No One Is Created Homosexual

In the problem of continuing acceptance of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle, there is no greater question that needs to be addressed than the question of whether or not a person is created homosexual. If in fact God creates people with intrinsic homosexual desires and planned for them to live out those desires, then gay marriage, gay adoption, gay spousal benefits and acceptance of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle would be right and good.

But if homosexuality is not a part of God’s created design, and is not a sexual identity at all but rather a dysfunction of the created design of God for sexuality, borne out of ungodly reaction to pain in childhood, then no rights are justified.

If in fact the latter is true, then it would be unkind and immoral to approve of any homosexual condition or activity, because that approval would hold the person in a lying counterfeit of God’s created design for sexuality. They would be left in the bondage of sin, which if not turned from according to the Word of God, will keep them from inheriting the Kingdom of God.

In light of these very serious consequences, it is very important for every Christian to know the truth about God’s created design for sexuality and be able to articulate it when faced with falsehood on this subject.

The first area of proof on this subject will be the Word of God. This is always the foundational source of Truth, so we turn to see what is spoken in the Bible in regard to homosexuality.

In the Bible there is no approval of any sexual union except that of heterosexual marriage–joining one man and one woman. (Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:15, Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8, Ephesians 5:31-33) All passages dealing with homosexuality in the Bible characterize it as serious sin: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22) “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” ( Leviticus 20:13)

Thank God for Jesus’ redeeming blood that cleanses us so those of us who have committed these sins can turn from them, work to be set free, be forgiven and live with Him forever!

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:5-7, when the men of the town wanted to have sex with the angels at Lot’s house, he tells them, “Don’t do this wicked thing.” In Ezekiel 16:49-50, all the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are listed including homosexuality (detestable things). “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before Me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. “

When the man, who was travelling to the house of the Lord,was taken in by an old man in Gibeah, the men of the city pounded on the door, wanting to have sex with him. The old man said, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Don’t do such a disgraceful thing.” (Judges 19:20-24)

In Deuteronomy 22:5, there is a statement against cross-dressing: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Romans 1:18-32 clearly states that sexual union between two men or two women is serious sin. “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies together. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (This is the only mention of lesbianism in the Bible.) In the same way, 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. —Although they knew God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these things, but also approve of those who practice them.”

We do not want to discourage anyone who is working for freedom from homosexuality. This sin is totally changeable and anyone who turns from practicing homosexuality and rejects the evil desires will be forgiven, cleansed and restored as we see in I Corinthians 6:9-11.

Here is a list of sins that will keep people out of the Kingdom of God and included in it are male prostitutes and homosexual offenders. In this passage is included the glorious proof of God’s unfailing love and mercy saying: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God. And that what some of you were. But you were washed,(made clean) you were sanctified,(made holy) you were justified (made as if you had never sinned) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

What a solace and a blessing is that passage of Scripture! This is the heart of our loving God.

In the book of Jude:verse 7 we have complete proof that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” This disproves the pro-gay stance that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was only inhospitality.

In II Peter 2:6-10 we see another example of the seriousness of this sin: “–if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man , living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—-if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.”

In I Timothy 1:9-10, we see homosexuality listed as ungodly and sinful: “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts—-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which He entrusted to me.”

It is clear in every passage dealing directly with homosexuality that this is a very serious sin, bringing eternal consequences. In the Old Testament it was punishable by death and in the New Testament it will keep you out of the Kingdom of God. There is nothing in the Word of God that indicates anything but great disapproval of homosexuality, showing in Genesis 2 it is against God’s created design of man and woman becoming one flesh, it is vile, shameful and will keep a person out of the Kingdom of God.

It is a perversion punishable by eternal fire. God would not go against His nature and create someone homosexual and then consign them to eternal separation from Him because of how He created them. This makes no sense and it is not true. God desires that all come to Him, acknowledge their sin and be cleansed and restored. Then we will live with Him in glory no matter what sin we have committed. But we must agree with the Word that homosexuality is a sin and turn from it.

Because of the deceptive quality of homosexuality, a person can feel he or she was created that way when it is not true. They have been geared to living by the dictates of their emotions and not in reality. Therefore rational argument many times will not break through those demonic barriers. There must be prayer and sharing on an emotional level until the person can trust the one who is trying to give them the truth.

Claims Of A Biological Basis For Homosexuality

Let us now look at the claims of a biological basis for homosexuality. Some people teach that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. There is no proof of any such basis. This has been stated repeatedly by the very men who are doing the “research” to prove a basis of this kind. Dr. Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute in LaJolla, California, and a neurobiologist, upon the death of his lover from AIDS, set out to prove a neurobiological basis for homosexuality.

He took brain tissue from 41 people who died in New York and in California. Nineteen of them were homosexual men who had died of AIDS, and 6 presumed heterosexual men who had been IV drug users and died of AIDS, and 6 presumed heterosexual women.

No lesbian brain tissue was available. He based his study on the findings of Laura Allen, a postdoctoral assistant, who had identified 4 neurons in the anterior position of the hypothalamus, naming them the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH). Her research had shown that INAH2 and INAH3 were sexually dimorphic (two separate differences occurring in the same species) in human beings–significantly larger in men than in women.

The LeVay study was meant to prove this could be carried to a sexual orientation source, and there could be dimorphism according to sexual orientation. His paper, “A Difference in Hypothalamus Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men”, published in Science in August, 1991. He defined sexual orientation as “the direction of sexual feelings or behavior toward members of one’s own or the opposite sex.”

“I tested the idea that one or both of these nuclei exhibited a size dimorphism not with sex, but with sexual orientation. Specifically, I hypothesized that INAH2 or INAH3 is large in individuals sexually oriented toward women (heterosexual men and homosexual women) and small in individuals sexually oriented toward men (homosexual men and heterosexual women).”

His conclusions were:

INAH did exhibit dimorphism—the volume of the nuclei was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in homosexual men. There was a similar difference between the heterosexual men and women. These data support the hypothesis that INAH3 is dimorphic not with sex, but with sexual orientation, at least in men.

The results were sufficiently clear to LeVay for him to state “the discovery that a nuclei differs in size between heterosexual and homosexual men illustrates that sexual orientation in humans is amenable to study at the biological level.” (This is not proof at all, but only a statement that it could be studied further.)

The study, as LeVay himself readily admits, has several problems: a small sample group, great variation in individual nucleus size and possible skewed results because all the homosexual men had AIDS (although LeVay found “no significant difference in the volume of INAH3 between the heterosexual men who died of AIDS and those who died of other causes). Until his original findings are confirmed, the notion that homosexuals and heterosexuals are in some way anatomically distinct must hold the status of tantalizing supposition. (The Atlantic Monthly, March, 1993, page 55, “Homosexuality and Biology” by Chandler Burr). LeVay himself said”the results do not allow one to decide if the size of the INAH3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual’s orientation.”

Also the studies of hormonal or psychoendocrinological basis of homosexuality set forth that adult homosexual men would have lower levels of testosterone than heterosexual men or even higher levels of estrogen and that homosexual and heterosexual women would show the opposite problem. This position, known as the “adult hormone theory” of sexual orientation was the work of a German scientist, Gunter Dorner, who claimed his initial studies bore it out.

But in a 1984 study by Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, a neurobiologist at Columbia University, the results of 27 such studies were analyzed to test the theory. According to Meyer-Bahlburg, 20 of the studies showed no difference in the testosterone or estrogen levels of homosexual and heterosexual men. Three studies were ruled out because of poor methodology and two other studies showed higher levels of testosterone in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. It is widely accepted now that adult hormone levels are not a factor in sexual orientation.

The “Twins” study, done by Michael Bailey (Northwestern University) and Richard Pillard (Boston University), compared 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 genetically unrelated adopted brothers. The theory was “if homosexuality were genetic in origin, then the more closely related that people are, the greater should be the concurrence of their sexual orientation.”

In the adopted brothers, they found in 11% of the cases both brothers were homosexual. In 22% of the fraternal twins and in 52% of the identical twins, both were homosexual. “These findings suggest that homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics”, so Bailey and Pillard believe, but in truth, since all identical twins have identical genomes, including the sex-chromosome pair, if genetics is the basis, then 100% of the identical twins would have to be both homosexual and that is obviously not the case.

Conclusion: There is no proof at all of a biological basis for homosexuality.

Man And Woman Created To Complement Each Other

There is a large body of proof that man and woman were created to complement each other to fulfill the needs of family and society. First, man and woman differ in the way their minds, emotions and bodies function together.

A woman’s emotions, intellect and body form a more integrated unity than those of a man. She confronts decisions, activities and relationships as an entire person–a blend of emotions, intellect and body.

On the other hand, a man’s emotions, intellect and body are more differentiated. He more easily compartmentalizes elements of his personality, treating them as aspects of his identity which he at times can temporarily ignore.

On the emotional level men have more distance from their emotions, and a greater capacity to detach themselves from immediate reactions, whereas women respond to situations more immediately and spontaneously, and find it harder to distance themselves from the way they feel.

Women tend to perceive things more as an entire person–with mind, body and emotions integrated. Their response is more immediate in time; they invest less time in a distanced analysis of a situation. (This would seem to be a part of the needs to move quickly as a mother in reaction to a child’s being in danger.)

A man will more readily react to a situation with a response which is more purely mental or physical—detached in the sense that the response is detached from other elements of his psychological makeup. Even though these descriptions are not absolutes, the overall difference in the patterns of male and female response seem to show a difference in psychological structure.

On the intellectual level the differences between men and women run according to these patterns: The male mind discriminates, analyzes, separates and refines. The female mind knows relatedness, has an intuitive perception of feeling, has a tendency to unite rather than separate. Instead of analyzing and synthesizing the object, she(woman) places herself at a central point, deciding the relationship which the object has to her own life.

On the contrary, man has compartments, sectors and pigeon-holes in his mind; he likes things to be separate and each in its order. By intuition is meant the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and consequently inexpressible.

Analysis on the contrary, is the operation which reduces the object to elements already known, that is to elements common both to it and other objects. The feminine mind, which is more intimately integrated into the entire feminine personality, characteristically desires knowledge through personal unity, identification and empathy with the object of knowledge.

The feminine mind tends to draw objects to a close proximity. By contrast, the male mind, which is differentiated from other elements of the male personality, characteristically distances objects so as to subject them to the tools of abstract thought.

In regard to bodily experience, many writers assert that women experience their bodies more as a firmly integrated part of their personality, whereas men experience their bodies more as tools to be cared for and used. The differences between the way men and women experience their bodies is one of the most important differences in the literature.

It is also one which is strongly related to the integration trait in women and the differentiation trait in men. Women’s sexual experience is extended over time in a series of different phases–menstruation, intercourse, conception, pregnancy, childbirth and lactation.

By contrast, a man’s sexual experience is simpler and more psychologically delimited–intercourse and pre-intercourse. In similar fashion, woman’s sexuality is more extended in space–vagina, clitoris, breasts and a generally more sensitive body. A man’s sexuality is simpler and more localized in space—the phallic region, along with hands and lips.

The sexual body thus comes to woman’s consciousness in many forms and at many times, whereas the man’s sexual body protrudes into his consciousness in a more consistent form and only at certain times.

Men tend to approach a sexual relationship as a pleasurable activity which they pursue regardless of the identity of their partner. On the other hand, most women find it more difficult to participate in a sexual relationship without simultaneously developing an emotional attachment to their sexual partner.

The partner’s identity is more important, and physical pleasure in sexual activity is more contingent upon the nature of the personal relationship. Similarly the type of initial stimulus which will arouse a man sexually is usually physical (sight or touch), whereas the initial stimulus for a woman is often some expression of personal attention. Men are more able to disengage themselves personally from their sexuality, while women are more personally and emotionally invested in their sexuality.

In regard to the differences between men and women in social behavior, the male social behavior is more goal-oriented; the female social behavior is oriented more toward helping and caring for personal needs. Men tend to help by analyzing a situation or a person and thus isolating the particular sphere of need. By contrast, the female mode of care meets the whole person and cares for the whole person.

Men may experience frustration primarily from encountering impediments to goals which they set, whereas women may experience frustration primarily from personal rejection.

Cross-cultural experiments on children have demonstrated that boys are more aggressive than girls in both Western and non-Western developed and developing cultures. The evidence could hardly be stronger that men are more aggressive than women.

Some define aggression as simple violent behavior, a desire to cause harm. Others define aggression in terms of frustration. According to this view, male aggressive behavior is motivated by the higher levels of frustration experienced by men.

Finally, some researchers define aggression as a broader quality related to ambition, drive and competitiveness. On the other hand, women are more given to nurturing activities: the care of the young, the sick and the infirm.

There are other differences between men and women in regard to fear and frustration. Women tend more to fear physical danger, the dark or other threatening situations while men fear situations which will directly threaten his “manhood” such as public humiliation, failure and appearing cowardly.

In regard to frustration, males appear to respond more emotionally to frustrating situations. They may violently attack an object or person, though they sometimes respond with a more generalized emotional upheaval.

The major intellectual differences involve the early advantage that females have over males in verbal ability. This seems to continue through adulthood. Men on the other hand, have a greater visual/spatial ability.

This seems to develop in early adolescence when males begin to demonstrate a greater ability to visualize objects in space and perceive geometric forms. This superior spatial skill may partly account for men’s known superior performance in aspects of geometry, mathematical problem solving, engineering, architecture and the mathematical and physical sciences generally.

(These observations and gathered studies are from a book by Stephen Clark
entitled “Man and Woman in Christ” An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences, Servants Books, 1980. We realize that many of these descriptions of man and woman may not fit what you feel or even may be offensive to you.

We apologize for any offense, but we felt that these observations would be helpful in showing the truth about the created design of the Lord. We must realize that many people in homosexuality do have skewed gender identities and therefore would not “fit” these descriptions. Many of us were influenced by the dysfunction in our homes to reject the gender that we were born with. May the Lord give you strength to accept His design for your created gender.)

In summary, may we say that there is simply no proof of any created homosexuality, but rather ample proof of the truth of the Scripture that man was created by God and woman was created from a part of man to be his helpmate and to respond to him, to bear godly offspring and nurture them and to be a companion.

The man is the priest, the protector, the provider, the seed planter and the companion. What a glorious plan! May we all choose to yield to God’s design and plan for mankind.

The most important aspect of all in regard to man and woman united in marriage as the design of God is that God desires that we show forth the Union of His Son, Jesus, the Bridegroom and the Church, the Bride. The Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

Hallelujah! For our Lord Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come
And His bride has made herself ready.
Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.
(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)
Then the angel said to me, “Write: Blessed are those
Who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!”
And he added, “These are the true words of God.”
-Revelation 19:6b-9

No One Is Created Homosexual
by Joanne Highley