Nota Bene: There is no liberal theology, progressive theology, nor "higher criticism" on this website. The author is very conservative and believes in the inerrant Scriptures.
In my experience, most conservative Christians and pastors use the word "homosexuality" as a euphemism for anal intercourse. This is unfortunate because most homosexual men neither perform that act nor have any desire to do so. They view it as unnatural. Further, some who do perform the act have no desire to, but do so out of peer pressure from certain perverted partners. (I will use the term "sodomy" as a euphemism for this act going forward.)
Scripture condemns sodomy as unnatural and it is easy to see why. It is a misuse of what that part of the body was designed for and can be damaging physically, biologically, and perhaps even psychologically. However, Scripture does not condemn homosexual attraction, relationships, nor intimate acts between same-sex partners that do not misuse the body. Neither are such acts fornication as they do not involve "becoming one flesh" and they involve people for whom marriage is inapplicable.
IN SHORT: Sodomy is unnatural and a perversion and is not part of a homosexual orientation. Same-sex relationships and other intimate acts are natural for those with a homosexual orientation.
Most homosexuals will confirm that sodomy is separate from homosexuality, but unfortunalty, most of them are Leftists and Leftists are loath to label anything as unnatural or perverted. Heterosexual Christians see any intimate act between two people of the same sex as unsavory, so it is not surprising that the distinction I make above would not occur to them.
In the interest of keeping this main page as short as possible, I have limited any polemics to the bare minimum. More detailed polemics will be added to this website as separate articles in the future, but the complete message and all polemics directly related to Scripture are given on this page. I ask the reader to pray for guidance and discernment as to the veracity of this message.
Catholics put tradition ahead of Scripture. This website is for those who put Scripture first.
Let us look just a few verses later in that same passage, Matthew 19:10-12, using a word-for-word translation such as the King James Version:
Jesus is pointing out here that marriage is not for everyone. This passage is usually interpreted as though the first two examples are literal and the last is figurative. I believe that the first example could be figurative as well. A male who has had no sexual feelings toward any female since birth is essentially a eunuch with regard to women and marriage. But even if we take the first example literally, we should ask ourselves why is the eunuch exempt from marriage? Is it because he is incapable of fathering children or because he has no desire for a woman, or both? I would think that the lack of desire would be even more of a disqualification for marriage than infertility, but either way, it is easy to see how homosexuals would fall into the catagory of those for whom marriage is inapplicable.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
It is very strange that people interpret verse 26 as referring to female homosexuals. No one writes a sentence and leaves out a part of speech that is vital to the meaning, then writes a second sentence starting with “likewise” that provides the missing piece so that the first sentence makes sense. The first sentence has to make sense on its own. If we just look at that sentence, what is it saying?
Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
When we read this, we ask ourselves, "the natural use" of what? The answer is there in the sentence. The answer is the women themselves. They changed the natural use of themselves, their own bodies, into that which is against nature. They allowed themselves to be used (sexually) in an unnatural way. (Can you think of an example of how they might do this?) Then the following sentence gives an example of the men using their bodies in an unnatural way (sodomy), so it makes sense that that sentence would begin with "likewise". The word "likewise" is not there to retroactively inform us that the nonsensical first sentence is actually referring to female homosexual acts since the second sentence is about a male homosexual act. The "likewise" is connecting two sentences that are both about misusing the body in unnatural ways that are vile, unseemly, and unhealthy.
Another thing about this passage that sticks out to a homosexual man is the use of the phrase "leaving the natural use of the woman". We cannot leave something we never desired in the first place. This sounds like it is talking about heterosexual men, like the pederasts of ancient Greece. In fact, if we look at what was going on in Rome at the time this was written, it all makes sense: heterosexual men (often married) would leave "the natural use of the woman" and go down to the pagan temple to engage in sodomy with the male temple prostitutes.
Finally, some people think that the phrase "burned in their lust one toward another" broadens the condemnation to include all homosexual activity, at least between men. But does the fact that lust is also a sin for heterosexuals render all heterosexual acts sinful?
If this message has resonated with you, please let me know at
jonathan@thegaychristian.org.
I am also available for interviews.