Same-Sex Attraction

Introduction

We apologize for exports the Woke culture from our country to yours.

What is the “woke” culture?

I will be focusing on a key element of woke culture, which is same-sex attraction and relationships. We cannot talk about same-sex attraction without first addressing the issue of homosexuality.

Personal story from the 1980s

Personal story from the 1980s.

Emotional Arguments

For the LGBT behavior to be excepted by culture they must always play the victim and always be seen as part of a victimize class, even when they are the actual victimizers.

There is a progression of their arguments from:

A Curse they were born with

A Cross they have to bear

A Crown that others must Celebrate

You Are Not Loving

You Are a Bigot

You Deny I Exist

We Are People Too

I Know What I Experienced

God Loves Me As I Am

I was born in the wrong body

I Can Have a Same-Sex Relationship Without Sex

I was born in the wrong body

Arguments from “Affirming Christians”

All of the arguments from those that was to affirming same-sex relationships require the redefinition of terms. They cannot make the Bible say what they wish it says without change the meanings of so many terms. Because they are constantly having to change their arguments, I will use some of the most recent arguments that I have been hearing.

Explaining the Clobber Passages

The LGBT community refers to several clear passages of the Bible as clobber passages. In other words, passages that clearly condemn their behavior, so the attack them with an ad homonym type fallacy. Since they cannot rightly argue against the passages they want people to think that these passages are use to attack LTGB, rather then reading them for what they say. However, they make many attempts to explain away the clear meaning of the Scripture.

Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 18:22 NASB95

‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Some try to claim that this is addressing cultic religious practices of people sharing a bed and not addressing homosexuality. One person told me that this has to do with families sharing the same bed beside the poor had little space, so it was instruction for boys in one bed and girls in another.

If one was to start reading from verse one to get the context they would note that This passage starts with the Lord declaring that He is God (Lev 18:1-2, 4, 5, 6). As God He has the right to demand of His creation what He wants and we as His creature are obligated to obey. God explains that they are not to do as was done in Egypt. They are to obey God (Lev. 18:3-6).

Then the Lord explains the issues of sexually sins with family members in multiple variations of uncovering nakedness (Lev. 18:7-16):

With your father (v. 7)

With your mother

With your father’s wife (v. 8)

With your sister, nor a half or step sister (v. 9)

With your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter(v. 10)

With your father’s wife (v. 11)

With your father’s sister (v. 12)

With your mother’s sister (v. 13)

With your father’s brother nor his wife (v. 14)

With your daughter-in-law (v. 15)

With your brother’s wife (v. 16)

After addressing all the variations of sexual sins within the family, the Lord addresses sexual sins outside the family. The Lord declares the following as sexual sins the uncovering of the nakedness of (Lev. 18:17-23):

A woman and her daughter (v. 17)

A woman and her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter

Marrying two sisters (v. 18)

A woman during her menstrual period (V. 19)

Your neighbor’s wife (v. 20)

With another man, i.e. homosexuality (v. 22)

animals (v. 23)

Note that there is nothing referring any cultic practices in the context. This is something that the LGBT add into the text to avoid what the text actually teaches.

One note I gleam from this that God knows that most sexual sins of that time would occur within the family, since He devotes more details to that.

Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

Some try to claim that the events at Sodom and Gomorrah were not about God’s judgement on the homosexuality of the men in the town but their lack of hospitality of strangers. The argument is that The two angels came to the town and lot brought them in but the townspeople should have shown hospitality and did not thus God burned the town. Yet a simple reading of the text reveals that Lot was fearful of what would happen to the angels had they spend the night in the open.

Genesis 19:2–3 NASB95

And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

So, we see that Lot did show hospitality but he had to urge them “strongly”. Why would he have to do that? Later in the account we will see that The townsfolk accused Lot if thinking he is better then them for wanted men to have sex with women.

Genesis 19:7–9 NASB95

and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.

Once, again there is no way to read hospitality into this text, but they must to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. So now some LGBT try to state that the issue is not hospitality but gang rape. Therefore, they claim that it is not speaking about homosexuality as a sin but the gang raping of homosexuals. Still that does not fit with the context.

1 Timothy 1:10

The LGBT claim that the 1 Timothy 1:10 has a unique word for homosexual. The argument is that Paul created a new word used only here and 1 Corinthians 6:9. That is true. So they try to say that Paul does this not because he is saying that same-sex relations are wrong but that Paul is referring to an abusive homosexual relationship.

If this is the case then look at the context and let us see if the rest of the list mentioned is only abusive behavior or the behavior itself.

1 Timothy 1:8–10 NASB95

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

Paul lists the following sins that the Law is confront those that are:

Lawless and rebellious

ungodly and sinners

unholy and profane

those that kill their fathers or mothers

murderers

immoral men

homosexuals

kidnappers

liars

perjurers

and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching

Clearly, Paul is not says that you can kill your parent, but just do not do it in an abusive manner. The same goes for the rest of the list. There is nothing in this list that Paul is saying are ok as long as you do not abuse them. No, Paul is calling them all sin and the purpose of the Law is to reveal that sin against God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

As the word for homosexual used in 1 Timothy 1:10 is also used here the LGBT make the same argument as we just discussed here. They also try to claim that the word “effeminate” (v. 9) just refers to soft or nice clothing. They argue this because the only other time this word is used refers to the people coming to John the Baptist and asked if they would looking for someone in soft clothes.

However, the word refers to women’s clothing from this context. The Greek lexicon BDAG provides many references outside Scripture where this word is used to mean, “being passive in a same-sex relationship.”

Many miss the purpose of this passage and it could be because many “Christians” quote this passage in public, leaving out verse 11.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 NASB95

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

What is the purpose of Paul’s argument here? Paul provides a list of sins:

fornicators

idolaters

adulterers

effeminate

homosexuals

thieves

covetous

drunkards

revilers

swindlers

As we saw before, if the LGBT want to claim that the homosexuality that Paul is speaking about is not the act but the abuse then does that apply to the rest of the list? No, it does not. God does not say that you can steal just do not do it abusively. These are all sins.

However, the purpose of the Paul’s argument here is in verse 11, “Such were some of you.” Paul’s point is that those many have committed these many sins, they were convert and changed. They do not continue in these sins anymore. This is the difference with those today claiming for an affirming Christianity. They do not want to change. They want their sin and Christ too. That is impossible. Paul’s point is that if one is in Christ they turn from their past sins, not to continue in them.

Romans 1:23-30

Romans 1:23-30 is the most difficult passage for LGBT to argue against. It is the clearest passage in Scripture of homosexuality as a sin. So what to some LGBT do? They claim that this is Paul addressing idolatry. So, homosexuality would be fine with God as long as you do not make an idol of it.

However, if we read the context then once again we see that their arguments fall short.

Romans 1:23–30 NASB95

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

Paul is making an argument against those that claim there is no God (vs. 18-21). Once again Paul provides a long list of sins (vs. 28-31). This is the clearest description of the act of homosexuality. This cannot be excused away as abusive behavior nor as idolatry.

Claims of Biblical Support

Those promoting same-sex relationships argue that David and Jonathan were engaged in a homosexual relationship, and therefore it must be fine with God, because David is a man after God’s own heart.

David and Jonathan Were Homosexual Lovers (1 Samuel 18:1)

1 Samuel 18:1 NASB95

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself.

The text states that David and Jonathan loved each other as they love themselves. Maybe the reason that the LGBT believe that David and Jonathan must be in a homosexual relationship is because they cannot understand a close relationship with another person without sex involved. Their lifestyle has so prevented them that they cannot understand anything without adding a sexual component to it.

However, there is nothing here that talk about any sexual relationship. Men who fight in war together build a very tight bond. This bond can be so tight that one man is willing to sacrifice himself for another. This is a love that is closer then a brother, but that does not require any sexual relationship. This is the LGBT add a meaning into Scripture.

When we talk about the meaning of Scripture. What we should do is call exegeses, which means that we take the meaning out of the text. This is the right way to interpret the Bible. The mean comes from Scripture to you.

The other way is called icegeses, which mean to read a meaning into the text. The problem here is that people start with a conclusion that they want the Bible to say so that assume the text states what they want it to say.

What the LGBT do I will call wishegeses, they read a meaning into the Scripture that they wished it would say.

Arguments from Scripture

Sex is a pleasure. As Paul Tripp said, “pleasure without boundaries leads to danger.” Pleasure is biblical but always with boundaries to protect us. The world wants pleasure without boundaries.

What is Lust?

Lust is a sine whether homosexual or heterosexual. Lust is a sexual desire for anyone that is not your spouse.

Sex is not for men and women. Sex is for husbands and wives!

The argument for same-sex attraction is the slippery slop to promoting homosexuality in the church. The LGBT know that the church would not outrightly promote homosexuality. So, they used an argument that can appeal to some weak minded professing Christians.

They claim that someone can be a Christian and have same-sex attraction but not act on it while still being a Christian. They ignore 1 Corinthians 6:11, “such were some of you.” A Christian is not one that identifies themselves by their sin but by Christ.

Gospel