotectthemfromdiscriminationonthe basisoftheirsexualorientation.11 Wemustbecautious aboutwhatweconclude fromthesestudies.Itiswrongto concludefromtheseandotherstudiesthatnogeneticfactorsgointothehomosexual's sexualorientation.Ontheotherhand,italsoconcludestoomuchtothinkthattheseand similarstudiesshowthathomosexualityisconstitutionalandbeyondchange.Letusset forth our views on these studies and the broader issue of the biological basis for homosexuality. First,LeVay'sstudyseemsmoresignificantthanSwaabandHofman's.Bothstudy thehypothalamus, aglandthat is important bothhormonally andsexually.However, LeVay'sresearchdealtwithanareathatisdirectlyrelatedtosexualresponse.12Having saidthat,wewouldnotsimplydismisstheSwaab/Hofmanresearch,foritconstitutes somecollaboratingevidence. Second, in both studies the number of subjects studied was very small. The Swaab/Hofmanstudywasbasedonthirtyfoursubjects,whileLeVayexaminedfortyone patients. Of the thirtyfour subjects in the Swaab/Hofman research, only ten were homosexuals.13 There were nineteen homosexuals in LeVay's study.14 Thus, the two studiesexaminedthebrainsofonlytwentyninehomosexualmen.Thisishardlythekind ofsamplefromwhichtomakeglobalpronouncements. Third, in both studies an important group of subjects were presumed to be heterosexual.IntheSwaab/Hofmanresearchtherewasareferencegroupofeighteen subjects.Astotheirsexualorientation,SwaabandHofmanwrite:"Sexualpreferenceof thesubjectsofthereferencegroupwasgenerallynotknown." 15 InLeVay'sstudy,he called the secondgroup ofsubjects "men who werepresumed to be heterosexual." 16 Thus,inbothstudiesthehypothalamusofhomosexualswascomparedwithsubjectsfrom groupspresumedtobeheterosexual.Obviously,thatcouldbewrong,andifitis,any conclusionsfromthesestudiesbecomeextremelydubious. Fourth,itisnotclearthatthedifferencesobservedinthehypothalamusarenotdueto somefactorotherthanthesexualorientationofthesemen.Allhomosexualmalesstudied inbothsetsofresearchhadAIDS.Couldthedifferencesinhypothalamusbetheresults ofthatdiseaseratherthanthecauseofsexualorientation?Indeed,itcould.Furthermore, 4 Homosexuality

itispossiblethattheobserveddifferencesinthehypothalamusresultfromsomeasyet unknowncauseorcauses.17 Fifth,evenifitcouldbeshownwithcertaintythatthesizeofthehypothalamusand homosexualityarerelated,thatwouldnotsettlethequestionastowhethersizeofthe glandwasthecauseofthesexualorientationoraconsequenceofit.Inotherwords,it wouldnottelluswhetherthereissimplyacorrelationbetweenhypothalamussizeand homosexualityoracausalrelationship.18 Finally,thereistheneedformorestudyinordertoconfirmtheconclusionsofthe twomentioned.Researchofsexualdimorphism,whichbothofthesestudiesare,hasa historyofcontroversyandcontradiction.Thestructuresontheslidesaredifficulttosee. Researchers disagree as to whether the most reliable way to determine size of the hypothalamusisvolumemeasurementoractualcellcount.SwaabandHofmanusedboth, LeVayonlythevolumemeasurement.Andthereisalwaysthedisturbingpossibilitythat observeddifferences areinfluencedbyfactors notobservedortestedfor.19 Thus,we suggestthatitgoesfarbeyondthescientificevidencewepresentlypossesstoconclude thathomosexualityisconstitutionalandcannotbechanged.20 CAUSESOFHOMOSEXUALITY If homosexuality isnotsimplyagenetic orconstitutional condition, whatareits causes?21 Thatisadifficultandhotlydebatedquestion,evenamongthosewhodonot appealtoScriptureforhelponthismatter.Somehavesuggestedthathomosexualityis traceabletoanimbalanceinsexhormones.G.Dorner'sresearchonratsindicatedthat hormonalirregularitiesduringthefourthtotheseventhmonthofprenataldevelopment mightpredisposethemtowardhomosexuality.Malehomosexuality,however,hasbeen treatedwiththeinjectionofmalehormoneswithverylimitedsuccess.22Lackofsuccess, however,mayberelatedtothefactthatthetreatmentisafterthefact.Ithasalsobeen pointedoutthatwhilesexhormonesareneededforthephysiologicaldevelopmentofsex organs,psychologicalfactorsdeterminethechoiceofasexpartnerandtheintensityof sexualpleasure.23Moreover,Dorner'sstudieshavenotbeenconfirmedbythoseofother scientists.24 Thereissomeevidencethatfamilypathologyatleastcontributestohomosexuality.25 About 67 percent of male homosexuals come from a home where the mother is a domineering manhaterandthefatheris weak,detachedandoftenuninvolvedinthe family.However,itseemsclearthatthisfamilystructureisneitheranecessarynora sufficient condition for homosexuality. Thus, Evelyn Hooker is most likely correct. Homosexualityistheresultofavarietyofcauses,noneofwhichdecisivelydetermines sexual preference. There may be some biological factors which either predispose or 5 Homosexuality

contributetohomosexuality,andthehomeenvironmentisalsoasignificantfactor.Still, in cases where all of these elements are present, one will not necessarily become a homosexual.26 SCRIPTUREANDHOMOSEXUALITY Christianshavebeenamongthemostardentopponentsofhomosexuality,because theybelieveitiscontrarytotheexplicitteachingoftheBible.Onemightthinkgays wouldnotreallycarewhattheBiblesaysabouttheirlifestyle,becausetheydonotview Scriptureastheirauthority,andthinkitiswrongonthismatteranyway.However,there aremanyhomosexualswhonotonlycareaboutscripturalteaching,butthinkitdoesnot condemntheirpractice.27AsWalterBarnettwrites:"Sometheologiansandanumberof GayChristians,workingfromagrowingunderstandingofthebiblicaltexts,havecometo theconclusionthattheBibledoesnotexcludehomosexualpeoplefromtheChristian fellowship...."28JohnJ.McNeill'sopinionismoreextremeashecitesfavorablywhathe callstheopinionofscholarsthat"nowhereintheScriptureisthereaclearcondemnation ofalovingsexualrelationshipbetweentwogaypersons."29 CantheseclaimsberightwhenatleastsixpassagesofScripture(Gen19:111;Lev 18:22;20:13;Rom1:2627;1Cor6:911;1Tim1:810)appeartocondemnthepractice ofhomosexuality?Inwhatfollowsweshallsetforthrecenthomosexualinterpretationsof thesetextsandevaluatetheseinterpretationstoseeifthetraditionalunderstandingofthe biblicalteachingonthissubjecthasbeeninerror. GENESIS19:111 ThesinofSodomandGomorrahhastraditionallybeentakentobehomosexuality.In fact,anothernameforhomosexualityis"sodomy."Thegrossnessofthissinwasthought tobeseeninthecharacterofthejudgmentthatGodbroughtonthesecities. Thetraditionalinterpretationofthispassagehasbeenchallengedinatleasttwoways byhomosexuals.First,somehavearguedthatifthesinofSodomandGomorrahwas sexual, it was not simply homosexuality but homosexual rape.30 Lot's pleas to the townspeople were not to rape the visitors (gang rape at that). If this is so, then condemning homosexuality because of homosexual rape is no more justified than condemning heterosexuality because of instances of heterosexual rape. Anyway, the sinfulness of any rape lies not in the fact that it is homosexual or heterosexual in character,butinthefactthatitvictimizesanonconsentingpartner.31 WhileitistruethatthemenofSodomdesiredtorapetheangelicvisitorstotheir city,thisinterpretationiscertainlywrong.Nowheredoesthetextevenslightlyhintthat whatthemenofSodomwantedtodowouldbepermissibleifonlyLot'sguestshad 6 Homosexuality

consented.Moreover,thisinterpretationdoesnotaccountforthefactthatGod'sjudgment fellupontwoentirecities.Washomosexualrapeacommonpracticeandthusbroughtthe judgmentofGod?Itcouldhavebeen,butsuchisnotstatedinthetext.Whatismore damagingisthatGod'sjudgmentonhomosexualityinSodomandGomorrahisquitein harmonywithhisprohibitionanddenunciationofthissininotherScripturesproperly interpreted.Itisnotasthoughthisistheonlytimehomosexualityisdenouncedand judged. AsecondreinterpretationofGenesis19isevenbolder,foritclaimsthepassageis notabouthomosexualityatall.32 Rather,thesinofSodomandGomorrahrelatedtoa grossviolationofthehospitalitycode.SodomandGomorrahwereexceedinglywicked cities.Goddeterminedtofindoutthetruthabouttheirreputation,sohesenttwoangelsto investigate.TheycametothecityoneeveningandweremetatthegatebyLotwho invited themtohishomeforhospitality.Beforethevisitorsretiredforthenight,the inhabitants of the city demanded to meet and get acquainted with the visitors. This demandtomeettheangelicvisitorsgrewoutofLot'sseriousbreachofhospitalityrules. Lotwasaresidentalien,asojourner.Inreturnfortheprotectionandtolerationofthecity, hehadcertainobligations,someofwhichpertainedtovisitors.Thisincidentarosein regardtothoseobligations.Lot,eitherignorantlyorintentionally,exceededtherightsof analienresidentinreceivingandentertainingtwo"foreigners."Thevisitorsmighthave hostile intentions, so it was not unreasonable to require that their credentials be examined.ThevisitorsshouldhavebeenreceivedfirstbytheSodomites.Moreover,the menofSodom'ssuspicionofthesevisitorsmayhavebeenheightenedbecauseLotdoes notseemtohavebeenamanofpleasingcharacter,forGenesissaysthatthoughhewasa sojourner,heactedasajudgeamongthem.33 Thisinterpretationissupportedbythreelinesofargument.First,theHebrewword ydda' is found 943 times in the OT. It is used only ten times without qualification (excludingthistextanditsderivative,Judg19:22)torefertosexualrelations,andalways ofheterosexualrelations.Hadhomosexualrelationsbeeninview,thentheHebrewword shakab would be expected. Shakab is used some fifty times in the OT for sexual intercourse,relations betweenmenandwomen,menandmen,andevenhumansand animals.Thus, ydda' mustbetaken initscommonmeaningof"toknow"or"toget acquaintedwith."ThemenofSodomandGomorrahweresimplyinterestedingettingto knowtheangelicvisitors.34 TheofferofLot'sdaughtersisunderstoodintwoquitedifferentways.Somethink thereisnosexualovertonetoit.Lot'sdaughtersareofferedtothemenofthecitysimply asthemostconvenientbribetogetthemtobehospitableintheiractions. 35Othersareless convinced about the nonsexual nature of the verb "to know" when used of Lot's 7 Homosexuality

daughters.However,intheiropinionthisdoesnotpreventthehospitalityinterpretationof Sodom'ssin.36 Thehospitalitybreachinterpretationisalsosupportedbythewayotherbiblicaltexts refertoSodomandGomorrah.Thatis,itisargued,theinterpretationofSodom'ssinas homosexualityisnotsupportedbyintrabiblicalexegesis.ExamineIsa1:10,Jer23:14, Ezek 16:48, 49, Matt 10:14,15, and Luke 10:1012. These passages use Sodom and Gomorrahassymbolsofutterdestruction,andtheirsinissaidtobesogreatthatit deservesexemplarypunishment.Thesepassages,however,makenomentionofsexual sin.Theyeithermentionthearroganceofthecitiesortheirlackofhospitality.37 Finally, proponents of this interpretation say the understanding of Genesis 19 as referringtohomosexualityaroseintheintertestamentalperiodprimarilyastheresultof thebooksofJubileesandJosephus.38Thereareevensomewhotrytoconnectthisstory withotherancientmythsabouthospitality.39 2PeterandJudeareareflectionofthis apocryphalattitude. Carefulexaminationofthisinterpretationleavesusunconvinced.Foronething,we disagreethatyada'simplymeans"toknow"or"togetacquaintedwith."Statisticsalone canneverdeterminethemeaningofaword,butevenherestatisticssuggestsomething other than what Bailey claims. Of the fifty or so uses of yada' in Genesis, five uncontestedlyaresexualinnature(Gen4:1,17,25;24:16;38:26). 40Inaddition,thereare twootherpassagesinGenesiswheresexualconnotationiscontested(Gen19:5and19:8, thepassageaboutLotandSodom).Baileysaysthereareonlytenuncontestedusesof yada'withasexualmeaninginthewholeOT(ifGen19:5,8areadded,thatwouldmake twelve instances ofsexualconnotation). Now,evenifweruleoutthetwoverses in Genesis19,thatstillmeansthathalfofthetensexualusesinthe whole OTappearin Genesis.ThatseemsratheroverwhelmingevidencethatMosesdidusethetermwith sexualconnotation,anditseemsclearthatthewaythewriterinquestion(Moses)uses the term is more significant than the way other writers (the rest of the OT) use it. Moreover,bothsidesinthisdebateagreethatJudg19:22isaclearparalleluseofthe verbandthatnosensebutthesexualsensemakessensethere.41 Despitetheseconsiderations,statisticsalonecanneverdeterminethemeaningofa word in a specific passage. Context must decide which meaning of several is to be preferred.Thesexualunderstandingofyada'inGen19:5issupportedbyitsuseinthe immediatecontextoftheSodomstory(v.8).Inverse8thesameverbhastomean"to have sexual relations with," for it makes no sense to say Lot's daughters were not acquaintedwithanymen.Ifnothingelse,theyknewLot,andhewassurelyaman!Even Bailey'sclaimthatLot'sofferofhisdaughterswasjustthemostattractivebribeavailable doesnotavoidthesexualuseoftheverb.Hewasofferinghisdaughtersforsexualuseto 8 Homosexuality

themenofthecity.Theverbinverse8clearlyhasasexualmeaning,anditisvery unlikelythatthesameverbinasinglenarrative (19:111)shouldhavetwodifferent meanings withoutsomeindication inthetext,particularly whentheusesoftheverb occursoclosetogether.42Finally,ifallthemenofSodomwantedwastoinvestigatethe visitors'credentials,Lot'sofferofdaughtersforsexualpleasuremakesnosense.Whydid notLotjustintroducehisguestsanddemonstratetheirgoodintentions? AstothewayotherScripturesrefertoSodomandGomorrah,itistruethatnotevery reference to them condemns their sexual sins. But neither do those texts exclude homosexuality as at least part of the cause of divine judgment. The two cities were exceedinglywicked,andtheirutterdestructionisgraphicevidenceofthat.Eventhose whodefendanonsexualinterpretationofthetextrecognizethatSodomwassowicked thatshewasdestroyedformanyreasons.43Furthermore,thesinsmentionedinthetexts citedarequiteinkeepingwiththekindsofsinsRomans1describes,ofwhichsexualsins areonlyapart.44 WearealsounconvincedbyMollenkottandScanzoni'ssuggestionthatthemenof Sodomwerenotconstitutionalhomosexualsbutbisexuals.ThatiswhyLotofferedhis daughterstothem,andtheirbisexualityiswhytheywerejudged. 45Inresponse,wenote thatthetextsaysallthemenofSodomwantedtohavehomosexualrelationswiththe angels.Thoughwedoubtthereissuchapersonasaconstitutionalhomosexual,ifthere is,thereshouldhavebeensomeamongallthemenofSodom.Hence,tosaythejudgment fellonthembecausetheywereallbisexualsishighlyunlikely.WhatScriptureportrays insteadisaculturethatwassodesirousofpleasurethatitrejectedanysexualrestraints.46 Inaddition,thosewhobelieveintheinspirationandinerrancyofScripturewillbe unpersuadedbytheattempttodenythegenuinenessofthe2PeterandJudepassages. JudegivesastrikingcommentaryonthesinofSodom.Itiscalled"goingafterstrangeor differentflesh"(sarkosheteras),whichisawayofdescribingunnaturalsexacts.Jude usestheverbporneuawiththeprepositionek,whichmeanstheygavethemselvesupto sexualimmoralitycompletelyandutterly!Thisisanextremelystrongstatement.47These kindsofsinmakethecompletedestructionofthetwocitiesunderstandable.Werealize thatarroganceandinhospitalityareterriblesins,buttheycannotexplainthejudgmentof Godinthedestructionoftwoentirecities. Finally,werejectthebreachofhospitalityinterpretationbecauseitseemsunjust.If theproblematSodomwasthatthehospitalitycodewasbroken,itwasLotwhobrokeit, nottheinhabitantsofSodom.Butthen,Lotshouldhavebeentheonejudged.Instead,Lot andhisfamilyaretheonlyoneswhoescapewhileSodomandGomorraharedestroyed. Thatisclearlyunjust!

Homosexuality

Forallthesereasons,wefindthisinterpretationofGenesis19unacceptable.Itisa novel interpretation,butnotonethatsquareswiththetextorwithotherpassagesof Scripturethatcondemnhomosexuality. LEVITICUS18:22AND20:13 ThenextmajorstatementintheOTabouthomosexualityisfoundintheHoliness Code,Lev18:22and20:13.ThisCodecontainsGod'sdemandsfororderingthelifeof hiscovenantpeople,Israel.ThisorderhadasitsgoalthesettingapartofIsraelfromthe immoralandidolatrouspracticesofherneighborssothatshemightbeacceptableto worshipthetrueandlivingGod(cf.Lev18:3).InthisCodearewhatappeartobetwo definite and direct prohibitions against homosexual acts. Lev 18:22 stands amidst legislation against all impermissible and unnatural sexual relationships. Lev 20:13 restates18:22,andaddsthedeathpenaltyforthepractice.Bothcallthehomosexualact an abomination (ta'ebdh, in Hebrew). These commands expand the Seventh Commandment. Their purpose is not exhaustive regulation of sexual activity, but prohibitionofthegrossestoffenses.48 Homosexuals have advanced a number of explanations for these texts. These explanationsaresometimesofferedbythemselvesandsometimesincombination.We presentthemostcommonones. D.S.BaileythinkstheprohibitionsagainsthomosexualityintheOTsimplyreflect theattitudesofthepeoplesofCanaanandEgypt.However,hethinksthereisverylittle availableinformationaboutthesenations'attitudes,mostlikelybecausehomosexuality wasnotascommonamongthemasoftenthought.MostlikelytheEgyptiansregarded homosexualpracticeswithadegreeofcontempt,butsuchpracticeswerenotcommon amongthem. BaileythinkstheAssyrianandBabylonianviewsonthematterarenoclearer.While theCodeofHammurabiseemstoshowthathomosexualitywaspracticedinAssyria,no extantportionoftheCodeexpresslymentionsthatfact,andinBailey'sjudgment,nothing canbeconstruedasimplyingareferencetoit.TwoMiddleAssyrianLawswhichgoback tothefifteenthcenturyB.C.makehomosexualactsindictable.Ifconvicted,theman's penaltywascastrationandsubmissiontotheveryacthehadperformedonothers.There isnoindication,however,howcommonsuchpracticeswere. TheHittites,whosecultureisnowthoughttohavehadsignificantinfluenceonthe Hebrews, have a reference that calls homosexuality an abomination. However, it is Bailey'sviewthatwearenotabletotellfromthistheattitudeofthepeopletosuch practicesorhowcommontheywere.Thisleadshimtoconcludethatitgoesbeyondthe 10 Homosexuality

evidencetosupposethatthe.homosexualpracticesofIsrael'sneighborsendangeredher morals.49Hesays:"WecanonlyjudgefromthesetwolawsthattheHebrewattitudeto homosexualpracticesdifferedbutlittlefromthatoftheEgyptiansandAssyrians...."50 Bailey'sviewsdonotreflectthemajorityopiniononthisissueandseemquiteclearly tobefalse.Thecompellingreasonisthathomosexualpracticeswereoftenassociated withtheritesofpaganreligion,atopictowhichwenowturn.51 AsecondunderstandingoftheHolinessCodelawssayshomosexualityiscondemned not because it is inherently wrong, butbecause it was practiced in the OTworld in connection withidolatrous,paganrites.Thisview is expressedbyalmost everypro homosexualwriter.Homosexuality,itisargued,isassociatedintheJewishmindwith idolatry,ascanbeseeninapassagesuchasDeut23:17.Thisgrowsoutofthefactthat Israel'sneighborspracticedfertilityritesintheirtempleworship.Godwasunderstoodas sexual, so worship included overt sexual acts. It is in this context that whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the OT, the writer has in mind the use that male worshipersmadeofmaleprostitutes. Supportforthispositionisfoundintheword"abomination"(ta'ebah),which,onthis view, does not signify something that is inherently evil such as rape or theft, but somethingthatisrituallyuncleanliketheeatingofporkorengaginginsexualintercourse duringmenstruation,bothofwhichareprohibitedinthiscontext.Templeprostitutionis calledanabominationandiscondemnedin1Kgs16:3,whileprostitutioningeneralis called "wickedness" (zimmdh) and is prohibited in Lev 19:29. Sometimes the word "abomination"referstoanidol,asinIsa44:19,Jer16:18andEzek7:20.Specifically,it is claimed that Leviticus 18has the purposeof distinguishing Israel from her pagan neighbors (18:3), and the prohibition of homosexuality follows directly after the condemnation ofidolatrous sexuality (18:21).The same is true ofchapter 20,which beginswithaprohibitionofsexualpracticeinconnectionwithidolatry.52 Unquestionably,paganreligiousritesincludedsexualactivitiesamongwhichwas malehomosexuality.Participationintheidolatrousworshipofthepaganswascertainly forbiddenandpunishedbyGod.HispeopleIsraelwerenottobeliketheirneighbors. However,thatdoesnotendthematter.NothinginLeviticusexplicitlystateswhythe prohibited practices are condemned. The Leviticus texts just naturally assume the practicesarecondemnedbecausetheyareinherentlywrong,notbecausetheywerepart oftheidolatrousworshipoftheEgyptiansandCanaanites.IntheLeviticusCodeincest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality, spiritism and the cursing of one's parents are all prohibited.OnlyoneactcondemnedintheCodehasculticorsymbolicsignificancechild sacrifice,anditiscondemnedwhetherassociatedwithreligiousworshipornot.Child sacrificewaspracticedinpaganreligiousrites,butitwaswrongontwocountsinitself 11 Homosexuality

andbecauseofitsassociationwithidolatry.Asamatteroffact,thatthesurrounding nationspracticedbothchildsacrificeandtheotherprohibitedactsonlyservestoconfirm thecorruptionoftheseculturesinthemindoftheIsraelite. 53Moreover,homosexualityis condemnedinthecontextofadultery,bestiality,andincest.Clearly,thosepracticeswere not prohibited simply because of their association with idolatry or Egyptian and Canaanitecultures. AthirdhandlingoftheLeviticusHolinessCodeclaimsthattheMosaicLaworat leastpartsofitareirrelevantfortheChristiantoday.Initsmostextremeform,thisview arguesthattheMosaicLawhasnorelevanceforustoday.Allofitreflectsfolkwaysof anancientculture.Weliveintheenlightenedtwentiethcentury.Otherssaythatsince ChrististheendofthelawfortheChristian(Rom10:4),eventheTenCommandments arenolongerbinding(2Cor3:711).TheLawhasbeensuperseded(Heb7:11). A weaker version of this position is used far more commonly. It distinguishes betweenthemoralandceremonialelementswithinthelaw.Theformerarestillbinding, butthelatterhaveended.Justasweneednotfeelobligatedtofollowtheprohibitionsin the law against eating rabbit (Lev 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp and lobster (Lev 11:10ff.)orraresteaks(Lev17:10),thereisnoneedtoadheretoprohibitionsagainst homosexuality,sincethey,too,areapartoftheceremonialelementofthelawandsoare notbindingtoday.54 Thispositioninsomeformscontainsanelementoftruth,butasarguedinourchapter onmoraldecisionmaking,OTlawdoesnotbecomeirrelevantevenforthoseholdinga discontinuitypositionontherelationofthetestaments.Infact,webelievethisisaclassic exampleofacasewheretheOTprohibitionisclearlyrelevant,sincetheNTrepeatsthe samecommand. Astothematteroftheceremonialversusthemoralelementsofthelaw,wecanagain agreethattherearedifferences.Theproblemisthatthedistinctionisirrelevanttothe questionofhomosexuality.Whilethereareceremonialelementsinthelawthatwemay safelydisregardtoday,mostChristiansaswellasJewshavealwaysrecognizedthatthere arecommandswithinthelawthatareofcontinuingethicalsignificance.Exodus2040 andLeviticuscontainmuchofthatmaterial.EvenBoswelladmitsthattheseprohibitions areinchaptersthatseemtostemfrommoralabsolutes,notceremonialconcerns.55 Afourthapproachtothesetextsclaimsthattheprohibitionsagainsthomosexuality arerelatedtomaledignityandthesacredcharacterofthesemenor"seed"oflife.The Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, had no accurate knowledge of the biology of conception.Theydidnotknowthatwomenproduceeggswhichinturnarefertilizedby male sperm. They thought the seed for new life comes solely fromthe man. Itwas 12 Homosexuality

"sowed"inawomanandgrewintoanewbeinginthesamewaythataplantsproutsand growswhensownintheground.Moreover,theydidnotknowthatmatingsbetween certainspecieswereinfertile.Thus,menoughtnottosowtheirseedwhereitwouldbe unproductive(aswouldhappeninhomosexualrelations)orinanimalswhereitmight result in "confusion" as in a centaur. This ignorance also explains why women are prohibitedfromreceivingseedfromananimal,butarefreetodoamongthemselveswhat theyplease.Thatis,theOTdoesnotprohibitlesbianism.56 Moreover,inthepatriarchalsocietyoftheHebrewsthepositionofthemalewas inviolable. It was not uncommon for the victors in war to rape conquered kings or soldiersasamarkofuttercontemptandsubmission.Inamaledominatedsocietyitisnot unreasonabletothinkthathomosexualitycouldbeassociatedwitheffeminacy.Atleast oneofthepartnersinmalehomosexualactshadtoassumethepositionnormallytakenby awoman.57Allofthesethings,then,wouldunderminethestatusanddignityofthemale. Therefore,itisnotthathomosexualityismorallywronginitself,butthatitisprohibited becauseofanignoranceaboutconceptionandadesiretomaintainthedominanceofthe maleinapatriarchalsociety. Thisproposalisasunsatisfactoryasthepreceding.Thetextsgivenoindicationthat these are the reasons for the prohibition, so the view is purely speculative at best. Moreover, we cannot be sure that ancient peoples were as ignorant as suggested. Certainly,theydidnotknowwhatweknowtoday,butonecanfairlyquestionwhether theyweretotallyignorantofthebiologyofconception.Finally,thisargumenttotally ignorestheinspirationoftheScripturesandthedivinesourceofthesecommands.These commandsarenottheresultofhumanspeculationandsuperstition,butarefromGodand areinscripturatedintheBible. ROMANS1:2627 WhenweturntotheNT,wefindthatittoocondemnshomosexuality.Apassagethat immediatelycomestomindisRom1:2627,asitseemstobethestrongestcondemnation of such actions. Rom 1:26 deals with lesbianism (homosexual relationships between women),while1:27treatsmalehomosexuality.ThisistheonlytextinScripturethat mentions female homosexuality. This passage teaches that homosexual practices are evidencesofGod'sjudgmentonthosewhorejecthisrevelation. Aswemightexpect,thisinterpretationofPaul'steachinghasbeenchallenged.A variety of alternative interpretations have been suggested. An initial one says homosexualityperseisnotcondemned,butonlysuchactsinconnectionwithidolatry.58 Paul knew of the pagan rites associated with Roman religion, and he took this opportunitytowarntheRomansagainstthem.Thattheseversesarefoundinthecontext 13 Homosexuality

ofcondemningsuperstitiousbeliefsaddscredencetothisview.Moreover,thistheoryhas possibleechoesofOTattitudesonthismatter,soitisargued. Muchofwhathasalreadybeensaidabouttheconnectionofhomosexualpractice withidolatryapplieshere.Asamatteroffact,itisevenrejectedbytheprohomosexual writer Boswell for the following reasons. He thinks the temple rites of the Romans includedheterosexualaswellashomosexualpractices.Thus,ifPaulwasreferringto suchrites,thereisnoreasontothinkhewouldnothavecondemnedboth.Itisalsoclear thatthesexualpracticesthemselvesareobjectionable,notsimplytheirassociations.More importantly,Paulisnotcondemningdispassionateactsdoneintheworshipofagod,but thosethatgrowoutoflustorpassion.59 ByfarthemostcommonreinterpretationofthepassageisthatPauliscondemning unnatural homosexual actions. This view was first argued by Bailey,60 but has been acceptedwidelybyothers.61Theargumentissometimescalledthe"abuseargument"and isasfollows.62 Pauliscondemningcertainhomosexualacts,nothomosexuality,orthe homosexual,ortheresponsiblepracticeofhomosexualbehavior.Whetherheknewitor not,wenowknowthatsomepeopleconstitutionallyprefermembersofthesamesex. They experience no attraction to members of the opposite sex. Therefore, we must distinguish between the invert and the pervert, between inversion and perversion. Pervertsarenotgenuinelyhomosexual.Theyengageinhomosexualpracticesalthough theyareheterosexuals,ortheycommitheterosexualactsthoughhomosexuals.Inverts,on the other hand, are constitutionally gay. Their sexual orientation is the inverse of heterosexuals,andforthem,engaginginhomosexualactsisnormal.InRomans1Paul condemnsperversion,notinversion. SupportforthisviewisadducedfromPaul'sclaimthatthosehediscusseschangedor leftthenaturaluseoftheirsexualityforthatwhichwasunnaturaloragainstnature.Thus, Paulonlycondemnshomosexualactscommittedbyapparentlyheterosexualpersons.63 This,soitisclaimed,isinkeepingwiththepointofRomans1,whichhasasitspurpose thestigmatizationofthosewhorejecttheircalling. ForthosewhorejectthisviewandappealtoPaul'sclaimthathomosexualitygoes "againstnature,"Barnettdisagrees.Hesaysthat"againstnature"isdifficulttointerpret, but it must mean a variation from what is usual or normal. The homosexual is not desirousthateveroneshouldbelikehimorherinsexualpreference.Homosexualityisa variationfromwhatisnormal,i.e.,heterosexuality.Itisnot,however,asinordisorder. Natureisfullofvariationsfromitsoveralldesign.Somepeoplearemidgets,others arealbinos,stillothersarelefthanded.These,likehomosexuals,areandalwayswillbe minorityvariationsfromthemajority.Thesedifferencesarenotuniquetoourcultureand 14 Homosexuality

time.Theyhavealwaysexistedandwillcontinuetodoso.Theyevidenceneithersinnor thefallenconditionofhumanity,butmerelythelackofuniformityinnature.Ratherthan condemnthem,heargues,weshouldaffirmthemandrejoicethattheyexist.64 Despitetheseclaims, careful exegesisofthetextdoes notsupportthis view.As already argued,thereisnoproofthatthereisaconstitutionalhomosexualforwhom homosexualactsfollowfromageneticcondition,butthisinterpretationclearlyrequires that.Moreover,thereisnoreasontobelievethatevenifsuchaconditionexists,Paul knewofitandreferstoithere.EvenBoswelladmitsthis65butthen,whyconcludePaulis teachingwhatthisinterpretationasserts? Furthermore,itismostunlikelythatwhenPaulsaystheygaveupthenaturaluseof theirsexualityanddidthatwhichwasagainstnature(paraphusin),heisreferringto homosexualactsbyheterosexualsorheterosexualactsbyhomosexuals,actsthatwould beagainsttheirnaturalinclinations.NorisitlikelythatPaulasserts,asBarnettclaims, that some people are just different from the norm, but there is no penalty for such variation. Instead, these verses teach that homosexual acts are against the order of sexualityestablishedinnature(anorderclearlyrevealedinGenesis1and2)66andarean evidencethatGodhasjudiciallygivenoverthosewhopracticetheseactstotheirown lusts.67 Barnett'sfinaljudgmentisthatevenifPauldoescondemnhomosexualityperse,he is simply stating his own opinions. At other places in Paul's writings, he offers his opinions about marriage, bodily pleasure, the status of women, slavery, and civil authority. Since all of these are his views, not God's, we are free to reject them. 68 However, Paul never claims that these words about homosexuality are his private opinions,andtheOTpassagesalreadydiscussedshowtheyareGod'sviewsaswell.69 Athirdmainlineofinterpretationofthispassageclaimsthatitdoesnotcondemn homosexuality perse, butonlyhomosexualactsgrowingoutoflustwhichisawrong motive.Paul'scommentin1:27thattheyburnedintheirlustforoneanotheristhekeyto understandingwhathecondemns.Lustiswrong.Anysexualactivityproducedbylustis immoral,whetheritishomosexualorheterosexual.Theonlymoralsexualactivityisthat whichgrowsoutofloveanddevotion.Therefore,ifhomosexualactsaremotivatedbya sense of love, devotion and commitment, they are part of God's design for human sexuality.70 Theproblemwiththisinterpretationistwofold.First,inviewofwhatwenotedabout howmanypartnersmalehomosexualstypicallyhave,promiscuityseemstobeausual part of male homosexuality. And it is highly dubious that those who are sexually promiscuouswithhundredsofpartners(asthefiguresshow)actoutoflove,devotionand 15 Homosexuality

commitmenttoallofthem!Second,thetextdoesnotsaylustfulhomosexualactsare condemnedbyGod.ItsaysthatbecauseofhomosexualactsGodhasgiventhemoverto thislustforoneanother.Thelustfuldesireisaconsequenceoftheirsinfulhomosexual acts. AfinalapproachtoRom1:2627saysthatitreallycondemnsfalserighteousness,not homosexuality.Hence,Paul'smentionofhomosexualityinRomans1isquiteincidental totherealobjectofhisattackfalsereligion(Romans2).HisrealconcernisthoseJews whothoughttheywerekeepingthelawandweretherebyrighteous.InRomans1he simplyadoptsacommoncatalogofvicesfromextrabiblicalsourceswithoutendorsingits judgmentsinordertoportraythesinsoftheGentiles. 71Butthislistisincidentaltohis mainattackonthereligiouscomplacencyofpharisaism. Onthecontrary,however,thisinterpretationoverlooksthefactthattheargumentof Romans1and2leadstoaringingcondemnationofbothGentilesandJewsinchapter3 thattakesquiteseriouslythesinsofbothGentilesandJews. 72Moreover,ifPaul'sactual attack is on Jewish selfrighteousness, Romans 1 adds nothing to that topic. What functiondoesitserveinthebook? From this analysis of alternate interpretations, we conclude that the traditional understandingofthepassageiscorrect.Homosexualityandlesbianismarecondemned. Moreover, Paul states very clearly that homosexuality is God's judgment (v. 26), a judgmentthatpunishesthosewhorejectthetruthofGod'srevelationabouthimself(vv. 2526).Inessence,Paulissayingthathomosexualsaremade,notborn! 1CORINTHIANS6:911AND1TIMOTHY1:810 ThesetwopassagesfromPaulcompleteourstudyofthemajorbiblicaltextsonthis subject.Wegroup1Cor6:911and1Tim1:810togetherbecausetheybothcontainvice listswhichincludeasimilarwordthatbearsonourpresentdiscussion.In1Cor6:911 PaultalksaboutwhowillinheritthekingdomofGod.Hegivesalistofvicesandsays thatanyonewhopersistsinthesesinswillnotinheritthekingdomofGod.In1Tim1:8 10thelawisthesubject,andPaulsaysitisgoodifusedwisely.Itisnotfortherighteous manbutfortheungodlyandsinners.Hethendescribesinavicelistsinsthattheungodly andsinnerscommit. Inthe1CorinthianspassagePaulincludesinhislisttheGreekwords malakoiand arsenokoitai.The1Timothylistalsoincludes arsenokoitai.TheseGreekwordshave been translated variously in English versions of the Bible. The KJV renders them "effeminate"and"abusersofthemselveswithmankind."TheNASBretains"effeminate" butprefers"homosexual"forthesecondword,whiletheNIVuses"maleprostitute"and 16 Homosexuality

"homosexual offender." As weshall see, there is some uncertainty about the precise meaningofthetheseGreekterms.Butthemajorityopinionhasbeenthatthefirstterm referstothepassivepartnerinahomosexualrelationshipandthesecondtotheactive member.73 Thefirstresponsetotheseversesbyprohomosexualinterpretersisthattheseactions arenotsingledoutintheselistsasbeingespeciallywicked,andifweweretotakevice listsseriously,noonewouldenterintothekingdomofGod,sinceweareallcovetous.74 Interpretationsofthissortarereallyunsatisfactory.Tosaythatasininalonglistdoes notdrawspecialcondemnationdoesnotmeanScriptureapprovestheaction.Avicelistis still avicelist.Moreover,thereisafailuretomake abiblical distinction between a repentantsinnerwhoseekswithGod'shelptobefreeofsomesinbutwhomayatsome timefailandanunrepentantsinnerwhofollowsaplannedanduninterruptedcourseof disobedience. The vice lists refer to the latter, not the former. There is grace and forgivenessfortheformer,butnotforthelatter.75 A more serious objection tothe majority opinion onthese texts stresses that the meaningofthetwoGreekwordsisuncertainandconcludesthatitisunwise,therefore,to usetheminablanketcondemnationofhomosexualityandhomosexuals.Therearesome typicalarguments offeredinsupportofthisapproach.76 Proponentsclaimthereisno GreekwordthatperfectlycorrespondstotheEnglishword"homosexual."Mostlikely this is because homosexuals in ancient Greek culture were married and therefore bisexual.Thereare,however,anumberofGreektermsthatrefertopeoplewhoengagein homosexual intercourse: paiderastia, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomangs and paidophthoros.Thus,ifPaulwantedtorefertothesepeople,hemostlikelywouldhave usedoneofthesewords.Instead,heusedtwotermswhoseprecisemeaningisamatterof debate.Thewordmalakoiisthepluralofarootthatmeans"soft"(see,e.g.,Matt11:8; Luke7:25).Inmoralcontextsitisusedofthosewhoareloose,weakorlackinginself control. Moreover,lCor6:911and1Tim1:810areneverusedbypatristicGreek writers as a reason for condemning homosexuals or homosexual behavior. On the contrary,theyareusedofgenerallydissolutebehaviorandoccasionallyofspecificsexual actssuchasmasturbation. Themeaningofarsenokoitaiisevenmoreuncertain.Itisacompoundofkoite,which means "those who engage in sexual intercourse," and arsen, which means "male" or "masculine."Thus,itmaymeanthatthemaleisthesubjectorobjectoftheintercourse.If heisthesubject,thenthewordreferstomaleprostitutes.Iftheobject,itmeansthose who have had sexual intercourse with males. For this reason many modern lexicons understandthetermtorefertothosewhoaretheactivepartnersinanalintercoursewith males.Yetifeitherofthesemeaningsiscorrect,itissurprising,soitisargued,thatearly 17 Homosexuality

GreekfatherssuchasJohnChrysostomdidnotinterpretthe1Corinthiansand1Timothy passagesasreferringtohomosexualbehavior. In evaluating this position itisonlyfairtonotethatthere is somedifferenceof opinionaboutthemeaningoftheseterms,buttheirmeaningisnotnearlyasunclearas prohomosexualwriterswantustobelieve.InclassicalGreek,malakosisusedofboys andmenwhoallowthemselvestobeusedhomosexuallyandofthosewhoplaythepart ofthepassivepartnerinhomosexualintercourse.77InRomanAntiquities,writtenabout7 B.C.byDionysiusofHalicarnassus,AristodemusofCumaeiscalledmalakosbecausehe hadbeen"effeminate"(theludrias)asachild,havingundergonethingsassociatedwith women.78 Thus, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover,thisviewisfurthersupportedbyitsusewith arsenokoitas,atermforthe activememberinsuchacts.AristotleinProblemshasalengthydiscussionontheorigins ofhomosexualpassivity,andheusesthewordmalakos.79 Thesecondoftheseterms,arsenokoites,isusedbyPaulinboth1Cor6:9and1Tim 1:10.80 Boswellclaimsithasonlytangentialrelationshiptohomosexuality.81 Hispoint seemstobethatitisfoundinalistofsexualsins,sexualimmorality(pornos),adultery (whichisreferredtointhepassagebyreferringtoadulterers,moichoi),andeffeminacy (malakos).However, rather than strengthening Boswell's position, his point seems to weakenit.Arsenokoitesisrelatedtosexualsin.ItisamongsexualsinsinPaul'slist,and asUklejasays,"Itcouldhaveeasilybecomeaeuphemismforhomosexuality. 82Further, Boswell'scaseisweakenedbythefactthatbothmalakosandarsenokoitesfollowpornos inPaul'svicelists. Pornos isageneraltermforsexualsinandisoften,asinthetexts under consideration, followed by specific examples.83 Finally, much of Boswell's evidenceforhisviewsonthesetermsisbaseduponpostfirstcenturyA.D.usage,but whatweneedtoknowishowthetermswereusedwhenPaulwrote,notseveralcenturies later.84 Insummingupourdiscussionofbiblicalteachingonhomosexuality,wenotethat Scripturedoesnotsayalotabouthomosexuality.Possiblythisisbecauseitwasnot widespreadinJewishculture.However,wecannotescapetheclearconvictionthatwhen Scripturedoesspeakofit,itprohibitsandcondemnsit.Thus,wemustconcludethatpro homosexualwritersseemtoescapethetext'smeaning,notexplainit. HOMOSEXUALITYANDAIDS One cannot conclude a discussion of homosexuality in our day without saying somethingaboutAIDS.ThisisnottosuggestthatonlyhomosexualshaveAIDS,because

18

Homosexuality

othersdoaswell.Wediscussit,instead,becausethevastmajorityofthosesuffering fromthisdiseaseintheWesternWorldarehomosexuals. AIDSWHATISIT? AIDSstandsforacquiredimmunodeficiencysyndrome.Itisarelativelynewdisease. Itwasfirstrecognizedin1981whenanunusualformofpneumoniaduetoaprotozoan parasitekilledfiveyoungmen.85TheyalllivedinLosAngelesandwereallhomosexual. Inthatsameyearanumberofyounggaymendiedofanextremelyrareformofcancer (Kaposi'ssarcoma).Inallofthesecases,duringthefinalphasesofthesediseasesthese menexhibitedaprofoundimpairmentoftheirimmunedefensesystems.Sincetheyhad been healthy most of their lives, it was reasonable to think that they were immunologicallynormaluntiltheterminaldisease.Thus,itappearedthattheircondition was"acquired,"andthatitwassecondarytosomethingelse.86 Byexaminingtheseandothercases,itwasdiscoveredthatthisconditioninvolvesa lackofcertainlymphocytesorwhitebloodcellscalledT4lymphocytes.Thesewhite blood cells are helper and regulatory cells necessary to mounting proper immune responses.Lackingthesecells,anumberofdiseases,called"opportunistic,"wouldattack thebody,ultimatelykillingtheperson.87Bythemiddleof1985,twelvethousandcasesof thediseasehadbeendiagnosedintheU.S.alone.In1991,tenyearsafterdiscovery, AIDShadkilled126,159Americans,and196,000intheU.S.wereknowntohavethe disease.Itwasestimatedaswellthat1.5millionareinfected,thoughexactfiguresarenot easytocomeby.88 WenowknowthatAIDSisasecondaryconditiontotheHIVvirus.Moreover,the stagesthroughwhichthoseinfectedpassarealsofairlywellknown.Thefinalstageor twostages(assomespecialistscountthem)areAIDS.UponinfectionwiththeHIVvirus theremaybeafeverandrash,buttheymaybesoslightastogounnoticed.Aboutfour weekslaterthepersonbecomesinfectious.Testsfordetectingthevirusarenoteffective untilthetwelfthweek,andsomeinfectedmaynotdiscovertheirconditionuntilthree yearshavepassed.Duringthistimethevictimmayunwittinglyinfectmanyothers.The periodfromonsetofinfectionuntilfullblownAIDSmaybeasshortastwoyearsoras longasfifteen.OnceonehasAIDS,itisfatalinonetofouryears.Atpresentthereisno knowncureforAIDS,thoughsomedrugssuchasAZTslowitsonsetaswellasits progress. AIDSHOWISITPASSED? ItisnowbelievedthatAIDSisonlypassedthroughintimatecontactwithsomeone whoisinfected.Thetwomostcommonwaysthishappensaresexualintercourseandthe 19 Homosexuality

minglingofone'sbloodwiththatofanHIVpositiveperson.Semenandbloodaretwo very effective vehicles for transmitting the virus. The two most common means of minglingone'sbloodwiththatofanHIVpositivepersonarebysharingneedleswhen using drugsandbypassingthevirusfrominfectedpregnantmotherstotheirbabies. BeforetheprecisenatureofAIDSwasknown,thebloodsupplies oftheU.S.anda numberofWesternnationswerecontaminatedwiththevirus.Asaresult,itisestimated thatabout70percentofallhemophiliacs arenowinfected,andmany(suchastherecentlydeceasedArthurAshe)whohad majorsurgeryrequiringbloodtransfusionsareinfectedaswell.Todayitisveryunlikely thatAIDSwouldbepassedthroughthebloodsupplyintheWest.However,thatisnotso inmanyThirdWorldcountries,particularlyinAfrica. Attimessomehavefearedinfectionfrommosquitobitesorthesaliva,sweatortears ofsomeonewhohasthedisease.Noneofthesehasbeenshowntobeveryeffective vehiclesfortransmittingthedisease. However,whiletherearevariouswaysofbecominginfectedwiththeHIVvirus, quiteclearlythemostcommonisthroughhomosexualintercourse.Itisestimatedthat70 percentofthosesufferingfromtheHIVvirusarepracticinghomosexuals.Thereasons arenotcertain,butthemostlikelyisthatthemembranesintheanalpassagearenot designedforsexualintercourse.Thus,whenthistypeofsexualcontacttakesplace,there isthegreaterprobability thatmembranes willtear.Thecombinationofbleeding and semenareaveryhospitableenvironmentforthevirusanditstransmission. AIDSISITGOD'SJUDGMENT? Before answering this question, we believe one must distinguish between three questions.First,areAIDSvictimsresponsibleandthusblameworthyfortheirdisease? Second,isAIDSthejudgmentofGod?And,third,shouldweshowcompassiontothose whohaveAIDS?Thesequestionsmustbedistinguished,becausesomethinkthatifthe answertoeitherofthefirsttwoquestionsisyes,thereisnoroomforcompassion.Not uncommonly,theytrytoavoidassigninganyresponsibilityfortheirconditiontothose whoareinfected. Wethinkthisismisguided.Evenifoneisresponsibleforbecominginfectedwith AIDS,andevenifAIDSisGod'sjudgment,theappropriateChristianresponseisstill compassion.Infact,thesemightbethebestreasonsforcompassion.Godhimselfdoes notdelightinsendingjudgment.Justasparentsonoccasionmustpunishchildrenfor theiractionsandyetgenuinelygrievethattheymustpunishthem,soitiswithGod.We makethispointbecausehoweveroneanswersthefirsttwoquestions,wearetrulysorry 20 Homosexuality

forthosewhohavethisdisease.Itishardtoknowwhattheyexperience,butwedo sympathizewiththemasmuchasishumanlypossible. But is AIDS the judgment of God?89 The answer is more complex than it may initiallyseem.Theanswerdependsonexactlywhatonemeansbythequestion.Onemay mean,isAIDSGod'sjudgmentforsomepersonal,immoralactsthateachpersoninfected withthevirushasdone?Ifso,theneveryonewiththediseasewouldbeblameworthy becauseofwhattheydid.Ifthisiswhatthequestionmeans,thentheanswerissurelyno. Many with AIDS did nothing blameworthy. We would not add, for example, to the burdenalreadybornebythoseinfectedintheirmother'swomborbythosewhoreceived contaminatedbloodthroughatransfusionbysayingtheydidsomethingtowarrantthe disease.Theyaretotalvictimsofthisdisease. ThereisasecondwaythisquestioncanbeunderstoodisGodjudginginnocent peoplebyallowingthemtoreceivetheHIVvirus?Ifthatiswhatismeant,thatappearsto contradictGod'sjustice.Forpersonstobejudged,itseemsthattheymustberesponsible orblameworthyfortheiraction.IfGoddispensesjudgmentindiscriminately,howarewe tounderstandhisjusticeandgoodness?SometrytoprotectGodagainstsuchclaimsby positingaGodwithlimitedpowerand(possibly)wisdom.Heisdoingthebesthecan, butevilcomestogoodpeopleanyway.Thereisacertainattractivenesstothisview,but in the end the problems it creates and the fact that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripturemakeituntenable. WhatseemsabetterresponsebeginsbynotingthatwhilesomeAIDSvictimsare guiltyofnodirectactionforwhichthediseaseisthejustpenalty,theydoliveinafallen, sinfulworld.Asaresultofsin,Scriptureteachesthatthereisdeath(Rom5:12).Andif thereisdeath,theremustbediseasesthatcausedeath.Scripturealsoteachesthatweall sinnedinAdam,andthusweallareresponsibleforwhathasbefallenourworld(Rom 5:1221).Inthissense,noonecanclaimcompleteinnocenceforthepresenceofAIDSor anyotherdiseaseintheworld. Somemaystillquestionhowitisfairforthosewhocommittednospecificactthat bringsAIDStogetitanyway.Moreover,evengrantingourcorporateguiltinAdam, manyhavereceivedGod'sforgivenessforsinbyacceptingChrist.WhyshouldAIDSfall evenonsuchasthese?Herewerespondthatsinnotonlyhaseternalconsequencesbut temporalonesaswell.WhileGodguaranteesthatrepentedsinwillcorrectourstanding beforehimandassuresusofeternallifewithhim,Goddoesnotguaranteefreedomfrom allearthlyconsequencesofsin.Allofusaresinners,andthatsinseldomaffectsonlythe sinner.Hence,inwarinnocentpeopledie.Inadivorcetheinnocentsuffer.IntheAIDS epidemicpeopleinnocentofimmoralacts,evenpeoplewhoknowChristassavior,can

21

Homosexuality

get the disease.Sinis a serious matter. Even when repented andforgiven, its social consequencescanvictimizeusandothersaswell.90 WestillmustfacethemostcommonformofthequestionisAIDSGod'sjudgment onthosewhoareguiltyofcommittinghomosexualacts?Wethinkitis.Thisdoesnot makemanypeoplehappy,butitseemsaproperconclusionfromscripturalteaching. Scripture clearly shows that homosexual behavior is sinful. And since AIDS is transmittedthroughhomosexualacts,itishardtoescapetheconclusionthatAIDSis recompenseforthatsin.Tosayanythingelsewouldgivefalsehopetothosewhoget AIDSasaresultoftheseacts.This,ofcourse,doesnotmeanthateveryonewhopractices homosexualbehaviorwillgetAIDS,butonlythatthosewhogetitfromsuchbehavior, getitasGod'sjudgment.ThatsomehomosexualsdonotgetAIDSneitherdisprovesitto be God's judgment nor shows God to be unjust to those who do get it. Rather, it demonstrateshismercyandgracetothosewhoescape. Havingsaidthesethings,wemustrememberseveralpointsaswereflectonthis matter.First,thisisamoraluniverse.Wearenotfreetodowhateverwewantwithout anyconsequences.WebreakGod'scommandsatourownrisk.SomeseemtothinkGod isobligatedtomakeushappyatanycost.Thatissimplynotso.AsCarsonputsit,Godis moreconcernedaboutourholinessthanourhealth.91 Godlovesussomuchthatheis willingtogotoanyextremetomakeusthekindofpeopleweshouldbe,peoplewhocan gotoliveeternallywithhim.Second,weshouldnotfailtoseeGod'sgraceeveninhis judgment.Asnoted,manywhoareguiltyofthissindonotgettheHIVvirus.Many othershavebeeninfectedonlyafterrepeatedinstancesofdisobedience.Godhasbeen patient, hoping that the sinner would repent. Even when infected, God's presence is promisedtothosewhodesireitandrepent.Godcanblesstheafflictedevenamidstthe affliction.Moreover,Christ'sdeathpaidfortheeternalconsequencesofthissin,sothere isforgiveness.Finally,God'sjudgmentonhomosexualityisquiteinkeepingwithhis judgmentonallsin.Wemaybetemptedtosingleouthomosexualitybecauseofadistaste forthesinandtheenormityofAIDS,butweshouldnotforgetthatGod'sjudgmentrests onallformsofwickedness.Thatshoulddriveallofustoourkneesinrepentance,asking forforgivenessforourownsins.

22

Homosexuality

ETHICSFORABRAVENEWWORLD Notes CHAPTEREIGHT:Homosexuality 1.TomandNancyBiracree,AlmanacoftheAmericanPeople(NewYork:FactsonFile,1988),pp.180182. 2.RobertE.Fay,CharlesF.Turner,AlbertD.Klassen,andJohnH.Gagnon,"PrevalenceandPatternsof SameGender Sexual Contact Among Men," Science 243 (January 20, 1989): 338348. See also the ChicagoSunTimes,January20,1989.Herewewouldaddthatafurthercomplicatingfactorindetermining howmanyhomosexualsthereareisthedistinctionbetweenhavinghomosexualtendenciesandactingon thosetendencies.Itislikelythattherearepeoplewhohavethosefeelingsatonetimeoranotherbuthave neverengagedinhomosexualactivities.Dothefeelingsmakethemhomosexuals,doesactingonthose tendenciesmakethemhomosexuals,orwhat? 3.NikkiMeredith,"TheGayDilemma,"PhyschT(January1984):5657. 4.MariaBarinaga,"IsHomosexualityBiological?"Science253(August1991):956.5.D.F.SwaabandM. A.Hofman,"AnEnlargedSuprachiasmaticNucleusinHomosexualMen,"BrRes537(1990):141148. 6.SimonLeVay,"ADifferenceinHypothalamicStructureBetweenHeterosexualandHomosexualMen," Science235(August30,1991):10341037.7.SwaabandHofman,pp.141,143. 8.Ibid.,p.141. 9.LeVay,p.1034. 10.Ibid.,pp.10351036. 11.CalThomas,"SexualPreferenceIsNotDeterminedbyGeneticFactors,"DH,September6,1991. 12.Barinaga,p.957. 13.SwaabandHofman,p.143. 14.LeVay,p.1035. 15.SwaabandHofman,p.141. 16.LeVay,p.1035. 17.Barinaga,pp.956957;LeVay,p.1036. 18.Barinaga,p.956. 19.Ibid.,pp.956957. 20.Cf.G.TimothyJohnson,"StudiesLinkHomosexualitytoGenetics,"ChiTrib,November8,1985. 21.ForaratherthoroughdiscussionofthismatterfromaChristianperspective,seetheworksofElizabeth R.Moberly: Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1983); Psychogenesis:TheEarlyDevelopmentofGenderIdentity(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1983);and ThePsychologyofSelfandOther(London:Tavistock,1985). 22. Garfield Tourney, "Hormones and Homosexuality," in Judd Marmot, ed., Homosexual Behavior: A ModernReappraisal(NewYork:BasicBooks),p.42.23.Ibid. 24.Ibid.,p.55. 25.ThosewhosupportthelearnedbehaviorthesisincludeKlausBockmuhl,"HomosexualityinBiblical Perspective,"ChrT17(February16,1973):13ff.;KennethO.Gangel,TheGospelandtheGay(NewYork: ThomasNelson,1978),pp.125135;andWilliamP.Wilson,"Biology,PsychologyandHomosexuality,"in WhatYouShouldKnowAboutHomosexuality,ed.CharlesW.Keysor(GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan, 1979),pp.147167. 26.EvelynHooker,"SexualBehavior:Homosexuality," InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences, ed.DavidL.Sills(NewYork:Macmillan,1968),14:224. 27.Forrecentdiscussionsofthebiblicalmaterialsthatgobeyondthedirectreferencesthatfollow,seeFred Craddock,"HowDoestheNewTestamentDealWiththeIssueofHomosexuality?"Encount40(1969):197 208; David Field, The Homosexual WayA Christian Option (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1979); MichaelGreen,DavidHollowayandDavidWatson, TheChurchandHomosexuality (London:Hodder&

23

Homosexuality

Stoughton,1980);RogerMoss,ChristiansandHomosexuality(Exeter,England:PaternosterPress,1977); Kent Philpott, The Gay Theology (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1977); John White, Eros Defiled (Leicester, England:InterVarsity,1978);andMalcolmMacourt,ed., Towardsa Theologyof Gay Liberation (London: SCMPress,1977). 28.WalterBarnett,"HomosexualityandtheBible,"inPendleHillPamphlets(Wallingford,PA:PendleHill Publications,1979),p.3. 29.JohnJ.McNeill,"Homosexuality:ChallengingtheChurchtoGrow,"ChrCent(March11,1987):246. 30.Barnett,p.8. 31.Ibid. 32. This view has been defended by a whole host of writers. Barnett, pp. 710; D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1975), pp.128; John Boswell, Christianity,SocialTolerance,and Homosexuality (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1980), pp.91100;JamesB.Nelson,"HomosexualityandtheChurch,"SLJT22(June1979):199;McNeill,pp.244 245;JohnMcNeill,TheChurchandtheHomosexual(KansasCity:Sheed,Andrews,andMcNeel,1976),pp. 4250; Harry A. Woggon, "A Biblical andHistoricalStudyofHomosexuality," JRelHealth 20(Summer 1981):158159. 33.Bailey,p.4. 34.Ibid.,pp.25. 35.Ibid.,p.6. 36.SeeBarnett,p.8ff.;Boswell,p.94;andMcNeill,TheChurch,pp.47,48. 37.Bailey,pp.9,10;Barnett,p.9;Boswell,pp.9495;McNeill,TheChurch,pp.4647. 38.Bailey,pp.1028;Barnett,p.9;Boswell,p.94;McNeill,TheChurch,pp.4647. 39.Bailey,p.7relatesthistosuchlegendsasthatofPhilemonandBaucis;Barnett,p.9findsantecedents inrabbinicalliterature;Boswell,p.96associatesthiswiththelegendthatZeusistheprotectorofvisitors; McNeill, TheChurch,pp. 4849relatesthistotheYahwisttradition.SeealsoS.R.Driver, TheBookof Genesis (London: Methuen, 1906), p. 203, note 1; and T. K. Cheyne, "Sodom and Gomorrah," in EncyclopediaBiblica(NewYork:Macmillan,1914),IV:46704671. 40.P.MichaelUkleja,"HomosexualityandtheOldTestament,"BibSac140(JulySeptember1983):261. 41.SeeBailey,p.2;Barnett,p.8;DerekKidner,Genesis:AnIntroductionandCommentary,inTyndaleOld TestamentCommentaries(Chicago:InterVarsityPress,1963),p.137;orUkleja,p.261. 42.PaulD.Feinberg,"HomosexualityandtheBible,"FuJo4(March1985):1718. 43.Ibid.,p.18. 44.RichardLovelace,HomosexualityandtheChurch(OldTappan,NJ:Revell,1979),pp.100101. 45.VirginiaMollenkottandLethaScanzoni,IstheHomosexualMyNeighbor?AnotherView(SanFrancisco: Harper&Row,1978),pp.5559. 46.Lovelace,p.101. 47.Ukleja,p.262. 48.Ibid.,pp.262263. 49.Bailey,pp.2937. 50.Ibid.,p.37. 51.Foranopinionthatisunrelatedtothequestionofthemoralityofthepractice,seeJohnBright,AHistory ofIsrael,2nded.(Philadelphia:Westminster,1972),p.118and3rded.(Philadelphia:Westminster,1981), p.239. 52.Boswell,pp.100102;Barnett,p.12.Herewenote,however,thatinLeviticus18theprohibitionsagainst idolatrous sexuality and homosexuality are juxtaposed in vv. 21 and 22, whereas in chapter 20 the prohibitionsaresubstantiallyseparatedfromoneanother(vv.l5asopposedtov.13).Therefore,whileit might be reasonable to think that in chapter 18 the two practices are being joined together (i.e., homosexualityinritualworshipiswhatiscondemned),itismuchhardertodrawthatconclusioninchapter

24

Homosexuality

20. 53.Lovelace,pp.8889. 54.MollenkottandScanzoni,pp.6061. 55.Boswell,pp.100101. 56.Barnett,pp.1213isaclearexampleofthiskindofargument.57.Ibid.,p.13. 58.McNeill,TheChurch,pp.42,54ff.;Boswell,p.108. 59.Boswell,p.108. 60.Bailey,pp.4041. 61.SeeBoswell,p.108ff.andMcNeill,TheChurch,p.54ff.asexamplesofimportantadvocatesofpro homosexualinterpretationsofScripturewhofollowthisline. 62.P.MichaelUkleja,"HomosexualityintheNT,"BibSac140(OctoberDecember1983):352353. 63.SeeBailey,pp.4041;Barnett,pp.2126;Boswell,p.109ff.;McNeill,TheChurch,pp.5456. 64.Barnett,pp.2122. 65. Boswell, p. 109. For a critique of Boswell's views, see Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural:AResponsetoJohnBoswell'sExegesisofRomans1,"JReligEthics14(Spring1986):184215. 66.WefinditsignificantthatthosefavoringhomosexualityseldomdiscussGenesis1and2.However,those chaptersrecountGod'screationofmanasmaleandfemale,notmaleandmaleorfemaleandfemale.God thenexplicitlytellsAdamandEvethattheyaretoreproduce.DoesthisnotclearlyimplythatGod'sdesired orderfor humansexuality isthat menandwomenwillhavesexualrelationswithoneanother,notwith membersofthesamesex?Wethinkso.SomemayobjectthatGodcreatedmanasmaleandfemaleonly becausethatwastheonlywaytopropagatetherace;otherthanreproduction,homosexualandlesbian relationshipsarefine.However,thisoverlookstwoveryimportantfacts.First,Adamnamedtheanimals,but noneofthemwassuitableasahelpmateforhim.GodthencreatedtheappropriatemateforAdam,andit wasnotanotherman,butawoman(Gen2:1825).Thesuitablemate(notonlysexuallybutemotionally, etc.) for man is woman, not man. Second, for those who think God had to create a man and woman becausenootherwaywouldallowtheracetomultiply,thisisnotso.ThesameGodwhocreatedAdam fromthedustofthegroundcouldhaveproducedtherestoftheracebyspecialcreation,andtherestofthat racecouldhavebeenmaleonly.Godcreatedwomannotbecausetherewasnootherwaytoproducethe race,butbecausewomanistheproperhelpmateforman. 67.Ukleja,"HomosexualityintheNT,"p.355andLovelace,pp.9293. 68.Barnett,pp.1721. 69.WealsonotethatBarnett'sviewsmisunderstandthesignificanceofthedivineinspirationofScripture. EvenifPaulsaystheviewsoriginatewithhim,thefactofinspirationentailsthatsolongasScripture includesthemanddoesnotrejectthem,theyexpressnotonlythehumanauthor'sviews,butGod'saswell. 70.Barnett,pp.2627.SeealsoBoswell,p.108andLovelace,pp.9495. 71.Lovelace,pp.9596. 72.Ibid,p.96. 73.Ukleja,"HomosexualityintheNT,"pp.350352. 74.MollenkottandScanzoni,p.70;DavidL.Tiede,"WillIdolaters,Sodomizers,ortheGreedyInheritthe KingdomofGod?"WordWorld10(Spring1990):147169. 75.Lovelace,pp.9697. 76.SeeBarnett,pp.1415;Boswell,pp.106107;McNeill,TheChurch,pp.5053. 77.WilliamF.ArndtandF.WilburGingrich,AGreekEnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentandOtherEarly ChristianLiterature,4thed.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1957),s.v."malakos,"pp.489490. 78.Dionysius,RomanAntiquities8.2.4.SeealsoUkleja,"HomosexualityintheNT,"p.351. 79.Aristotle,Problems4.26.SeealsoUkleja,"HomosexualityintheNT,"p.351. 80.SeeDavidF.Wright,"HomosexualsorProstitutes?:TheMeaningof Arsenokoitai (1Cor.6:9;1Tim. 1:10),"VigChr38(1984):125153;WilliamL.Peterson,"CanArsenokoitaiBeTranslatedby`Homosexual?'

25

Homosexuality

(1Cor.6:9;1Tim.1:10),"VigChr40(1986):187191;DavidF.Wright,"TranslatingArsenokoitai(1Cor.6:9, 1Tim.1:10),"VigChr41(1987):396398. 81.Boswell,pp.341342. 82.Ukleja,"HomosexualityintheNT,"p.352. 83.DonWilliams,TheBondThatBreaks:WillHomosexualitySplittheChurch?(LosAngeles:BIM,1978),p. 83.SeealsoD.J.Atkinson,HomosexualsintheChristianFellowship(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1979), p. 91; Peter Zaas, "1 Corinthians 6:9ff: WasHomosexualityCondonedintheCorinthianChurch?" SBL SeminarPapers,Vol.2,ed.PaulJ.Achtemeier(Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,1979),pp.206210;HaroldJ. Greenlee,"TheNewTestamentandHomosexuality,"inWhatYouShouldKnowAboutHomosexuality,ed. CharlesW.Keysor,pp.97106;DavidField,TheHomosexualWayAChristianOption?(DownersGrove,IL: InterVarsityPress,1979),p.16. 84.Williams,p.84. 85.CentersforDiseaseControl,"PneumotystisPneumoniaLosAngeles,"MorbMortWRep30(1981):250 252. 86.MathildeKrim,"AIDS:TheChallengetoScienceandMedicine,"HastCenterRep15(August1985):3. 87.Ibid. 88.KathleenMcCleary,"Sex,MoralsandAIDS,"USAWeekend(December2729,1991):5. 89.SeeD.A.Carson,HowLong,0Lord?:ReflectionsonSufferinge'rEvil(GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1990), pp.258264. 90.Forexample,theadulterercantrustChristandbeforgiven,butthatdoesnotmeanhisrelationshipwith hiswifewillautomaticallyberepaired.Shemaystillfindithardtotrusthim.Andifthroughhisadulterous relationshiphecontractedasexuallytransmitteddisease,hisrepentanceofsinwillnotguaranteehealing fromthedisease.EarthlyconsequencesofsincancontinuelongafterourrelationshipwithGodisrepaired! 91.Carson,p.263.

26

Homosexuality