The Plague of Perversion

One of the most devastating movements to evolve from human degeneracy in recent decades is the so-called “Gay Pride Movement.”

The growing popularity of homosexual and transgender lifestyles is a growing phenomenon. They’ve been buoyed by considerable support from the entertainment industry and significant publicity from the news media.

No longer content to practice perversion behind closed doors, the LGBTQ axis has moved into the mainstream of society and flaunts their immorality in the most extravagant ways.

Marching in gay-pride parades, they thrust lewdness in the faces of men, women, and children. They’ve invaded school systems at every level. Their agenda has no limits.

They are demanding full “human rights,” which according to them includes the right to hold influential governmental positions, teach in schools, marry, and to not be discriminated against in any job based on a chosen sexual behavior.

Huge corporations have capitulated to the powerful LGBTQ lobby. Cities, states and even the Supreme Court have caved to this movement so that private businesses have been forced to acknowledge “civil unions.”

In 2015, the nation-wide “gay marriage” agenda was achieved thanks to the Supreme Court decision. Incidentally, it should be noted that one of the justices weighing in on this opinion was a homosexual woman appointed by President Obama.

The very fact that so many in our country have become sympathetic to this perverted movement ought to be a danger signal to every moral person.

The Cause of Homosexuality

Exactly what is responsible for a homosexual or gender alteration?

Some medical authorities assert that homosexuality is either the result of genetic problems (abnormal chromosome variations) or psychological aberrations. It is now known that in most instances of homosexuality this is not the case.

More than a half-century ago, Pritchard’s study of male homosexuals found a normal complement of XY chromosomes in every case (1962, 108). In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

In the spring of 1979, after a decade-long study, sex researchers Masters and Johnson (who were not pillars of moral virtue) concluded that homosexuality for most persons is neither a physical or emotional illness, nor is it a genetic disorder. Rather, it is a learned behavior.

Study of this subject led Dr. Jerry Bergman to state:

“It is not understood exactly what learning produces a gay sexual orientation, but because this behavior is learned, quite possibly it could be learned from other homosexuals” (1981; cf. also 1995).

For more information, see the article on the so-called Gay Gene by Dave Miller.

The Biblical View of Homosexuality

In the sacred Scriptures, homosexuality is not viewed as a medical issue. Rather, it is a moral problem.

The name of Sodom lives in the infamy of history. So well known is the biblical narrative concerning the perversions of Sodom and Gomorrah, that across the centuries the term “Sodomite” became synonymous with a homosexual.

Recent allegations by modernistic theologians who suggest that the sin of Sodom was mere inhospitality or an intended “gang rape” contains not a shred of evidence.

When Jehovah’s messengers came to Lot’s house in Sodom, certain base men surrounded the dwelling and urged Abraham’s nephew to send out the visitors “that we may know them” (Gen. 19:5). The word “know” (Hebrew yada; Greek ginosko) is sometimes employed in the Bible as a euphemism for “to have sexual relations with” (cf. Gen. 4:1; Mt. 1:25).

The men of Sodom clearly wanted to engage in sexual activity with Lot’s guests. These men were characterized as “wicked” and their sin is said to be “very grievous” (Gen. 18:20ff).

In the New Testament, the inspired Peter affirmed that God turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes and “condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly.” Yet righteous Lot, who was “sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked” and daily vexed with their “lawless deeds,” was delivered (2 Pet. 2:6-8).

Later, the law of Moses declared:

“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall surely be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

Some claim, however, that since many Old Testament regulations are obsolete today (e.g., the wearing of a garment of mingled fabric — Deut. 22:11), so also injunctions against sodomy may be similarly ignored.

This is a woeful blunder. Some Old Testament regulations were strictly ceremonial in nature and thus solely a part of that temporary system. Homosexuality is a moral evil that assaults the home, the very foundation of human society. It has never been tolerated by God.

The Teaching of Jesus Christ

Some religionists (homosexuals and their sympathizers), while admitting that certain New Testament passages appear to condemn homosexual conduct, nonetheless deny that Jesus personally censured such acts. This is totally inaccurate.

First, Christ clearly taught that the doctrine of his inspired spokesmen ultimately was from him. To the seventy disciples under his commission, he said, “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me” (Lk. 10:16). Paul, who was very outspoken about sodomy, affirmed that the things he wrote were “the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

Second, when Jesus spoke of marriage as that which was ordained of God, he stated it was for male and female (Mt. 19:4-6). There is no authority or provision for “gay marriage.”

Third, the Lord’s concession, that fornication against an innocent spouse is grounds for divorce by the victim, condemns sodomy since this vile practice is a form of fornication.

This point needs some elaboration. Unless there are contextual indications (either immediate or remote) which suggest that biblical terms have been given special meanings, the words of the sacred text are to be understood as they were commonly employed by the writers of that era.

The word “fornication” (Greek porneia) was used in antiquity in a generic sense "of various kinds of “unsanctioned sexual intercourse” (Danker et al. 2000, 854). It includes such sins as prostitution, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and such like (Reisser 1975, 497-501).

Jude explicitly declares that Sodom and her neighbors had “given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7).

Finally, Christ indicated that ancient Sodom was in need of repentance and that they justly were destroyed (cf. Mt. 11:23, 24; Lk. 17:29).

Additional New Testament Evidence

Paul’s inspired rebuke of homosexuality in his letter to the Romans could be misunderstood only by the willfully ignorant.

In Romans 1:26-27, homosexual conduct is characterized as:

• the result of vile passions;
• a perversion from the natural to that which is against nature (note Jude’s reference to “strange flesh” [vs. 7]);
• lust causing males to burn for males and females for females;
• unseemliness;
• error that was due recompense.

Further, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 the apostle declares that the “effeminate” (malakos “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate, especially of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship” [Danker et al., 613]).

Also condemned are “abusers of themselves with men” who cannot (in that condition) inherit the kingdom of God. This latter phrase translates the Greek word arsenokoites (from arsen — a male and koite — bed). Literally, it is males in bed with males!

In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul puts homosexuals in the same lawless class with murderers of parents. Some attempt to wrest the Scriptures by suggesting that Paul was not condemning homosexuality per se, rather, only the abuse of this practice. But there is, liberals maintain, a proper homosexual relationship that would be approved.

How absurd! The same type of logic would imply that there is a legitimate form of drunkenness, idolatry, murder, etc. — that only the perversions of such acts are condemned!

The Matter of Rights

The contention is frequently made these days that sexual preference is entirely a private affair. We are told that what homosexuals do is their business. Those who fancy themselves as broadminded intellectuals allege that the “rights” of all must be protected.

There are several things wrong with this reasoning:

First, the homosexuals and other sexually aberrant practitioners are pushing for public acceptance of their conduct. They want to teach in public schools, and they’ve gotten their way.

But do parents have any rights? As a parent, do I have the right to expect that my children will receive their education from reasonably moral people? Should those who champion incest and bestiality be denied their “rights” to teach children?

It seems there is no restraint on the “rights” of the wicked, only those who are trying to live godly lives.

Secondly, one spokesperson for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights has stated that the ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is “freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.” The writer says, “We gain nothing by limiting our defense of homosexual love to consensual sex between adults. It is absurd to charge gay men who share their sexuality with boys as ‘child molesters’” (Stockton Record, 1979).

Is this what the Constitution of the United States was designed to protect?

What Shall We Do?

It would be most desirable if we could simply teach sinful homosexuals to abandon their wickedness, obey Christ, and accept his forgiveness (Acts 2:38). This is precisely what some in the first century did (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

However, the so-called gay community is totally unconcerned with anything the Bible says. These people must be dealt with differently. This approach is thus suggested:

Virtually every person has a threshold of morality at some point. Those opposed to this depravity must demand that homosexuals defend their practice on some moral basis.

For example, is bestiality immoral? What about incest? If the homosexuals endorse this type of activity, let them come out and publicly say so. If they feel that such conduct is immoral, by what standard is their judgment made?

They must be pressured to logically and consistently defend their views. It will become apparent that when one rejects God as the ultimate standard of right and wrong (as his will is revealed ultimately in the New Testament), there is absolutely no stopping place for human immorality.

Who is willing to accept the inevitability of this type of thinking? Scarcely anyone except those who have no regard for logic and who revel in debauchery.

Let us, therefore, kindly, but forcefully, press these truths upon our contemporaries. We must take the initiative in this struggle for decent conduct. The future of generations yet unborn depends upon how intelligently, spiritually, and vigorously we engage this battle.