In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which classifies mental illnesses and is used by mental health professionals. Homosexuality was no longer considered sick.

In Dec. 1998, the 21 member Board of Trustees for the APA unanimously voted to issue guidelines for opposing the use of "reparative or conversion therapy." The APA opposes any psychiatric treatment that is based upon the asumption that homosexuality "is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation." Such therapy may lead to depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior among patients.
"There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy is effective in changing a person's sexual orientation," said Dr. Rodrigo Munoz, the APA's president. "There is however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive." Link to Statement Click Here

• If homosexuality is a sickness, either mental or physical, then why is it never healed in the same way that Jesus ALWAYS healed people? Immediately and totally. So-called ex-gay treatments require years of segregation from normal society, hard work and "counseling" to even attain a semblance of change. This is totally un-Scriptural.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit…Thus will you know them by their fruits."
Jesus Christ: Matthew 7:15-20.*

Top of page

 Not Sinful

"Homosexuality is a sin." A phrase heard frequently from people, from Christian pulpits and in print. The quote is attributed to the Bible.
It is untrue. No such quote appears in the Scriptures. Not even once in the Bible* do the following words and phrases appear:"homosexual, homosexuals, homosexuality, gay, lesbian, homosexual behavior," and "sexual orientation."
No same-sex act occurs in the Bible text, (though I Samuel seems to indicate the possibility of one between Jonathan and David) and same-sex orientation (like different-sex) is never classified as a sin anywhere.

Sexual orientation is not a consideration for salvation.
Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected is the requirement for salvation.

Top of page

Not Un-Scriptural

The Bible; Old Testament, New Testament and Deuterocanonical books contains the basis for the Christian Church's faith and way of life. For too many years, too many people have died in their sins, been driven straight to hell by inaccurate and uncharitable Christian dogma. Below is an analysis of pertinent passsages relating to the subject.

Top of page

Sodom

For centuries, it has been taught that the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Lasha were destroyed because the inhabitants were homosexual. But Scripture does not support this idea.
The pertinent passage is Genesis 18:1-19:38. Read also 13:5-13 and 14:2-22.
In particular, 13:13 says "Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD." and in 18:20 "Then the LORD said, 'How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!'"
But the sin is not specified and God has ALREADY decided to destroy the cities.
Abraham convinced God to spare the cities if 10 or more good people can be found. Gen. 18:20-32. However, 19:4 says that "all the people to the last man" came to attack Lot and his visitors. This lack of a quorum of 10 doomed the city.
Certainly the citizens intended to molest and anally rape the angels to demonstrate that they (they citizens) were in control and not Lot. Lot was the object of their attack. But it never happened.
Rape is a behavior of violence and agression, not sexuality.
The Bible is full of references to Sodom and often compares contemporary situations to Sodom, condemning current situations and people for doing what Sodom had done.
NONE of the comparisons ever mention anything of a homosexual or homo-erotic nature.
These Scriptues are: Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Judges 19 & 20; Isaiah 1:9-11; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 5:1; 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Zephaniah 2:9; Amos 4:11; Lamentations 2:6; Hosea 11:8; Wisdom 10:6; 19:13-17; Sirach 16:8-11; III Maccabees 2:5; Revelation 11:8; Matthew 10:7-15; 11:20-24; Luke 9:54; 10:12; Romans 9:29; II Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7.
These passages list many wrongs: murder, hatred, hostility, lack of hospitality--but never homosexuality. Many of these wrong behaviors attributed to Sodom are the same attitudes and actions demonstrated towards lesbian/gay people in modern society and in certain Christian circles.

• In Gn. 19:8 Lot offers these men his daughters instead of the visitors. Was Lot so ignorant of his neighbors that he did not think that any of the citizens were homosexual? Or did he know that they were in fact straight and would likely accept this offer? Certainly it would be hard to find a gay man would would do anything but laugh at such a totally unacceptable substitute.
  Why would they accept a female? Because their purpose was humiliation and domination over Lot, not sexual gratification.
• In Gn19:4 it states that both young and old men of the city came. This means the men reproduced, a function of heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
• In Judges 19-20 a nearly identical situation occurs, the attacking men however accept the female substitute and rape her to death. The man who was to be attacked clearly states that the intent was murder, not sex.
  He, like Lot understood that HE was the target and the atackers intent was NOT sexual intercourse with him.
• If the alleged attempted homosexual rape of Sodom condemns homosexual orientation, then why doesn't the actual heterosexual rape of Gibeah condemn heterosexual orientation?
• Later writers such as Isaiah were aware of homosexuality, cultic male prostitutes existed through most of the Kingdom period. Why is sexual orientation never condemned? Why is same-sex behavior never condemned?
• The Greek writers of the OT certainly knew of same-sex love-making, why did it never get mentioned? It would certainly seems to be called for if Sodom had really been destroyed for that reason.

Top of page

Leviticus

18:22 and 20:10-13 are the verses cited in The Law as condemning homosexuality.
Both are referring to pagan rites such as cultic male prostitution. Both are contained in a list of other pagan practices. Clearly non-Jewish or non-Christian activites are wrong. This is a religious condemnation, not a sexual condemnation.
The Law was applicable only to Jews. No Gentile, such as nearly all Christians today, was ever required to obey The Law unless they did so voluntarily. Pilate was not forced to keep kosher was he? Of course not.
The Law was abolished (II Cor. 3:12 KJV) after Christ died and rose. Gal. 3:25 says that "...now that faith (in Christ) is come, we are no longer subject..." to The Law.
Do any of the gay-hostile Christians keep The Law ? No. They do not keep food, clothing, or any other requirement.
What a hypocrisy to expect gay people to obey a Law that never applied, does not apply now and is not obeyed by those who wish to compel compliance to it.

A further point is made by gay-hostile Christians is that only the "ceremonial/sacrificial" parts of the Law were eliminated but all the "moral" laws are carried over and required by the NT. This also is invalid. Some so-called moral laws (divorce) were changed. None are required.
Certain "moral" laws are never obeyed by those who promote this view, e.g. Deut. 20:13.
God commanded that the entirety of law be obeyed, Deut. 8:1.
James, the brother of Jesus and Pastor of the Jerusalem church also said that anyone who obeys one part of the law must obey all of it. James 2:10. He never said adherence to the law was mandatory.
Paul also says in Galatians 3:10-14 that the Law cannot save. "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”

Never did Jesus or any other writer define two categories of The Law. The whole of the OT is summarized as: love. Love God; love your neighbor. I John 3:23.
As Christians we have only this guiding principle as the basis for conducting our life. The set rules, dos and don'ts, these were in preparation for Christ. (Gal. 3: 25)

Paul says in I Cor. 6:12 that "all things are lawful unto me."

How do we know what to do, and what is right and wrong? We pray, we read the Bible, we listen to pastors and trusted friends and most of all we allow the Holy Spirit to lead, guide and direct us. If we are doing wrong we will know it in our own conscience, and the Spirit will agree that it is wrong. (IJ 3:18-20)
Too many Christians are un-willing or un-able or afraid to step out in faith and depend on God, especially when hard or unpopular choices and actions are required to show your Christian faith. People fall back on the familiar and the trite, short answer, the legalisms. But we must grow up in mature faith in Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

Top of page

Jonathan and David

Jonathan was the eldest son of King Saul and the heir presumptive. Jonathan had a long career as a successful warrior and was popular with the people. He was faithful to God. I Samuel 14:6-10ff.
David was the person chosen by God and Samuel as the next monarch because Saul had failed to follow God. He was young and pretty. I Sam. 16:12.
After David joins King Saul's court he meets Jonathan and they become so close that they have a ceremony in which they exchange vows of fidelity and love. I Sam. 18:1-4.
In ch. 19 Jonathan betrays his father and protects David from King Saul's jealous attempts to kill David.
In ch. 20, Jonathan again protects David from his father, Saul angrily accuses Jonathan of treason against himself (Saul) against Jonathan's own interests, and against sexuality. Jonathan aids David in escaping and they have a tearful goodbye.
In 23:15-18 Jonathan again helps David escape death and here Jonathan acknowedges that David is to be King and Jonathan will co-rule with him. Again they renew their vows of fidelity.
Saul and Jonathan are killed in battle and David mourns for them in II Sam. 1:17-27. In v26 David plainly calls the love that Jonathan had for David as "passing the love of women."

What can we conclude?

• Jonathan and David were in a relationship very similar to the pederastic model of an older, wiser man and a boy or young man who is being trained properly by the older. These relationships usually had an erotic element and were often physical, i.e. sexual.
• This model was especially common in the later Greek cultures, but was known in the ancient near east, especially in military settings such as this.
• Their love was preferable to the usual "love of a woman."
• David took care of Jonathan's family after Jonathan's death. II Sam. 9.

Top of page

Romans 1

This may be the most abused and misunderstood passage. We need to understand:
Who was Paul was talking to?
Jewish and Gentile believers in the capital city, Rome. v7

Who was the subject?
Those who DO NOT BELIEVE. Pagans. Not Christians. v18ff. Paul refers to "them," "their," "they."
Paul is not talking about members of the church.
Paul is not talking about homosexuals, gays or lesbians.

What was the subject? 
Idolatry, unbelief, pagan religious acts. v23, 25.

What was the OT background? Wisdom of Solomon chapters 13-15. Pauls draws his thoughts and arguments directly from this passage. They have the same topic: Idolatry. Unbelief. Paganism.

When did Romans become an gay-hostile passage? Only in the last few years, certainly in the 20th Century. Martin Luther's commentary on Romans does not mention homosexuality. Neither do the earlier writers of the church.

What is Paul not saying?

• Same-gender sexual orientation (homosexuality) is wrong. No such concept as "sexual orientation" existed or was even imagined.
• Same-gender sexual behavior is always wrong. Paul was not saying that certain sex-acts were wrong, it was being done for the wrong reason, worship of a false god. Idolatry.
• He is not saying that "they" are gay/lesbian. Rather, "they" are heterosexuals who have left "their" innate sexual orientation to engage in same-sex acts during pagan cultic rituals.

Top of page

I Corinthians 6:9-12

Here is a list of sins Paul enumerates. Two words are often used as condemnation. The first is "malakos," rendered in the KJV as "effeminate" in the NRSV as "male prostitutes," in the Revised English Bible (REB) as "adulterer." The two uses of the word elsewhere in the Scriptures (Matthew 11:8 and it's Lucan parallel.) use the word in the sense of "lacking in strong character" or "weak-willed" or "wimpy." Lack of character has no connection to sexuality.
Male prostitutes do not have to be homosexual, modern-day "hustlers" often are straight, willing to sell to anyone for anything. Some men who are prostitutes market their services to women, so-called "gigolos." So prostitution has no connection to sexual orientation.
It may well have been that the term referred to male cult prostitutes, such as the "dogs" of the OT times. If so, then the problem is Idolatry, not sexual orientation.

The next word is "arsenkoites," rendered in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind," NRSV as "sodomites," REB as "sexual perverts," New International (NIV) as "homosexual offenders." There is very little agreement between versions.
This word is nowhere else in the Bible, it is never found in extant secular documents prior to this time; it is used 33 in the next 400 years, usually in a list like this (or in a quotation of this passage) so there is no context to help; several times it is used in the sense of "adultery." Never in the sense of "homosexual."

Church Fathers disagreed on its meaning. There is very little agreement between translators today on it's meaning.
If the meaning is ambiguous, then we should not be so quick to judge and condemn.

If Paul intended to condemn homosexuality or same-gender sex acts, why did he not use the many dozens of common words, such as tribades available in the Greek language? Why use such a vague term when so many other words could have made his point clearly?

Top of page

I Timothy 1:9

See I Cor. 6:9 above. Same word: "arsenkoites," same info.

Top of page

God Save the Queen?

Was James Stuart, King James I of England, and the patron of the Bible version commonly named after him, gay?
Probably.
Lady Antonia Fraser in her biography of the monarch, King James VI of Scotland, I of England, examines several incidents and facts about his life and makes this conclusion. Despite the furor created by this contention, other scholars have since reluctantly acknowledged that this is probably true. Lady Antonia's biography is generally available at any major public library.
A new book published by Univ. of Kansas English Professor David Bergeron, examines the correspondence between the monarch and the Duke of Buckingham, chronicles his affairs with several men including his French kinsman Esme Stuart as well as other nobles. Using the monarchs own words, he has been able to show that the King had definite sexual attractions to men. "I'm trying to build a case through James' own words, " said the scholar during an interview on the book by the Daily Kansan on May 3, 1999.

For a highly hostile opinion: Was King James I a Sodomite/Homosexual?

Top of page

Wrong!

Why has the Church mis-understood sexual orientation and why has homosexuality been wrongfully condemned as either sick, sinful or unscriptural?
First, Ignorance of the facts.
Clergy and lay alike are often too busy or too un-interested to determine the truth for themselves. Depending on 600 years of tradition and accepting unquestioned what others tell them, this destructive canard has taken on the appearance of absolute truth.
Second, some Christians know the truth but still hold to the gay-hostile doctrine because they:
Are afraid of peer pressure,
Fear the loss of position and place and prestige,
Find that promotion of this poisonous propaganda will be profitable to them. For some preachers, anti-gay propaganda (which scares people) raises huge sums of money and bring them power and prestige and the facade of morality.
Are afraid to face the truth about their own homosexuality and attack those who have faced and accepted the truth.

Top of page

"Hate the sin, love the sinner"

This quote is used to rationalize wrong attitudes and opinions, to ease the conscience, make it easier to hate the person. It is all too often used by Christians to explain how (to paraphrase) hate homosexuality and love homosexuals. See a preacher quote this:click here
Nowhere in the Bible is this quote found and it can not even be shown to be a valid principle in Scripture.
This statement is impossible. Can you hate someone's skin color yet still love the individual? Of course not. Neither can you love an individual but hate how that person loves another.

James 3:10-12"From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh."

I John 2:9 "Whoever says, "I am in the light." while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness."