Homosex
This paper was composed in March of 1992 in response to a homosexual panel that “strong-armed” their way onto the campus of GMI in response to a cultural and ethnic diversity week held on the campus. This paper was submitted by Christians In Action as our stand and concern about the truth and consequences of a lifestyle of sodomy and perversion.
Homosexuality: A Response
In response to the “Diversity & Sexual Orientation” during GMI’s DIVERSITY WEEK, we who are involved in the Christians In Action group wish to submit at treatise to the GMI student body to offer a response from an objective and properly balanced pers pective. This work is not the definitive work on homosexuality, yet it tries to cover many different facets to remain credible, reasonable, and believable with the information that is presented.
We at Christians In Action do not encourage nor support the defamation of any person’s intrinsic character and being by the publishing of this article, and we challenge the GMI student body to do the same in approaching an issue of this volatility. Sensitivity to the needs and feelings of others is crucial to the understanding of both sides of opinion, and in committing ourselves to not speak evil of any person, we hereby encourage the rest of our fellow friends and classmates to respectfully do th e same. Any display of “gay bashing” either in private jest or openly, only shows one’s immaturity of not being willing to treat others as you yourself would want to be treated, even if you think you know you are right. The position we strive put on i s to show compassion and concern for the person, for every person is created in God’s image and has worth no matter what they may have done or are doing, yet, we do not necessarily condone their behavior. Therein lies the distinction, and the challenge.
First, we must define our stance on a higher moral absolute that ourselves, and communicate the specific purpose for man to abide by these absolutes. It is crucial we do so to design a worthy and credible argument.
God, in creating man, ordered him to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28). Man, in attempting to establish separate dominion and autonomous jurisdiction over the earth (Genesis 3:5), fell into sin and death. God, in order to re- establish the Kingdom of God, called Abraham, and then Israel, to be His people, to subdue the earth, and to exercise dominion under God. The law, as given through Moses established the laws of godly society, of true development for man under God, and the prophets repeatedly recalled Israel to this purpose.
Finally, the purpose of Christ’s coming was in terms of this same creation mandate. Christ as the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) kept the law perfectly. As the sin- bearer of the elect, Christ died to make atonement for their sins, to restore them to their position of righteousness under God. The redeemed are recalled to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfill “the righteous requirement of the law” (Romans 8:4). The law remains the cent ral purpose and calling. Man’s justification is by the grace of God in Jesus Christ; man’s sanctification is by means of the law of God.
The body of this publication is organized into the following outline:
I. Spiritual/Theological
Old Testament Law
New Testament Covenant
Definitions & Etymology
II. Moral
III. Social
Characteristics of a homosexual
Deviant Behavior
IV. Family
Adoption or Surrogate Parenting
V. Medical
Physical Repercussions
Immune System Suppression
( excluding AIDS)
AIDS Transmission
VI. Political/Constitutional
Black’s Law Dictionary: Sodomy
Freedom of Expression
VII. Philosophical
Evolution
Moral Education
I. Spiritual/Theological
Old Testament Law
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
New Testament Covenant
Romans 1:18-23 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, n or extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Titus 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremo ngers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Definitions & Etymology
Sodomy:
Hebrew definition and rendering to English H6945 qadesh, kaw-dashe’; from 6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:-sodomite, unclean.
6 verses found of the same root Hebrew noun. Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: [and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. 1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land. 2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that [were] by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove. Job 36:14 They die in youth, and their life [is] among the unclean.
Greek definition and rendering to English I Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither 1.) fornicators, nor 2.) idolaters, nor 3.) adulterers, nor 4.) effeminate, nor 5.) abusers of themselves with mankind,
1.) fornicators:
4205 pornos, por’-nos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by anal.) a debauchee (libertine):- fornicator, whoremonger. —————————— Dictionary Trace ———————
4097 piprasko, pip-ras’-ko; a redupl. and prol. form of prao, prah’-o (which occurs only as an alt. in cert. tenses); contr. from perao (to traverse; from the base of 4008); to traffic (by traveling), i.e. dispose of as merchandise or into slaver y (lit. or fig.):-sell.
2.) idolaters:
1496 eidololatres, i-do-lol-at’-race; from 1497 and the base of 3000; an image-(servant or) worshipper (lit. or fig.):-idolater. —————————— Dictionary Trace ———————
1497 eidolon, i’-do-lon; from 1491; an image (i.e. for worship); by impl. a heathen god, or (plur.) the worship of such:-idol. 3000 latreuo, lat-ryoo’-o; from latris (a hired menial); to minister (to God), i.e. render religious homage:-serve, do the service, worship (- per).
3.) adulterers:
3432 moichos, moy-khos’; perh. a prim. word; a (male) paramour; fig. apostate:-adulterer.
4.) effeminate:
3120 malakos, mal-ak-os’; of uncert. affin.; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); fig. a catamite:-effeminate, soft.
5.) abusers of themselves with mankind (i.e. sodomites): 733 arsenokoites, ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace; from 730 and 2845; a sodomite:- abuser f (that defile) self with mankind. —————————— Dictionary Trace ———————
730 arrhen, ar’-hrane; of arsen, ar’-sane; prob. from 142; male (as stronger for lifting):-male, man. 2845 koite, koy’-tay; from 2749; a couch; by extens. cohabitation; by impl. the male sperm:-bed, chambering, X conceive.
II. Moral
Institutes of Biblical Law; R. J. Rushdoony It is an illusion to hold that such opinions were simply a Puritan aberration rather than a truly Biblical practice and an aspect of the persisting life of Christendom. It is a modern heresy that holds that the law of God has no meaning nor any bind ing force for man today. It is an aspect of the influence of humanistic and evolutionary thought on the church, and it posits an evolving, developing god. This “dispensational” god expressed himself in law in an earlier age, then later expressed himsel f by grace alone, and is now perhaps to express himself in still another way. But this is not the God of Scripture, whose grace and law remain the same in every age, because He, as the sovereign and absolute lord, changes not, nor does He need to change . The strength of man is the absoluteness of his God.
The God Who is There; F. A. Schaeffer If you had lived in Europe prior to about 1890, or in the United States before about 1935, you would not have had to spend much time, in practice, in thinking about your presuppositions. (These dates may be slightly arbitrary as the change came in E urope, at least, fairly gradually. In America the crucial years of change were from 1913 to 1940 and during these relatively few years the whole way of thinking underwent a revolution-1913 was a most important year in the United States, ….)
Before these dates everyone would have been working on much the same presuppositions, which in practice seemed to accord with the Christian’s own presuppositions. This was true both in the area of epistemology and methodology. Now it be may argued that the non-Christian had no right to act on the presuppositions he acted on. That is true. They were being romantic in accepting optimistic answers without a sufficient base. Nevertheless they went on thinking and acting as if these presuppositions were true.
What were these presuppositions? The basic one was that there really are such things as absolutes. They accepted the possibility of absolute in the area of Being (or knowledge), and in the area of moral. Therefore, because they accepted the possib ility of absolutes, though men might disagree as to what these were, nevertheless they could reason together on the classical basis of antithesis. So if anything was true, the opposite was false. In morality, if one thing was right, its opposite was wr ong. This little formula, ÔIf you have A it is not non-A’, is the first move in classical logic. If you understand the extent to which this no longer holds sway, you will understand our present situation.
Absolutes imply antithesis. The non-Christian went on romantically operating on this basis without a sufficient base for doing so. Thus it was still possible to discuss what was right and wrong, what was true and false. One could tell a non- Chris tian to Ôbe a good girl’, and, while she might not have followed your advice, at least she would have understood what you were talking about. To say the same thing to a truly modern girl today would be to make a Ônonsense’ statement. The blank look yo u might receive would not mean that your standards had been rejected but that your message was meaningless.
The shift has been tremendous. Thirty or more years ago you could have said such things as ÔThis is true’ or ÔThis is right’, and you would have been on everybody’s wavelength. People may or may not have thought out their beliefs consistently, but everyone would have been talking to each other as though the idea of antithesis was correct.
III. Social
Characteristics of a homosexual
- An abnormal fear of aging and death.
- An exultation of studied vulgarity into high style, i.e. the love of the exaggerated, spirit of extravagance, accepts “style at the expense of content.”
- Homosexual culture is bitterly hostile to the family and in its intellectual fashions works to undercut the family and small town culture as well.
- The homosexual lives against reality and in a world of make believe.
“This is an aspect of homosexual antinomianism (Webster’s Def.:antinomianism: 1: one who holds that under the gospel of dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary for salvation, 2: one who rejects a s ocially established morality) by replacing sound standards with arbitrary and vulgar styles, the homosexual derives a deep satisfaction: he is subverting, he believes, ultimate law and asserting man’s autonomy.”
Deviant Behavior
- Manual/Anal Intercourse – “Fisting” a.”This practice involves the insertion of the hand, fist and forearm into the rectum and lower colon. In the jargon of participants, it is called “fisting”. b.”These internal wounds provide enormous opportunity for the entrance and spread of AIDS virus and other infections.” c.”In some cases, the damage from fisting is so extensive that a sphincterectomy of colostomy must be performed.” d.”In San Francisco, where a certain percentage of the murders reportedly are linked to homosexual sadomasochism, a workshop has been offered for instructing homosexuals in how to engage in sex torture without killing each other.” The AIDS Cover-up – Ge ne Antonio, p. 41. 2. Water sports, “golden showers” 3. Anilingus, “rimming,” “scat” “Amoung male homosexuals, these diseases (amebiasis, giardiasis, shigellosis, hepatitis) are rampant because of oral-anal practices involving the ingestion of fecal matter. In a type of oral-anal intercourse, the tongue is inserted directly into the rec tum (anilingus, “rimming”), and the infected, parasite-laden secretions and fecal matter are swallowed. The practice of outright defecation/ingestion is also involved. In homosexual slang, this practice is commonly referred to as “scat”, derived from t he French word for feces. The AIDS Cover-up – Gene Antonio, p. 51.
IV. Family
Adoption or Surrogate Parenting
Tough Talk about Tough Issues , B. Larson, p. 224 Scientific research reveals that unborn babies perceive emotional messages from their mothers. Even in the womb, fetuses experience the effects of rejection or acceptance from their biological mothers. What kind of torment does a baby by proxy suffer, knowing he is not wanted by the one in whose womb he resides? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists expresses ” Significant reservations because of the potential physical and psychological risks.” USA Today, May 11th, 1983.
V. Medical
Physical Repercussions
1.These internal wounds provide enormous opportunity for the entrance and spread of AIDS virus and other infections. 2.In some cases, the damage from fisting is so extensive that a sphincterectomy of colostomy must be performed. 3.Physiologically, the rectum is designed for the expulsion of feces. When sodomy is performed, the peculiar forced inward expansion of the anal canal results in a tearing of the lining as well as bleeding anal fissures.
Immune System Suppression (excluding AIDS) 1. During sodomy, the naturally aggressive properties of sperm combined with damage to the rectal wall enable spermatozoa to penetrate the mucosal lining. A report in the April 27, 1984, issue of Science by researchers at the Department of Obstetrics an d Gynecology, Cornell Medical Center, New York, stated that occurrence of AIDS among homosexuals “may have some relation to circulating antibodies evoked as a result of semen deposition in the alimentary canal [intestine]. Human seminal fluid apparentl y contains components that potentially can suppress the immune response.” 2. Reported in Lancet, 2 June 1984, pp. 1212-1214: “A homosexual individual is repeatedly exposed to viral antigens such as herpes and sperm antigens which can be absorbed through the intact intestine or through mucosal lesions. [Note: Bleeding lesions are not necessary for absorption of spermatozoa and harmful infectious agents during sodomy, but they do facilitate it.]” 3. Journal of the American Medical Association (Mavligit, op. cit., pp. 237- 241), noted that the association of sperm-induced immune dysregulation with the practice of anal intercourse “underscores the critical structural differences between the rectu m and the vagina. While the lining of the vaginal mucosa comprises a squamous multilayer epithelium capable of protecting against any abrasion effect during intercourse, the lining of the rectum is made of a single layer of columnar epithelium. The lat ter, unlike the vaginal epithelium, is not only incapable of protecting against any abrasive effect, but also promotes the absorption of an array of sperm antigens, thus enhancing their exposure to the immune apparatus in the lymphatic and blood circulat ion. The high immunogenicity possessed by spermatozoa, coupled with the microbiological flora of the rectum, can work in synergism to generate a state of chronic antigenic stimulation.” 4. G. M. Mavligit et al.,”Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens; Support for the Hypothesis That Spermatozoa Induce Immune Dysregulation in Homosexual Males”, JAMA 1984; 251: 237-241 “During sodomy, the biology design of the rectum combined with the aggressive properties of sperm expedite their substantial entrance into the bloodstream. When this occurs repeatedly, antibodi es to sperm develop which circulate and impair the immune system.” 5. “Monogamous” sodomy is not a safe alternative. In a revealing study involving monogamously paired homosexual males, three-fourths of the passive partners manifested sperm-induced immune dysregulation. Mavligit, op. cit., p. 241. The immune dysregulation induced by sperm appears to debilitate the sy stem quite apart from infection by the AIDS virus. 6. List of diseases caused by homosexual behavior:
Hepatitis A – viral liver disease
Hepatitis B – causes cirrhosis and liver cancer Delta Hepatitis – causes insanity and death Amebiasis – causes dysentery and sometimes liver abscesses Giardiasis – causes inflammation of the intestinal tract Shigellosis – sever dysentery can be fatal Venereal Diseases – syphilis, incurable genital herpes, cytomegalovirus (CMV), venereal warts
AIDS Transmission
1. Sodomy, fisting, the use of mechanical devices and other practices produce tears, fissures and lacerations of the rectum. This trauma facilitates the entrance of infected sperm and pathogenic organisms into the bloodstream. 2. Infected bloody secretions leaking through the damaged walls of the rectum transmit the disease to the active partner through the urethral opening and through open sores and abrasions of the penis produced as a result of bodily abuse and disease. Fe llatio, manual-genital and anal-oral sexual practices involving the ingestion of infected semen, blood-streaked fecal matter and secretions facilitate transmission of pathogens. 3. Incessant, oftentimes simultaneous sperm-induced immune dysregulation, liver damage, intestinal parasites and venereal diseases all abet debilitation of the immune system prior to and along with infection the AIDS virus.
Defining acts such as sodomy, fisting, anilingus etc., as being unnatural is not a matter of homophobic prejudice. Empirical medical evidence clearly demonstrates that the rectum is not designed for intromission of actual or makeshift sex organs, fi sts, forearms and the like.
The AIDS Cover-up – Gene Antonio, Ignatius Press, 1987.
VI. Political/Constitutional
Black’s Law Dictionary: Sodomy
Sodomy. While variously defined in state criminal statutes, is generally oral or anal copulation between humans, or between humans and animals. State v. Young, 140 Or. 228, 13 P.2d 604, 607
Freedom of Expression
e.g. “You must accept us, (who we are and what we do), but we need not have any tolerance for your intolerant Judeao-Christian dogma.”
“What is the nature of the guarantee of freedom of expression? It cannot reasonably be claimed that the Constitution extends its protection to all verbal and non-verbal communication. As Holmes said: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Schenck v. United States (1919)”
“Only when the social order is drastically threatened is government permitted to punish a speaker. As Justice Brandeis put it in Whitney v. California (1927): “Only an emergency justifies repression.”
In Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton (1973), obscenity control, apart from protecting juveniles and unconsenting adults from exposure, serves the legitimate state interests in maintaining, “the quality of life and total community environment, the tone of c ommerce in the great city centers, and possibly, the public safety itself.” The obvious unhealthy practices of the homosexual community puts a toll on the health insurance industry thereby lowering the quality of life and the feasibility of reasonable c ost heath care to non-homosexuals; when the traditional individual family structure is put into jeopardy by the questionable legitimacy of “alternative lifestyles”, the very essence of the American community is eroded; the tone of commerce, similarly as mentioned before, will change to support the burden of rising medical/insurance costs and lower employe attendance; finally, most noticeably is the spread of the AIDS HIV virus and the increased magnitude of similar sexually transmitted diseases among t he homosexual community and their relatively unknown method of transmittal which poses a direct threat to the non-homosexual community.
VII. Philosophical
Evolution
If there is no benevolent Creator who created us for fellowship with Him in living according to His moral absolutes (this assumes that one need not abide by any moral principal outside of one’s own belief), then the only explanation of meaningful existen ce at this point in time is the Darwinian natural selection of species, ( although the theory of evolution’s foundation is even now being shaken by the scientific community, which currently is realizing the lack of consistent and objective scientific met hod that has been applied to it in the past. See Darwin On Trial, P. E. Johnson). If one assumes the evolutionary position of the “survival of the fittest”, the logical error lies then in two areas: 1.) If sodomy is the higher order, then sodomites must be able to procreate themselves to preserve their natural selection. Procreation among sodomites is humorously impossible and therefore no selection of species can take place. 2.) If sodomy is the higher order, then sodomites must be able to evolve to the state of the “fittest”. Any objective look at the homosexual lifestyle in light of not only the AIDS epidemic, but in conjunction with the aforementioned medical evidence, overwhelmingly proves that this lifestyle is not conducive to healthy living, let alone the procreation of stronger second generation offspring.
Moral Education
Common to the various “moral education” approaches today is the idea that there is nothing right or wrong and that to teach any substantive ethical precept or idea is to “indoctrinate” students. In one approach, students are invited to “clarify” the ir own values; the focus is on “rationality,” “creativity,” “autonomy” and “process.” In another approach, students are asked to dwell on ethical dilemmas such as when lying can be justified, or on public policy questions such as the morality of racial quotas.
The problem with these approaches is obvious to anyone raised in the basic morality. In the values approach, no one need fear a teachers’s judgement if his values are wrong, because there are no wrong values (other than, of course, the value of oppo sing “values” education). Upon learning that all choices are equally valid, a student will be educated into skepticism about morality, fertile soil for wrong action.
Disclaimer: The contents of this publication do not necessarily represent the opinions of the staff, faculty, or administration of GMI Engineering & Management Institute. The responsibility of this publication is fully assumed by Christians In Action o n the GMI campus.
Compiled by Jay Lecher, campus pastor of Christians In Action at GMI Engineering & Management Institute. Research team: Glen Ackerman, A-section president of Christians In Action, Deryl Nafziger, Renee Reichling, and Jay Lecher, (the latter two being GM I alumni). Any comments or correspondence for more information on current issues that the Church must rise up and become relevent and effective to the pulling down of everything that exualts itself against the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, please contac t:
Jay Lecher
912 Huron
Flint, MI 48507
Home: (313) 234-7233