Rebuttal to Why the Christian Right
is Wrong About Homosexuality
This is a rebuttal to an article published by Free Inquiry about why Christians are wrong about their views on homosexuality entitled "Why the Christian Right is Wrong About Homosexuality," by Jerry Drosman.
Jerry Drosman's piece is so easy to pick apart I am astonished that Free Inquiry even bothered to publish it. I suppose the philosophy of secular humanism would accept any argument against Christianity no matter how inane.
Drosman begins by citing an example of a Christian named Rob who will not associate with his sister because she is a lesbian. Drosmen also goes on to state that Rob won't let his sister's partner even touch his children. This is interesting because if Rob refused to associate with his sister how is her partner coming into situations where she could touch Rob's children?
My guess is that Drosman may be overstating the relationship rift between Rob and his sister, but even if his portrayal is accurate, his point amounts to nothing more than a strawman argument anyway. I would agree with Drosman that Rob's treatment of his sister, if true, is wrong. Rob is commanded to love his sister, and indeed everyone, regardless of who or what they are.
However, just because Rob is wrong, that does not make his sister right.
Homosexuality and the Bible
Drosman then goes on to cite 1Corinthians 6:9-10 (I have added verse 11 as well) as an example of how the Bible, when properly interpreted, allows for homosexual relations:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Drosman wants to focus on the translations of "homosexual offenders," and "male prostitutes," either because he is ignorant of the actual intent of the passage or because those translations offer him the most wiggle room to make his arguments. In either case, he is completely wrong. It is obvious that the intent of this passage is that Christians cannot indulge in certain activities, because to do so would reveal that their hearts are not turned to Christ. It is by turning to Christ that you will turn away from the aforementioned activities.
Drosman also ignores the word "adulterers," because that would force him to admit that this would apply to anyone who had sexual relations outside of marriage, and, apparently, he is unwilling to admit that the Bible defines marriage as anything other than a partnership between a man and a woman.
Drosman then goes on to imply that the relationship between David and Jonathan was somehow a homosexual one. Although he doesn't directly say that David and Jonathan committed sexual acts with each other, this is clearly what he is implying. Drosman doesn't mention the fact that there is no evidence in the Bible to support his claim, but rather just puts out a suggestion of what he thinks is true.
At this point, Drosman makes his most ridiculous claim in his entire piece. He suggests that the relationship between Ruth and Naomi was a homosexual one. This is so completely absurd I am surprised he mentioned it and even more amazed that the editors of Free Inquiry didn't require him to remove it.
Ruth had a daughter-mother relationship with Naomi (Ruth was married to Naomi's son) and would have married one of Naomi's other sons if they hadn't all died. Ruth left her home country of Moab and traveled with Naomi to Judah where Ruth married Boaz. Apparently, deep enduring love between two members of the same sex can only be understood in the context of homosexuality for the likes of Drosman and the editors of Free Inquiry.
Drosman then goes on to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah. I am not sure why he even mentioned this passage, since it is clear that the citizens of Sodom were evil in the eyes of God. Apparently, he mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah to question God's motives in instructing Lot's family not to look at the destruction of the two cities. According to Drosman, God gave those instructions because God himself was ashamed of the judgment and wrath He poured out on two entire cities.
It is peculiar when people, especially atheists, purport to know the mind of God. However, another explanation of God's instructions is that He wanted Lot's family to turn from the sinful societies of Sodom and Gomorrah, both literally and figuratively.
At this point, Mr. Drosman makes a bunch of moot points about why it is inappropriate to use the Old Testament to decide whether homosexuality is wrong. However, since he failed to make his case with his New Testament passages, it is completely irrelevant to bring up the apparent inconsistencies between the New and Old Testament laws. Once you realize that the Old Testament laws were for the Hebrews and the New Testament was written for all mankind, it is plain to see that there are no real inconsistencies.
Now Drosman returns to the New Testament to make his point, but again fails miserably. Drosman uses Romans 1:26-27:
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Drosman tries to make the point here that immorality is a penalty for sin, although immorality itself is not a sin. This is so utterly ridiculous that I can't understand how any educated individual could make such an argument.
Romans 1:24 says, "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." Drosman ignored this passage, either out of his ignorance of the scriptures or because he was aware that this passage would contradict his main point.
AIDS as punishment for sin?
Drosman now returns to the hapless Rob, and says that the Christian Right thinks that AIDS is God's punishment on the homosexual community for their sins. Again, Drosman needs to use Rob as a whipping boy for the Christian Right, without ever adequately substantiating his main point that the Bible condones homosexual behavior.
Homosexual frequency in society
Drosman concludes his article by reverting to bold-faced lies stating that 5% of the population is gay (down from the equally erroneous figure of 10% that had been kicked about for decades) and that homosexuality is genetic. I know of no serious study to support either of these claims (although I will admit that the 5% figure is closer to the actual figure of about 1%).1
Homosexuality and genetics
The lie about homosexuality being genetic is not only false2 but, ultimately, very dangerous. A recent study of 2 million Danes showed that being born in the city vs. rural increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage.3 For men, homosexual marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family significantly increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage. So, both cultural and familial influences determined sexual preferences.3
Are we to believe that any trait that is thought to be genetic in its origin is not a sin? Isn't it possible that pedophilia or homicidal violence could be genetic as well? If this is the case, we might as well just open up the prisons because no one has the choice to follow God and live a life pleasing to Him.
In a sense, I actually feel sorry for Mr. Drosman. He is so full of himself that he thinks he can get away with this level of intellectual dishonesty; either that or he is utterly and completely lost. I guess these are the risks atheists take when they try to understand what is so completely alien to them. I am amazed that Mr. Drosman took the time to write such a complete load of garbage and I am stunned that Free Inquiry published it.
As a Christian I think the point that Drosman makes that we can be too unloving to homosexuals may be right, unfortunately he does not stop there and insists that we conform to this world and accept homosexuality as a life style choice. Homosexual behavior is a sin, and there is no way to read the Bible and come to any other conclusion. However, I also believe that if Jesus were incarnated today instead of 2000 years ago, homosexuals would be one of the groups He would be ministering to, and that He would be calling them into a relationship with Himself and out of their life of sinful behavior.
- Smoking and Alcohol: It's Just Another Lifestyle: What Health Risks?
- Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?
- The Biblical Design for Human Sexuality
- Is Living Together Before Marriage a Good Idea?
- Is it Okay for Christians to Engage in Premarital Sex Before Marriage?
- "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
- Homosexuality: Issues and Articles
- USA Today, in its
April 15, 1993 issue published the following statistics from a Planned
Parenthood/Alan Guttmacher Institute study:
- Only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 39 said they had experienced a same-sex relationship in the past decade. Only 1.1% said they were exclusively gay.
- A 1989 U.S. survey indicated that no more than 6% of adults had any kind of same-sex experience. Less than 1% said they were exclusively gay.
- A 1992 French study found that only 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women said they had any same-sex contact in the past five years.
Marks. 2002. What It Means to Be 98%
(Requires free registration)
The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone
- Frisch, M. and A. Hviid. 2006. Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35: 533-547.
Last Modified March 21, 2007