The third argument that homosexuals have used is what I call the "Numbers" argument. The basic idea here is that homosexuality is so "widespread" that it must be accepted as a normal lifestyle.

BIOLOGICAL OR BIBLICAL?

Homosexuals claim that their sexual orientation is biologically determined, that is, they have no choice in the matter. John Ankerberg, in his booklet The facts on Homosexuality, put it this way:

"Gay activists frequently claim they are born homosexual and that their sexual orientation is akin to something like eye color or lefthandedness…In other words, due to biological factors, many homosexuals claim their sexual preference is inevitable and unchangeable and therefore the homosexual lifestyle is something society must accept as normal…" (1)

The strategy behind the "biological" argument is to circumvent the traditional Biblical view of man. The Biblical view of the nature of man is clearly outlined by the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, 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, that their bodies might 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, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
(Romans 1:18-32 NASB)

The idea that homosexuality is biologically determined would be utterly ridiculous to Paul. Homosexuality, according to Paul, is not a biological problem, but rather a moral problem, rooted in man's sinful nature, which "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness." Ankerberg summarizes Paul's teaching of the passage. He says,

"Paul teaches a logical trend downward:

1. Men refuse to accept the intuitive knowledge which God has placed within them concerning Himself (vv.18-22).

2. This results in rebellion against God manifested in idolatry (putting something else in God's place in our lives, whether self or various idols, v. 23)

3. God begins a process of initial judgment or "giving over" to sin (vv. 24, 25)

4. This produces, in part, unnatural lusts and perversions (vv. 26, 27)

5. This results in a wide variety of additional vices and evils (vv. 28-32)-as homosexual literature and lifestyle demonstrate." (2)

In short, the Biblical perspective is that homosexuality is not biologically determined, but rather it is the result of a sinful nature which rejects the living God.

WHAT ABOUT THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?

As we've already noted, homosexuals have long tried to show a biological relationship to their lifestyle. Again, the reasoning is simple: if it can be shown that homosexuality is genetically determined (like skin color or eye color), then it would logically follow that the homosexual lifestyle is not a result of a conscientious choice (as the evangelical community purports). The implications of such a discovery are summed up by John Maddox in Nature Magazine when he says:

"If that proves indeed to be the case [a biological cause for homosexuality], the tenor of much public argument about the morality of homosexuality would be transformed - or should be. Could Christians, for example, continue to define homosexual behavior as sinful if it were known to stem from some hard-wired neural structure?" (3)

While many studies have been done over the years, two recent studies have effectively propagated the idea among the public that homosexuality is indeed genetically based.

THE "BRAIN NODE" STUDY

The first study was done by Simon LeVay of the Jonas Salk Institute. LeVay's research focused on the size of a certain portion of the brain (known as INAH3 - or the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus). LeVay examined the brains of 35 male cadavers and found that between homosexual and heterosexual men, there were significant differences in a certain cluster of neurons. While this may sound rather technical, the bottom line is that LeVay found that this particular cluster of neurons was more than twice as large in heterosexual males as in homosexual males. LeVay concluded that homosexuality must be genetically based. But is this a valid conclusion?

INTERPRETING THE DATA

While the mainstream public accepts LeVay's conclusion without question, we should note that LeVay's research is definitely not conclusive. In fact, his research really proves nothing at all. Robert Knight, writing for Family Policy, a newsletter for the Family Research Council, lists several distinct problems with LeVay's research:

1. LeVay didn't verify the sexual orientation of 16 of his supposed non-homosexual male subjects. This is serious since 6 of the men had died of AIDS. How are we to know for sure that these men were heterosexual?

2. Not all of the presumed heterosexual men had larger brain node clusters than the homosexuals. Three of the heterosexuals had clusters smaller than the mean size of the homosexuals, and one of the "heterosexuals" had the third smallest node cluster in the entire study.

3. Three of the homosexuals had larger clusters then the mean size for the "heterosexuals." (4)

Ankerberg cites further problems with LeVay's research:

1. LeVay's research is suspect because of the possibility of researcher bias. LeVay is an avowed homosexual.

2. LeVay's study faces the problem of almost all research attempting to prove biological determinism: Lack of replication. LeVay's findings have not been replicated at all which means that his findings really prove nothing. (5)

Perhaps the biggest problem with LeVay's conclusion is the premise that homosexual behavior is the result of the differences in the brain nodes rather than the cause of it. As Knight says, "Since behavior can alter brain patterns, the size of the nodes may be the result, not the cause, of homosexual activity." (6) Still another interpretation of the data is that the differences in size of the "nodes" is the result of some behavior other than homosexuality.

THE TWIN STUDY

The second study that has been used to promote the genetic basis of homosexuality was conducted by homosexual psychiatrist Richard Pillard and psychologist/gay rights activist Michael Bailey.

In their research, they found that if one male identical twin is gay, than there is a 52% chance that the other identical twin will also be gay. If the twins are fraternal, then the percentage drops to 22%, and between non-twin brothers, the percentage is only 9%. Pillard and Bailey concluded that the reason for the higher percentage of gay incidence between identical twins was a result of their identical gene makeup.

However, this study also encounters problems.

1. Researcher bias is again an issue in that Pillard is an avowed homosexual and Bailey is an outspoken gay rights activist.

2. The study shows that half of all twins are heterosexual. If there is a genetic cause for homosexuality, would it not follow that if one identical twin is gay, then the other one would be too? Afterall, if they share the same genetic makeup, there should be a 100% correlation.

3. The subjects of the study were recruited from homosexual publications. Hence, their study didn't represent a random, non-biased sample.

4. The sample size was surprisingly small, and because all of the twins were raised in the same household, there is no way of separating environmental factors from genetic factors.

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, in his article, "The Gay Gene?", sums up the researchers' analysis when he says, "On this basis (their results), they argue that 'homosexuality is genetic.'"(7) However, many other researchers, after analyzing this study, have come to decidedly different conclusions. Satinover cites P. Billings and J. Beckwith, who were quoted in the July, 1993 edition of Technology Review as saying, "While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment." (8)

Satinover continues by quoting C. Mann, who said in Science magazine,

"The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors." (9)

We could go on and on citing researcher after researcher who dispute Bailey and Pillard's results. In fact, Satinover very convincingly refutes Bailey and Pillard by doing so. Satinover concludes his article with a short question and answer dialogue, summarizing his main points. One of the questions he answers is,

"What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality 'is genetic'?

"There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do - when speaking in sound bites to the public." (10)

Are we to accept the genetic premise of homosexuality based on these results? Not only is the research inconclusive, but one could hardly be unjustified in agreeing with Ankerberg, who said,

"We wonder how many researchers are themselves influenced by the widespread but false idea that homosexuals cannot change their behavior and therefore may be inadvertently looking for a biological basis to "explain" their assumptions." (11)

DOES THE BIBLE REALLY CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?

Another way that homosexuals have sought to gain acceptance for their "alternative" lifestyle is by claiming that the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexuality.

In response to this argument, it must be said that the Bible, from front to back, clearly denounces homosexuality.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The first reference to homosexuality in the Old Testament appears in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19.

"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom…Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them. But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 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.'"
(Genesis 19:1, 4-9, NASB, emphasis added)

Speaking about Sodom and Gomorrah, God said this in Ezekiel:

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
(Ezekiel 16:49-50, NASB, emphasis added)

In the book of Leviticus, God clearly condemns homosexuality as being detestable.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
(Leviticus 18:22, NASB, emphasis added)

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. There bloodguiltiness is upon them."
(Leviticus 20:13, NASB, emphasis added)

Later in the history of Israel, in the book of Judges, a situation almost identical to Sodom and Gomorrah occurs.

"While they were making merry, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, 'Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.' Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, 'No, my fellows; please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly.'"
(Judges 19:22-23, NASB, emphasis added)

THE NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament likewise condemns homosexual behavior. Jesus affirmed the teaching of the Old Testament in his Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19, NASB)

In addition to Jesus, the apostle Paul also classifies homosexuality as sinful:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall 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, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NASB, emphasis added)

"But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, 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 the sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."
(1 Timothy 1:8-11, NASB, emphasis added)

Notice that in the 1 Timothy passage, homosexuality is listed as "contrary to the…gospel." Furthermore, with the Bible using words like wicked, abomination and detestable to refer to homosexual behavior, how can it be logically deduced that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality? Homosexuals answer by claiming that the Bible, at most, condemns cultic prostitution. Additionally, homosexuals claim that many of the passages don't condemn monogamous homosexuality, but rather homosexual promiscuity, in much the same way that the Bible speaks out against heterosexual promiscuity.

This is sometimes referred to as the "Cultural" or "historical" argument, because, as the gay community claims, the Biblical passages dealt with historical situations in the ancient past and are thus "culturally conditioned". That is to say, they are no longer relevant in today's culture.

In response to these claims, several points should be made:

1. Nowhere does the Bible distinguish between "normal" homosexual behavior and "promiscuous" homosexual behavior.

2. The Bible never distinguishes between "normal" homosexual behavior and cultic male prostitution.

3. Claiming that homosexuality is "culturally conditioned" in the Bible makes no sense considering that homosexuality is condemned throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament. To hold the position that God somehow approves of gay behavior is simply indefensible Biblically. Morally, God has not changed his position throughout the Biblical revelation; on what basis can we say that His position is somehow different now?

4. Nowhere in the Bible is monogamous homosexuality encouraged or elevated as virtuous. On the contrary, only monogamous heterosexual marriage is ordained by God. Ankerberg sums it up well when he says,

"The scriptural rejection of homosexuality is based squarely on God's original creation of man as male and female, and on His instituting of heterosexual marriage and the family-something upheld by Jesus (Matthew 19:4,5). Because it is a teaching that transcends culture, it cannot be relegated as obsolete by culture." (12)

If homosexuality or bisexuality were considered legitimate in any way, would Scripture not reveal it? As many pastors have jokingly said, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

Finally, Ankerberg asserts that "the culture argument backfires. All cultures have placed limits on homosexuality, and no known culture has ever permitted preferential homosexuality for most adults for the major portion of the life cycle." (13)

The main problem with the homosexual interpretation of the Bible (regarding homosexuality), is that they fail to take into account the Biblical account of creation. Several things can be pointed out here:

1. God created woman as a divine helper for man. Men and women complement each other in many ways, most notably in the sexual area. Only men and women were meant to interact sexually. This is why Romans 1:27 says, "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful…(emphasis added)" (14)

2. The divine command to "be fruitful and multiply" can only be carried out in the context of a heterosexual relationship.

3. Lastly, homosexuality is a distortion of the image of God. Genesis 1:27 clearly affirms that mankind was created in the image of God. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (NKJ). The image of God comprises both male and female together. This explains why heterosexual marriage is consistently uplifted in Scripture and described as ordained by God, yet homosexuality is "surprisingly" absent, except when condemned.

In summary, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as being immoral. The burden of proof in establishing homosexuality as a Biblically acceptable lifestyle rests with the gay community. Yet, when pressed on this issue, the gay community can offer no Biblical evidence to support their ideas. This is not surprising since the Bible does not condone the gay lifestyle anywhere.

THE "NUMBERS" ARGUMENT

Another method that the gay community has used to gain acceptance of their lifestyle is what I refer to as the "numbers" argument. The "numbers" argument claims that because homosexuality is so prevalent in today's society, it should be accepted as moral behavior. To supplement the argument, gays cite a 1948 study by Alfred C. Kinsey, in which he purportedly determined that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. The question is "How are we to interpret these statistics?" And, "If it's true, should homosexuality be considered morally acceptable?"

First of all, Kinsey's estimates, though routinely accepted within the media, are highly suspect.

1. Though it's routinely reported that 10% of the population is gay, Kinsey's research analysis never made that claim. Specifically, what he stated was "that 10 percent of males are homosexual for at least three years during a portion of their lives." (15)

2. Whether or not Kinsey's sampling was random and unbiased is subject. 25% of Kinsey's male population were convicted criminals, including sex offenders. This is a disproportionate percentage in a sample in light of the fact that only 1% of the overall population are convicted criminals.

3. One of Kinsey's research assistants admitted that subjects were coached and even intimidated at times to get the desired responses.

While none of this necessarily refutes Kinsey's research, at best his research should be scrutinized and validated by other research before being accepted as fact. Yet, no other research has yielded results anywhere near the Kinsey figures. Most exhaustive studies demonstrate that the homosexual population is considerably less, somewhere below 3%.

"Ongoing, broadly-based national surveys of about 10,000 subjects conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control have found that less than three percent of men say they have had sex with another man "at some time since 1977, even one time." (Since the incidence of lesbianism is estimated to be less than half the rate of male homosexuality, these surveys suggest homosexuality in the total population may be less than two percent.)" (16)

The bottom line is that Kinsey's results don't seem to be consistent with other major studies on the percentage of homosexuals in our society. Therefore it would be unwise to use the Kinsey results as an accurate estimate.

HARD-WIRED OR CHOICE?

The question remains: Is homosexuality hard-wired or is it a choice? The Biblical position is clear. Homosexuality is a choice that begins when they reject the truth about God and the truth about their own human nature. Homosexuals, as we've seen, argue that it is hard-wired, they're born that way. Yet the evidence does not seem to support this position. Certainly, the research lends no credibility to this view and their Biblical position is not supported by the Scriptures.

Homosexuals, however, often give a final argument for justifying their position. Often they'll argue that they are unable to change and that they should not be asked to suppress their inner desires. A few things need to be said in response to this reasoning.

First of all, just because one has strong inner desires doesn't mean that it should be Ok to act upon them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says,

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall 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, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (emphasis added)

If our basis for accepting homosexuality is simply based on the fact that homosexuals have "urges", then what about child molesters, rapists, murderers, thieves and alcoholics? They also have urges. Should they also be free to act upon their inner desires?

Certainly no reasonable person would concede that these behaviors are acceptable based on inner desires. The exact opposite is true. Pedophiles are expected to control their urges and refrain from molestation. Likewise, men with strong sex drives are not free to act upon their urges through rape simply because those urges exist. Wrong behavior should be self-controlled, no matter how strong the urge is.

Secondly, if homosexuals are unable to change (this is really the biological argument clothed in different wording), how do we account for the numerous former homosexuals who have left the homosexual lifestyle? The fact is that change, though it may be extremely difficult, is possible. Numerous examples could be given to demonstrate this. Among them are people like Jami Breedlove, who was a lesbian for 12 years, but is now married with two children. (17) Another example is David Davis, who was a homosexual for 4 and 1/2 years but now is married and has five children. (18) Numerous other examples could be cited.

There can be no doubt that coming out of the homosexual lifestyle is extremely difficult, just as many other sinful habits are. But it can be done. "The fact is, many people are experiencing deliverance from homosexuality. The evidence is too great to deny it." (19)

The question is how does one experience change? If, as we've said, the homosexual problem is a spiritual issue rather than a biological issue, then naturally we would expect the solution to also be a spiritual solution. Looking back at Romans 1:18-32 (see p. 3), which is our passage concerning the nature of man, we can see that the first step would be an admission of the truth (as opposed to a suppression of the truth). In relating her story, Jami Breedlove says,

"I looked deep in my heart, and I knew I had been living a sinful lifestyle. I wanted out, so I repented and asked God to heal me." (20)

A second step can also be seen in Jami's statement-the idea of repentance. One must turn away from their sin and turn to Christ. In many cases, this will require a radical life change. Quoted in Campus Crusade for Christ's Worldwide Challenge Magazine, a former homosexual said,

"After a year and a half of struggling and thinking I was getting worse, I finally cut off the relationships and made that break. Then God really started working in my life. During this recovery, I began to be attracted to girls." (21)

Lastly, overcoming the homosexual lifestyle will require a dedicated commitment to Christ. Frank Worthen of Love in Action (a ministry to homosexuals who desire to change), said,

"[At Love in Action] we have seen a lot of marriages. I have seen all kinds of people come out of the gay lifestyle and develop a heterosexual response. This isn't to say it's easy. It's never easy. It requires a real heavy commitment to Christ." (22)

Not to be overlooked in this process is the need for good Christian accountability and support. Michael Pattison, a psychiatrist who documented 11 men who successfully changed their orientation, found that the changes weren't a result of "psychotherapy, but by what he called 'religiously mediated change.' They sought help from a Christian ministry to gays." (23)

Real change is possible. The hope for the homosexual doesn't come by rejecting God and embracing the gay lifestyle. Instead, real change comes by rejecting the gay lifestyle and embracing Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32, NASB). It's only when the homosexual embraces the truth about the sinfulness of man and the immorality of the gay lifestyle that he can begin the process that leads to freedom from homosexuality. Through Christ, homosexuals have real hope, a hope of experiencing an abundant, meaningful life in a relationship with Christ.