Editors Note: Students have expressed how delighted they have been to have an alternative paper to the Pitt News that they can check out! We believe for fair and balanced news students should read the Pitt News for the ‘Left’ news and the Pittsburgh Standard online for the ‘Right’ news. With this in mind, Pittsburgh Standard has decided to counter Pitt News columnists of the past and present as time permits.

You will be reading a rebuttal to an article that appeared in the Pitt News called "My sexuality is not something I can choose or change" written by Todd Brandon Morris

Advocates of homosexuality take two general approaches when dealing with Biblical passages discussing it.  Some acknowledge that the Bible is clearly against same-sex unions and therefore reject the Bible’s claims.  Others argue that the Bible does not forthrightly condemn homosexuality - at least not in all instances - and even quote passages in an attempt to support the lifestyle. 

Which interpretation of these passages agrees with their intended context?  

Those who advocate homosexuality use passages such as 2  Samuel 1:26 to support their position. It states that David and Jonathan had a relationship that surpassed the love of women. This is not referring to sexual love, however, but to a special friendship they had which exceeded or was different from any kind of sexual relationship. David and Jonathan would have been stoned under Leviticus law had they been homosexuals (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). 

God also condemns homosexuality in Genesis 19. Pro-homosexuals respond that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but rape. However, the Sodomites did not initially force Lot’s male guests to have sex with them, but just by them mentioning it, Lot urged them not to do such a “wicked” thing (Genesis 19:4-8). Other ancient sources such as Josephus and the New Testament (Jude 7) confirm that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. 

Additionally, Romans 1:21-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly condemn lesbianism and homosexuality (cf., 1 Tim. 1:9,10). Some homosexual advocates reply that Romans 1 refers only to phallic cults who committed idolatry. Along with 1 Corinthians 6, they claim that God is simply condemning excessive and promiscuous sex, not a dedicated relationship between two homosexuals. 

First, let me say that if it were true that God is only condemning promiscuity, 90 to 99 percent of all homosexuals would fall into this category.  According to recent studies, only about 1 out of 7 homosexuals have had fewer than 50 partners in their lifetime, and 99 percent of the male homosexuals interviewed have had sex with complete strangers (http://www.equip.org/free/CP1307.htm).  Nevertheless, the context of Romans and Corinthians affirm that homosexuality is completely unnatural (Rom. 1:26,27). When categorized with the other sins mentioned in these passages, there is no such thing as a moderate form of homosexuality any more than there could be moderate form of murder or adultery. Finally, the Bible condemns all types of fornication which would therefore include homosexuality too! (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20,29: Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Thes. 4:3; Heb. 13:4).

Two other arguments used by homosexual advocates in reference to Romans 1:21-32 center around the use of the term “natural.”  First, some claim that Paul was not referring to true homosexuality here because he stated that they exchanged "the natural function for that which is unnatural." It is argued that for those with a true homosexual orientation, that is their "natural" sexual expression. Hence, Paul could only mean heterosexuals who were leaving their heterosexual relations for what was against their natures.

However, this argument involves a severe anachronism. That is, those saying this are attempting to place a very recent twentieth century understanding of homosexuality back into the first century mindset of Paul.

People in the first century did not think in terms of "sexual orientation." It is inconceivable for Paul to have even attempted to make a psychological differentiation such as this.

Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the New Testament or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world" (Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans l," The Journal of Religious Ethics 14:1 (Spring 1986), 200).

Another attempt to refute Paul's clear condemnation of homosexuality argues that his words "unnatural" or "against nature" do not refer to a certain created order, but rather use "nature" in the sense of "current convention" or "current custom." While "nature" is sometimes used in this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:14), the context of Paul's argument in Romans 1 clearly is that of creation and the natural order established by the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:20, 25). Thus, Paul is asserting that homosexuality is a serious violation of God's natural design for His creation. In addition, it should be noted that the phrase "against nature" was used in connection with homosexual intercourse by both Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul.

Furthermore, we would do well to recognize that the God of the Bible does not condemn homosexuality in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  Rather, God carefully defines the borders of human sexuality so that our joy may be complete. 

In Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes that “women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” 

As Thomas Schmidt notes: “It is not clear what he meant by “penalty” in his time, but it is hard not to make a connection between his words and the health crisis we observe in our time.  Sexual liberation has brought homosexuals out of the closet into a shadow of physical affliction where a score of diseases lurk.  And as if this were not gloomy enough, the more deadly specter of HIV infection deepens the shadow, not only for the ever-growing number who die but also for those who are left behind to grieve and to wonder who will die next” (Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, p. 122).

It is a scientific reality that homosexual relationships are devastating not only from a psychological but also from a physiological perspective:  “Irritation of the sensitive rectal mucus layer causes a host of reactions, including diarrhea, cramps, hemorrhoids, prostrate damage, and ulcers or fissures which in turn invite infection.  The thin cell layer of the rectum is easily perforated, and its insensitivity to pain can lead to serious complications before a person is aware of any harm” (Schmidt, p.118). 

Common non-viral infections transmitted through homosexual activity are “amabiasis, giardiasis, gonorrhea, shigellosis, Chlamydia, syphilis, and ectoparasites” (Schmidt, p.119). 

Viral infections include “condylomata, herpes, hepatitis B, and hepatitis A.  Like bacterial infections, these diseases are easily transmitted by oral-genital contact, genital-anal contact and oral-anal contact” (Schmidt, p.120). 

Suffice it to say that while there are attendant moral and medical problems with sexual promiscuity in general, it would be homophobic in the extreme to obscure the scientific realities concerning homosexuality.  It is a hate crime of unparalleled proportions to attempt to keep a whole segment of the population in the dark concerning such issues.

In conclusion, when Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are read within their intended contexts, one cannot honestly avoid the fact that the Bible is adamantly against it.  If the Bible is indeed the Word of God – and there is strong evidence that it is – then homosexuality is against God’s moral law. 

The harmful physiological and psychological consequences of this lifestyle are precisely what God wants to protect us from by declaring its wrongfulness.  If the Bible is true, then anything that contradicts it must be wrong, for truth by its very nature excludes everything that contradicts it. 

However, if truth is not under girded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the truth repulsive.  Therefore, any genuine Christian will love homosexuals just as he loves anyone else because we are all made in God’s image and are loved by our Creator. 

Romans 3:23 states that “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and therefore we all deserve His righteous judgment of our sins. 

Thank God that He “so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).  

(For a thorough analysis of the Biblical verses relating to homosexuality, read “That Which is Unnatural: Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture” by Joseph P. Gudel, http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-2.htm. 

For evidences supporting the divine inspiration of the Bible, read A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix.)

Feedback I for "Homosexuality examined in light of Scripture and science."

Bible is not meant to be taken so literally!

If one wishes to make the argument that the Bible is the literal word of God, it is subsequently necessary to read the ENTIRE text as such. (Otherwise one's approach to the Bible would be unscholarly as well as ignorant.)

Therefore, if the Bible condemns homosexuality, let's look at what else it literally says: Everyone get out your handy dandy bedside Bible and flip to Genesis 16.6. If you notice, the word of God is directly condoning slavery.

In fact, there are over 30 such passages in the Bible. So if we want to say that God is literally anti-homosexuality, then he's also pro-slavery.

Does your head hurt yet?

Now unless one happens to have a radical racist agenda, I don't think too many good Americans are all about the enslavement of another human being.

So what does this mean?

The context of the Bible has to be read considering its’ historical and cultural influences. The authors of the Bible were homophobics, (mostly because they didn't like their economically better-off Greek neighbors) and they were also slave owners.

The Bible, the last time I checked, has fundamental themes addressing love and acceptance. So unless Christians are willing to embrace slavery, it's probably not a good idea to rant about the 'literal word of God.'

As for your argument pertaining to the physical objections to homosexuality, I'm tempted to not even address something so absolutely unworthy of my time.

However, I don't want a rebuttal along the lines of, 'but what about THIS!'

First the STDs- convenient to leave out that, according to the Center for Disease Control, if engaging in unsafe sex, one's risk of being infected with any STD is equal to any other regardless of the gender of your sexual partner.

In fact, risk tends to increase only when considering the state of the economy. (I.E: 3rd world vs 1st.)

In addition, I find it most entertaining that your source for the

'99% of male homosexuals have sex with complete strangers' was a Right-Wing Christian Organization whose claim is supported by the line, 'studies have shown...' Very convincing documentation, I must say.

Although I've clearly won this War of the Footnotes, I don't like to think of this discourse as a fight. Even if you personally believe that homosexuality is wrong, there is no reason why we cannot live as the civilized species that we claim to be.

I would no more rob an individual of African American decent their freedom and human rights than I would tell someone that they cannot love whom they choose.

Kristen DiLemmo

Feedback II for "Bible is not meant to be taken so literally!"

Homosexuality and slavery, there is no comparison!

A response to Ms. DiLemmo's article "The Bible is not meant to be taken so literally!"

I would like to thank Ms. DiLemmo for taking the time to read and respond to my article.  Some of the objections she raises are crucial in one's understanding of the Bible, and they need to be answered.  For if the Bible does indeed condone slavery, why should we accept it, let alone believe that it is God's Word (as do those who hold to a Judeo-Christian worldview).

First of all, I agree with Dilemmo's statement that "If one wishes to make the argument that the Bible is the literal word of God, it is subsequently necessary to read the ENTIRE text as such." 

However, it is important to acknowledge that this does not mean to always take the Bible in a wooden-literal sense, but rather we need to interpret a text in the manner in which it was intended.  We can determine the author's intent by the context of what he writes. 

For example, the book of Revelation has a lot of symbolic language that is not intended to be taken in a wooden literal sense.  But these symbols point toward literal truths.  Conversely, we would not want to wrongly interpret historical narratives (such as the Gospel accounts) as mere allegories.  They were written as historical narratives, and even non-Christian historians acknowledge them as such.

(For centuries critics have questioned the historicity of many specific people, places, and events recorded in the Bible. However, no piece of evidence has ever contradicted what the Bible says.  On the contrary, new discoveries repeatedly verify the accuracy of the both the Old and New Testaments.)

Furthermore, we must make a distinction between what the Bible records and what it condones.  For instance, the Bible records Satan's lies and David's adultery, but it doesn't approve of them.  Likewise, just because Genesis 16:6 records that Sarai mistreated her Egyptian maidservant Hagar, this doesn't mean that God is condoning slavery.

The Bible doesn't commend slavery; rather, it recognizes the reality of it.  In the ancient world where slavery flourished, the Mosaic law thus instituted stringent guidelines such as a year of Jubilee in which slaves were released (Leviticus 25:40).  Indeed, it was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States.  Israel's liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. The liberating biblical truth is that all people are created innately equal (see Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:26-28; see also Galations 3:28).

Furthermore, slavery within an Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery.  A craftsman could, thus, use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt.  Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exodus 23:3).

Finally, we should note that the Bible denounces slavery as sin.  The apostle Paul goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Timothy 1:10). 

The New Testament explicitly forbids the evil system of this world that traded the "bodies and souls of men" (Revelation 18:13). Slave trade is so repugnant to God that He pronounces His final judgment on the evil system that perpetrated it (Revelation 17-18).

(For further information regarding apparent Bible difficulties, see "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.)

Regarding the physiological risks of homosexuality, I would appreciate it if DiLemmo would provide the source of her information from the Center for Disease Control so that I could look it up myself.

According to her article, the Center for Disease Control reports that "one's risk of being infected with any STD is equal to any other regardless of the gender of your sexual partner."

However, this seems difficult to believe, considering the harmful physical nature of homosexual activity, especially between two males.  In response, I would just refer the reader back to my original article "Homosexuality Examined in Light of Scripture and Science", which documents the physiological consequences of homosexual intercourse.  It is true that a male and a female can also abuse their bodies and therefore acquire a sexually-transmitted disease, but this doesn't negate the fact that such activity would be prevalent between two males.

In conclusion, we should love all people because we were all created by God, and He loves us!  Nevertheless, an expression of God's love for us was to set up certain parameters by which we should live, in order to protect us from our own sinful tendencies.  An expression of our appreciation for His love is to live by the guidelines He has given us. 

Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

Only by accepting the love and the grace that He gives us can we learn how to truly love each other!

"For further documented evidence of the physiological dangers of homosexual activity, see the article "Homosexuality:  Fact and Fiction (Part One)." 

Specifically, read the section entitled "A Healthy Lifestyle?" (toward the end of the article)

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm.

This section sites several reputable medical sources which discuss the medical and surgical pathology directly related to the sexual practices typical of active homosexuals.

 Express Your View