Two emancipatory homosexuals…

Two emancipatory homosexuals, a psychologist and a psychiatrist, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison (1984), studied 156 male couples, the most partner-stable segment of the homosexual population. They concluded: “Though most gay couples begin their relationship with an implicit or explicit commitment to sexual exclusivity, only seven couples in this study had been consistently sexually monogamous.” That is 4 percent. But notice what is meant with “consistently sexually monogamous”: these men said they had had no other partners for a period of less than five years. Notice the authors’ distorted use of language: “commitment to sexual exclusivity” is morally neutral and, in fact, a poor substitute for “fidelity”. As for the 4 percent, we may safely predict that, even if they did not lie, the consistency of their behavior ended sometime soon afterward. Because that is the fixed rule. Homosexual restlessness cannot be appeased, much less so by having one partner, because these persons are propelled by an insatiable pining for the unattainable fantasy figure. Essentially, the homosexual is a yearning child, not a satisfied one.

The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving; the continuous tensions, generally stemming from the recurrent complaint, “You don’t love me”; the jealousy which so often suspects, “He is more interested in someone else.” Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of drama and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of “love”. Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies the other’s needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner, would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual “love”! Homosexual “unions” are clinging relationships of two essentially self-absorbed “poor me’s”.

 

Aardweg, G. (1997). The Battle for Normality: A Guide for (Self-)Therapy for Homosexuality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press

For homosexuals who…

For homosexuals who are committed to thinking biblically, this may begin to challenge their ideas on homosexual orientation. But a very significant question remains: Why does it feel natural? The biblical answer is relatively straightforward. Like many other sins, homosexuality does not have to be learned. The child who never witnessed a temper tantrum can be proficient at throwing them; it is an instinctive ability of the human heart. Homosexuality is natural in the same way that anger or selfishness is natural. They are embdedded in our fallen humanness. Indeed, homosexuality is “natural”, but only in the sense that it is an expression of the sinful nature.

The fact that most homosexuals cannot remember consciously choosing homosexuality is also readily explained by Scripture. Most sin works on a level where we do not self-consciously choose it. To use Old Testament language, our sin can be “unintentional,” but that does not make us less responsible for our violation of God’s will (Leviticus 5: 14 – 19; Numbers 15: 22 – 30). Sin is more than mature, rational, conscious decisions. It is our moral inclination from birth.

 

Welch, E. T. (1998). Blame It on the Brain? Distinguishing Chemical Imbalances, Brain Disorders, and Disobedience. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing

Even if practicing…

Even if practicing homosexuals were consistently genetically distinct from heterosexuals, this would not make homosexuality a biologically based behavior for which people bear no moral responsibility. Biology is not the sufficient, determinative cause of biblically prohibited behavior. Our desire to practice it is.

 

Welch, E. T. (1998). Blame It on the Brain? Distinguishing Chemical Imbalances, Brain Disorders, and Disobedience. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing