The Official Website of the Willard Preacher

Bringing Willard to the Web

"None of those who have Hell before their eyes will fall into Hell. No one of those who despise Hell will escape Hell.... Nothing is so profitable as to converse concerning Hell. It renders our souls purer than any silver."  

~St. John Chrysostom~

BOOK

Homosexuality 

Dear Aaron,

             Wow! I guess it didn’t take you long to figure that out. At Penn State the homosexual agenda is pushed almost as soon as young freshmen step foot on campus, and I guess the same is true there. It’s as if they believe world peace hinges on whether we accept homosexuality as morally equivalent with heterosexuality. What I really think is happening is that many white liberals are still feeling guilty over slavery and segregation, and they’re scared to death they might end up on the wrong side of the next civil rights battle. They have picked the wrong side, by the way, on the abortion issue, but my guess is we will be discussing that at a latter date. 

The difference between the civil rights movement of the ’60s and the homosexual movement of today is that, on the one hand, the color of one’s skin says nothing about the character or actions of the person, and so cannot be used as a means of judgment. On the other hand, homosexuality is something that one does, and therefore it can be judged. Even if the homosexual claims his homosexuality is something he is, and not simply something he does, what he is alluding to is a desire, and it also can be judged. For instance, according to Christianity we have been created to desire the opposite sex. So a desire for the same sex would be going against how God has created us to be, and would therefore be wrong.

I must say that the homosexual activists have been smart in aligning themselves with the civil rights movement. In doing so they have made many people afraid to judge their actions for fear of being labeled prejudiced or bigoted. You say you have already been labeled homophobic. If you continue to take a stand you will also be called a narrow-minded, right wing, hatemonger—and that’s when they are being nice to you! I bet you never imagined you were so evil.

These labels are very effective in silencing debate, and that’s the whole point. Since there really aren’t any good arguments for homosexuality, the only remaining option is to silence those who are against it. After all, who wants to be labeled a bigot and a hatemonger? Most would rather remain quiet than to be looked down upon by their peers.

You have asked for some arguments to use when you enter into debate, and of course I’d be happy to provide you with some. I would just ask you to remember that your goal is to lead people to the truth through love. Believe me, I know, it’s very easy to win an argument and lose the person. So be careful, and always check your motivations to make sure you are doing what you do for the right reasons.

That being said, the first and most obvious argument against homosexuality is biological. As I am sure you must know by now, men have a penis, and women have a vagina. From what I understand about the female body, which is just slightly more than I understand of the female mind, the vagina has two functions. One is for the penis to go in, and the other is for a baby to come out. We see from this that there is an opening in the female body that has been created specifically for the penis. As for the male, once he inserts his penis into the vagina, it becomes the instrument used to create a baby, who afterwards comes into the world through the same opening.

I think it’s safe to say that for the average person, this short, sixth grade biology lesson is all the evidence necessary to show that men have been created to have sex with women. Homosexuals, of course, would not deny any of this. They would simply argue that they can find other creative ways of having sex, and that they are not limited to the strict biological method. This may be true, but what the biology shows is how we are created to be and that is what we are looking at here.

I think we can see this even more clearly if we look a little closer at the male and female bodies. As men, we know that we have many openings in our body, some of which a penis can fit into rather nicely, but none of which is made for that purpose. One would think that if we were to be having sex with each other, we would be equipped, not only with a penis, but also with a proper place to put it.

I think we can follow the same line of reasoning with the female body. Since the vagina was made for the penis, if women are supposed to be having sex with each other, then they should have come equipped with the proper instrument to put in to it, and they obviously did not.

It seems to me that anyone who studies human biology has to come to the conclusion that we have been created to be heterosexual. There is absolutely no biological evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I think this pretty clearly constitutes evidence number one, that we were created to be heterosexual and not homosexual.

The next evidence has to do with the purposes for sex, of which there are two. The first is the creation of life, which of course is something homosexuals cannot do. There is no need to spend time with this one since it is so obvious. It overlaps with the biological reasons and constitutes evidence number two as to why homosexuality is not the way we have been created to be.

The second purpose for sex is oneness. The male and female can be likened to two halves of a whole, and when they come together regularly, over years of a good marriage, they will eventually become one. Maybe you know of an elderly couple that not only have become inseparable, but also seem to know at all times what the other is thinking and feeling. As you may know, this oneness is not only an image of the relationship Christ wants with His Church, but it also binds the husband and wife together, making it harder for them to separate. This is evidenced by the nastiness and heartache of most divorces. This oneness gives the family, which is the basic building block of society, the best chance possible to survive.

Although some homosexuals claim to experience oneness in their relationship, it is at best a shadow of the real thing. For example, instead of putting a plug into a socket and creating electricity through the connection, they are attempting to put two plugs or two sockets together. They get closeness but never oneness. Even if they could become one, since they cannot be a family in the way God created it to be, then they cannot fulfill the purpose that He intended for the oneness He has created.  In Christianity we do not believe that the end justifies the means.

I’ve tried my best to show you that homosexuality does not fulfill the biological, creation of life, or oneness aspects of sex. Hopefully it will help you, at least somewhat, in any future discussions. What I’d like to do now is proceed on to what I think are the two best arguments the homosexuals have, and consequently the ones you are most likely to hear. They will argue that they are born homosexual, and that they love one another.

The way they present the birth argument is that just as we were born heterosexual, they were born homosexual. They no more chose their sexual orientation than we did. In effect, they believe there is a gene or group of genes that makes one homosexual. First of all, Aaron, to this day there is no conclusive evidence for a homosexual gene, and secondly, as far as Christianity is concerned, it wouldn’t matter if there were.

The question that needs to be asked is, does being born a certain way necessarily justify the corresponding behavior? I would say no, and use alcoholics as an example. You may be too young to remember this, but back in the ’80s, and possibly in some circles today, it was popular to claim that some people were born alcoholics. Consequently, when they took their first drink, they were doomed to a life of drunkenness. The interesting thing is, as opposed to the arguments of homosexuals of today, they still confessed their behavior to be wrong and they attempted to change. Some were successful, and others were not, but what we can see by this example is that merely being born a certain way does not necessitate that the corresponding behavior is right.

The homosexuals’ second argument is similar to the first. They make the claim that just as we love the opposite sex, they love the same sex. They don’t choose who they fall in love with any more than we do. So how can we condemn their love just because it is oriented differently than ours? In response, we will ask a similar question as the one before, and that is, does being in love necessarily justify sex? Imagine if a 35-year-old son was having sex with his 65-year-old mother, and they were saying it was okay because they were in love. Hopefully most of us would see this as wrong and perverted despite their amorous claims. Obviously, simply being in love is not enough to justify sex. When we remember that homosexuality does not fulfill any of the purposes for sex, whether they are biological, creation of life, or oneness—any claim of love, or birthright—seems pretty hollow.

This also goes to the heart of the question of whether we should allow homosexuals to marry. If there is no evidence that homosexual sex is right, then how do we justify putting it on a par with heterosexual sex and allowing them the same privilege of marriage as the rest of us? The homosexuals should first have to prove that their sex is morally correct before we should even talk about marriages or civil unions. Remember, marriage is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but a privilege allotted by the states. If you meet the requirements, you are allowed the privilege.

It is also important to remember that, as Christians, we believe that man is fallen and far from perfect. Therefore, not all of our passions and desires are aligned correctly. We all have desires, even long standing ones, which we consider to be wrong, and that need to be controlled. The homosexual’s claim that because he has a desire his behavior must be right will never convince a Christian who understands the idea of being fallen. Neither should it convince anyone who has lived long enough to know that not every desire should be acted upon.

            Hopefully this will give you and your adversaries something to think about. Try and keep in mind that even though as Christians we don’t always love everything about someone—or ourselves for that matter—we are to see the image of God in him or her, and seek to love him as would Christ.

All the best,

Uncle Greg