10 Myths And Facts About Gay Rights And Marriage

One of the most pernicious myths of the present gay movement is the notion that Christians who embrace the biblical view of homosexuality should hate and/or kill homosexuals. The New Testament is based on proactive love-based ethics versus the often vindictive "eye-for-an-eye" law-based ethics portrayed in the Old Testament. Jesus emphasized the differentiation between the old covenant and the new one in his very first sermon noted in the introduction of the New Testament. The gay rights movement today is steeped in misinformation and there is a need to bring some important facts to the table.

The American Dream Blog has pointed out how politically correct hegemony is being used as a means for unfounded discrimination. As noted in a recent incident, "A 14-year-old student at a public school in Texas was suspended from school for saying that he believes that homosexuality is wrong." When LGBT marriages are adopted as a civil right, then we will see less overall justice in the system because the minority will have limited the basic free speech rights of the majority.

Christians and any theists who believe homosexuality is morally wrong will become increasingly subject to legal and governmental harassment simply for holding and expressing moral views. As Christians, we aren't promoting any "hate speech" at all when we affirm the teachings of the New Testament, but teachings based on love in truth.

I have some gay friends and acquaintances who I believe do deserve to be protected with rights as citizens and as domestic partners, however, there are a number of reasons why civil marriage between LGBT partners is not a good idea in my opinion. I've found that there are at least 10 myths being presented in concert with the present gay agenda.

We live in a day when many nominal Christians and neoconservatives do not wish to be identified with the Christ of scripture or the teachings of scripture in general. There is a hesitancy to take a stand when the winds of politically correct doctrine are contrary. However, Jesus described the correct attitude of his followers, saying, "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot." (Matthew 5.13 NIV)

Whether it's for a sense of validation, monetary reasons, or any other reason, there is a lot of political pressure today to affirm alternative sexual lifestyles and codify alternative marriage forms as a civil right. Last month, for example, the neoconservative MSM talking head Bill O'Reilly claimed that people who take a biblical perspective on life, "Bible thumpers" as he calls us, do not have any valid argument that could possibly be used to question the ascendancy of alternative marriage forms as a civil right:

"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side."

O'Reilly's claim that all conservative Christians can do is "thump the Bible" is quite false. The fact is that conservative Christians, such as William Lane Craig, have been trouncing secular humanists in public debates on a variety of issues, including questions about morality. And the most prominent secular atheists make all kinds of absurd excuses for not debating Craig. But the way the system works today, a serious public debate on critical subjects is almost always avoided. When people behind a spurious agenda have weak arguments or a lack of valid philosophical justification, they tend to use media hegemony and political hegemony as opposed to engaging in serious public debate.

For a basic outline of the biblical perspective on homosexuality and Christianity, I would recommend two blog posts by William Lane Craig. One is entitled, "Christian Homosexuals?" and another is entitled, "A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality"

We will probably never see Bill O'Reilly invite a serious defender of biblical views onto his show, such as William Lane Craig because the PC hegemony simply cannot stand up to such logical criticism. Instead, we will likely witness the continuous evisceration of basic civil rights in favor of spurious ones based not on objective facts, but on subjective feelings. But those who are familiar with the reliable truths of scripture understand that truth and love win in the end, no matter how much misinformation is projected against us in our day.

Once LGBT marriage is granted and affirmed as a civil right, then a Pandora's Box of increasing confusion and delusion will have been opened. For example, if the bisexual identity is protected as a civil right, then it would only follow that bisexual marriage should be protected as a civil right. In this case, polygamy will become a civil right because, after all, the sexual orientations and appetites of bisexuals deserve equal marriage status. When you do the math, one biological male bisexual would be entitled to a male and a female in marriage. One biological female bisexual in marriage would be entitled to one male and one female. That would make four people entitled to a single marriage union, that is unless either of the two additional marriage partners was in love with 5th and 6th parties. It could go on mathematically with no end

Before diving into this subject, it helps to understand and clarify two key currently-used terms: gender identity and sexual orientation. The term "gender identity" refers to a subjective self-identification that does not really have anything to do with a person's biologically born equipment. Sexual orientation refers to a person's sense of physical attraction. Both terms are based on the subjective feelings of the individual.

Myth 1: Disagreeing with the behavior of homosexuality means that you must "hate" LGBT people.
Fact 1: The most basic interpretation of the biblical New Testament Christian view is based on loving all people, despite whatever lifestyle a person may embrace. And to claim that disagreement is "hate" is baseless slander.

Myth 2: There is conclusive scientific evidence that genetics alone causes people to be gay.

Fact 2: No 'gay gene' has been discovered and there is no conclusive evidence genetics alone is responsible. Actually,  "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way."

 
Myth 3: There are no strong logical arguments supporting the biblical view of homosexuality.
Fact 3: Science, history, philosophy, and psychology are realms in which the biblical view can be logically supported.

Myth 4: The public acceptance of homosexuality is the result of a long, progressive trend in history.
Fact 4: Historically, the popularity of homosexuality has been a like a pendulum reflecting general societal moral conditions.

Myth 5: If a majority of people believe something is morally right, then it must be right.
Fact 5: This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people").

Myth 6: Accepting gay marriage as a civil right will have no negative effects on society.
Fact 6: Discrimination against those who support strong family values, the basis of a strong society, and freedom of religious conscience, will increase exponentially when homosexual marriage is granted as a civil right. We see this already.

Myth 7: If the government validates homosexual marriage as a civil right, then it is morally right.
Fact 7: This known as an argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem) and it is a logical fallacy.

Myth 8: There is a clear scientific basis for justifying  LGBT marriage as a valid civil right.
Fact 8: There is no conclusive objective scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is genetic, and basing a civil right on subjective "self-identification" is not in keeping with legal tradition.

Myth 9: There is no logical connection between promoting LGBT rights and bestiality or pedophilia.
Fact: 9  Because LGBT rights are actually based on sexual preference, not biological characteristics, then a precedent is set for other "civil rights" based on subjective feelings and sexual desires alone.

Myth 10: The civil rights battle for gays is the same or similar to the civil rights battle for blacks.
Fact 10: The civil rights battle for blacks was based on objective, biological differences between people. The gay rights movement so far has no such confirmed basis.

A little elaboration on these points...

Fact 1: The most pernicious myth today is the promotion of the idea that biblical New Testament Christianity entails hating and killing homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth. When gay activists point to the Westboro Baptist Church as an example of valid, biblical Christianity, it is like pointing to Hitler as the prime example of German culture. There is simply no logical basis to make such comparisons. According to scripture, God loves the world and Christians are to love all people in the world, as noted,

"For God 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 3.15 NIV)

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (I John 4.8 NIV)

People will often point to the Old Testament claiming that all who believe the Bible must hate gays because homosexuality is listed as a capital offense in verses such as Leviticus 20:13. This is false logic for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the fact that something is listed as a capital offense does not suggest any emotional qualifications, such as hatred. Secondly, verses pulled from the book of Leviticus outline a different dispensation, a different covenant, and an autonomous political theocracy that was neither in existence in the time of the early church nor in our time today.

The present New Testament dispensation and covenant does not emphasize a legalistic religious code, but grace. John 1.17 outlines, "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." In grace and truth there neither extreme legalism nor hatred. The New Testament is based on a new covenant that was predicted in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah... For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts... And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

These verses basically predicted that a new covenant would be established that would offer a reinterpretation of The Law, of holiness, of forgiveness, based on grace and knowing God personally, not by obeying strict rules. This is the essence of what Jesus brought in his first coming. Like a legal agreement, a new covenant supersedes an old one. Thus, there is no reason at all to assume that all the previous rules apply. Quite the contrary, there is a reason to focus on the new legal agreement as the standard. In New Testament accounts, Jesus forgave sinners and showed compassion, as noted in Luke's gospel chapter 7, when Jesus forgave the prostitute. There is no room in the biblical New Covenant for the myth that Christians are supposed to hate and kill gays. 

Some antagonists will claim, "That is your interpretation of scripture. How do you know you are right? The Bible says 'kill homosexuals' so you should kill and hate, that's what you believe today."

When critics make the claim that Christians should follow all of the Old Testament law to the letter, emphasize the basic differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament as described in scripture. This subject is referred to as supersessionism. Though there are disagreements about specifics, all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, have acknowledged the same basics. Even the Catholic church, known for it more religious approach to morality, officially underscored the biblical emphasis of grace over the law in their catechisms. Two example of many: "Our justification comes from the grace of God." and "The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being." 

Outline of basic Christian supersessionism

1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions acknowledge New Testament supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.

Because there are so many extra-biblical and heretical professors and theologians today, it's best to go back and scrutinize the original sources and recorded history. Where are the supposed examples in the New Testament that could possibly justify the hatred or killing of gays? There are none. There is no example of the church killing anyone due to sexual sins. However, I Corinthians 5 does outline how a person practicing incest could have been recommended for execution according to Levitical law but was instead lovingly disciplined by the church.

Jesus outlined the basics of supersessionism in the Sermon of the Mount, which set the tone for the entire New Testament and all other examples of New Testament ethics. Old Testament ethics are based upon vindictive legalism: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," (Exodus 21.24, KJV) Jesus offered, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5. 38-39 NIV)  Jesus was offering a new, non-violent, non-vindictive approach. 

Critics will say, "But Jesus said the law must not be broken, that it must be fulfilled, therefore Jesus supported the Old Testament..." (Matthew 5. 17-18) There are two ways in which the New Testament fulfills the law. Firstly, in Christ himself, and, secondly, by the word of God. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus raised the bar of sin and law showing that no human can possibly fulfill the law's requirements because we have all disqualified ourselves with evil thoughts at one time or another. Because Jesus is perfect and died as a perfect propitiation for our sin, however, he did in fact fulfill all of the law for all who would believe and follow him. 
  

1. Jesus raised the bar in the Sermon on the Mount offering that even evil thoughts make everyone worthy of death according to the law.

2. Therefore, no one can be justified by the law alone.

3. In offering himself as a sacrifice for sin, Jesus offered a fulfillment of the law. Jesus did not abolish the requirements of the law - perfection - but offered us his own perfection, a sinless life, as a sacrificial atonement on the cross.

A second factor here is the word of God. The law is "fulfilled" insofar as it serves its purpose as a tutor leading us to Christ. Galatians 3.24 states, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (KJV). In pointing to Christ, the purpose of the law has been fulfilled. Paul wrote that the law was made for sinners, not for the righteous. (I Timothy 1.9) Once we are born again by the Holy Spirit and acquire the new nature Paul described in Romans 6, then we become free from our slavery to the sin nature:

"We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.." (Romans 6.6, ESV). Thus, the most effective manner of fulfilling the law and seeing a righteous society is for as many people as possible to become genuine Christians, to receive the Holy Spirit and know the inner power of loving God and loving others.

The pattern of 'love over law' is noted throughout the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the New Testament. Jesus explained that love and grace do not nullify the law (Matthew 5. 17) but fulfill it by offering a better way of meeting its requirements. There is still an objective basis of right and wrong in God's eternal righteous existence. For more information on that subject, see the article, If God Exists, Then Objective Morality Exists. As opposed to hatred and killing, Christians are simply to shine the light of truth in a dark world and to be a preserving influence in an immoral world, even as salt preserves food products (Matthew 5.13-16)
 
Based on Jesus' many examples, living in the light of the gospel and being a moral salt in a morally decaying world simply means to speak the truth and to demonstrate grace and love to others. It's not cloudy, it's quite simple. For all these reasons, the antagonist has the burden of proof in making the claim that Christians should hate and kill gays. Prominent theologians such as C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig have confirmed the New Testament view advocates truth and love when dealing with this subject. Most secular critics are not familiar with supersessionism, the main purpose of the law, and the concept of eternal justice, as outlined at this link. When these three aspects are considered, there is no logical contradiction in the Christian view of homosexuality in the Old and New Testament.

Fact 2: No 'gay gene' has been discovered and there is no conclusive evidence genetics alone is responsible. There are a number of important aspects that can be considered with this issue. One has to do with verifying conclusive scientific evidence related to genetics studies. And other points are "even if" considerations. For example, even if new epi-mark gender-bending evidence were to be conclusively verified, this raises other questions about the basis of moral right and wrong and chicken and egg type scenarios.

William Lane Craig raised a hypothetical example, people may be born with addictive traits and find they have a compelling inclination to binge on alcohol. Just because there is this addictive trait, does that mean that addiction to drugs and alcohol are morally acceptable or desirable? No, it does not. And a person has a choice to restrain inclinations that are immoral.

Because a man looks effeminate and acts effeminate and even may have felt an attraction for men, this does not necessitate gay sexual activity, which is a choice. There are men today who call themselves meterosexuals, who look gay and act gay, but who are straight. Because Tim Tebow goes to a nail salon, it could imply that he is secretly gay, or that he just prefers some things that may seem feminine. The gay website Queerty reads into these types of things, offering, "he also had a bromantic dinner with Fred Durst there recently." Genetic discoveries, and all evidence tends to be framed according to preconceptions.

In December 2012, scientists basically agreed that, as of today, no "gay gene" has been discovered.  However, people are now presenting a new speculative theory as fact. Notice how the 'non-scientist makes the following claim:

"Okay. I’m going to try to get through this science as best I can.

In The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Uppsala University in Sweden have concluded through their research that sexual orientation can be decided through epi-marks, which are temporary switches in a fetus’ DNA that exist while in the womb and shortly after birth."

In contrast to the open-ended nature of the discoveries and implications, a co-author of the study, Sergey Gavrilets, claims that this is the 'best explanation' so far for the presupposed fact that some people are born gay:

"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality."

Notice how the scientist has already decided that homosexuality has a genetic basis, he's just trying to find the proof, that is, the 'best explanation' so far. A person's perspective on homosexuality relates to a person's perspective on God's existence. From a philosophical and historical perspective, objective moral values are based on God's existence. As William Lane Craig has pointed, deeper questions need to be asked to get to the root issues. "But this question [is homosexuality a sin?] raises an even deeper question, which we’ve got to answer first: do right and wrong really exist? Before you can determine what is right and wrong, you have to know that there really is right and wrong."

Another "even if" point to consider is this: Even if unique, physiological traits are discovered in homosexuals, how do we know which came first? In Romans 1.24, Paul states, "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. Some have interpreted this to mean that people who commit to homosexuality do undergo some type of codifying physical change.

Could there be slight physiological changes that occur when a person fully commits to practicing a gay lifestyle? Kerby Anderson addresses physiological differences as the 'chicken and the egg' type questions:

"When there is a difference in brain structure, is the difference the result of sexual orientation or is it the cause of sexual orientation? Researchers, for example, have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."

All the gay friends and acquaintances I have, who have taken time to open up and confide in me, have explained that they had either been molested or exposed to extremely age-inappropriate material and experiences at very young ages.

In contrast to these types of genetic studies, other studies suggest that child molestation is a major factor influencing people to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. The California School of Professional Psychology published findings in a report entitled, "Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons" and the abstract states, "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women." 7% of the heterosexual men reported molestation, 22% of the lesbian women reported molestation and a whopping 46% of the gay men reported molestation. These types of high statistics ring true with the accounts of gay friends and acquaintances of mine who have confided in me that they were either molested or had some extremely age-inappropriate experiences that influenced them towards becoming gay. Ellen DeGeneres has been able to describe her molestation as a teenager in public interviews. 
    
Fact 3: The fields of science, history, philosophy and psychology are realms in which the biblical view can be supported. As far as arguments go, "bible thumping" is not necessary. I've already discussed the main scientific evidence in the previous point.

History

Edward Gibbon, in his classic History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated, “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians” (Decline and Fall, p. 813).

It is an objectively true statement that a man and a woman are biologically different. There is no sound objective basis, however, to claim that all the colors of the LGBT rainbow represent different biological gender identities. A person may say he is transgender or transsexual based on his feelings and may even get a physical sex change, however, if his feelings change then he needs to find a different kind of partner, perhaps a regular gay partner. Basing the civil union of marriage on subjective feelings alone, not on the objective qualities, undermines the dignity of marriage. See Myth 3 for more on historical aspects of homosexuality.

Philosophy

I mentioned William Lane Craig earlier in this post. He is the foremost debater in the world and one of his strongest arguments is the moral argument for God's existence.

The most popular secular atheists, such as PZ Myers, offer confused views about morality. In one sentence Myers claims that morality is based on human empathy. This is how he summarized his moral view: "If I punched you in the face, you would feel bad and I would feel bad ...and that's where morality comes from." Then, ironically, in another post of his he mocks people who use feelings as a basis of morality.  When popular secular atheists do acknowledge that there is an objective basis of morality, then they cannot explain why, as noted here and here. Science cannot answer questions regarding morality and therefore both religion and philosophy hold primacy when it comes to addressing questions on this subject. The pretension in public schools, universities and in government that secular humanism without religion and philosophy holds all the answers is quite a false and dangerous pretension.

Psychology

A New York Times article, "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do," offered the following information:

"Citing a host of secular, liberal professors, the article came to the same conclusion as longtime apologists for traditional marriage: it's not only good for the soul but also for one's bank account." Mindy Scott, a Child Trends demographer, stated, "Having men in the house for a short time with ambiguous parenting roles can be really disruptive for children.”

According to the study, outlined here, children raised by married biological parents (IBF) were compared with children of parents who had various lesbian and homosexual relationship experiences (LM and GF). Children of the latter category are found to have the following attributes:

1. Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)

2. Have lower educational attainment

3. Report less safety and security in their family of origin

4. Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin

5. Are more likely to suffer from depression

6. Have been arrested more often

7. If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
 

Fact 4: Historically, the popularity of homosexuality has been a like a pendulum reflecting general societal moral conditions. A recent article about NBA player Jason Collins offered the phrase, "The evolution of pro sports' acceptance of gays: A timeline" The underlying message is that accepting gay morality is an ever progressive trend. It's not. 

 

Looking at actual history, it is quite clear that homosexuality has gone through phases of unpopularity and popularity as civilizations rise and fall. There is a pendulum of history that swings between heightened moral righteousness and extreme moral relativism. These repeated cycles, and the effects are well documented in scripture, as well as in secular texts.

Fact 5: If a public consensus offers that something is true, that does not mean it is true. It is remarkable how often pro-gay supporters hold their fingers in the wind and then describe how public opinion continues to change, as though public opinion validates all of our moral choices. This appeal to public opinion is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people").  Because it is a logical fallacy, it is meaningless as a logical means of arriving at true conclusions.

Fact 6: Discrimination against those who support strong family values, the basis of a strong society, will increase exponentially when homosexual marriage is granted as a civil right. We see this heightened discrimination against traditional family values already ramping up. The Christian News Network describes how a high school teacher in Portland Oregon was taken away by police because he did not want Planned Parenthood teaching promiscuity in his classroom. The following is an example of the type of material Planned Parenthood promotes:

"Planned Parenthood of Columbia Williamette is behind a youth sex campaign called “Take Care Down There,” which includes a website that features a warning that the content is for “mature” viewers before guests are allowed to enter. The site includes such controversial skits as “Hot and Heavy,” “Bring Your Sister,” “Threesome” and “The Down There Song,” as well as other titles that are too graphic for Christian News Network to repeat."

The Revival Times points out, "On 29th June the district court in Kalmar, Sweden, sentenced Ǻke Green for preaching against homosexuality in the Borgholm Pentecostal Church on 20th July 2003. He was found guilty of "agitating against a people group", an act that had been criminalised in Sweden in 2002." These types of cases set precedents for the present and future.

In 2010 in England, a pastor was arrested for publicly claiming that homosexuality is a sin. "Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act." This type of thing is happening in Canada as well.

Free speech is being superseded by false claims of hate speech.

Fact 7: Whether or not the president or government at large affirms or denies gay marriage as a civil right, this ultimately has no bearing on whether or not homosexuality is morally valid behavior. This line of reason is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.

Acts 5.29 records a situation which the local government made a rule that was contrary to a biblical mandate. What does scripture record was the response of the Apostles: "Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!" (Acts 5.29 NIV) Anyone who claims that Christians are always supposed to submit and follow all that the government says and does because of Romans 13 is simply is not versed in scripture.

Fact 8: This is a further clarification of Fact 2. There has been no concrete objective basis for LGBT "self-identification" as a basis for requiring a civil right. The cause of African Americans in their struggle for equal civil rights is based on objective facts. For example, African Americans have dark skin. The LGBT rights movement ultimately does not rest on objective facts. Historically, civil rights are granted either for non-changeable circumstances or for reasons that will prove harmless to society. The gay rights movement cannot overcome logical arguments on either count.

Fact: 9  Does the push for LGBT civil rights have anything in common with the push for zoophilia rights and pedophilia rights? Absolutely. All three political movements are ultimately based on subjective feelings and desires. The "self-identification" of LGBT people is based on subjective feelings and inclinations, regardless if these subjective inclinations and behaviors are drawn out over a greater part of a person's life.

Summary of a Christian approach to gay rights: truth and love in Christ

In the Bible, The 10 Commandments are considered an example of truth. But the 10 Commandments could only go so far. In the Old Testament, Moses is a kind of example of the moral law. He could lead the people up to the edge of the promised land, but he could not bring them in. Joshua, the name from which we get Y'shua or Jesus, symbolizes the saving grace of Christ that allows us to enter the 'promised land' based on the good things that God has for us. This example exemplifies how truth without love and grace is not enough for the human condition.

Another example of this necessary balance in scripture is outlined when a Christian church thought they were exemplifying God's love and grace by embracing a young man who was fornicating with his father's wife. The church believed that God's grace covered the incest and that it was not an issue. However, the Apostle Paul pointed out that it was a sin and that it should not be embraced.

In I Corinthians 5:1, Paul describes the issue. Paul spoke the truth in love, even though it may have been uncomfortable to do so: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.” Paul here emphasized that love without truth is not enough. While it is true that God is love and God offers grace, this does not discount the fact that there is an objective basis of morality and that diverting from this basis is something to seriously consider.

God's outline for sex and marriage is described by Jesus in Matthew 19.4-6: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Progressive and liberal churches today teach that LGBTQ relationships as supposedly acceptable because, after all, shellfish used to be forbidden in the Old Testament and then they were allowed in the New Testament. However, the description of gender and marriage by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 outlines a sense of timelessness and objectivity that does not leave any room for that argument for gender fluidity. Clearly, Jesus does not consider gender and marriage merely cultural and subjective phenomena.
   
To speak the truth in love is the example Christ and the early church have set out for Christians today. I want to emphasize that I'm not judging anyone but I'm simply sharing what the word of God and biology imply. I have friends that are homosexuals and I would not lie to them in order to try for a superficial type of friendship at any cost. I'm willing to reason with anyone who'd like to in a civilized manner without resorting to personal attacks.

(updated 05/25/13)

Tags: gay rights, objective basis of morality, facts about gay rights, Paul and incest in church, Bill O'Reilly quote on gay marriage debate, extreme relativism is destructive to society, objective moral truth, PC politically correct force, quotes by Ben Carson on gay marriage

Related:

Christianity and Homosexuality: Embracing the Fulness of Christ

Vampire Author Rice Promotes Politically Correct God

Matt Moore: Homosexuality is Caused Mainly by Childhood Experiences