Is all Homosexual activity unnatural, does it exist in nature, and is it a threat to the human species?

In my previous two blogs I set out why I believe that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation) is not a simple choice; that we have to distinguish between sexual identity and sexual behaviour; how some sexual behaviours have elements of choice; and that the Bible is not clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. In this blog I wish to tackle the arguments that homosexuality is unnatural as it does not occur in nature, the related argument that if homosexuality goes unchecked it will be a threat to the human species, and that the Bible regards it as unnatural.

_________________________

1. Homosexuality in Nature

It is not true that homosexuality does not occur in nature and therefore is unnatural as some would have us believe. This topic is eloquently handled in a New Scientist article. In this article they establish that Homosexuality does occur quite regularly in nature and there a various evolutionary reasons why this may occur.

I have to agree with the editorial on this article that homosexuality in nature is not a guide to morality. It it first and foremost a basic human rights issue!

_________________________

2. Homosexuality Threatens The Human Species

Nor can homosexuality be a threat to the species. Depending which figures you refer to, the gay population is between 3%-4% of the populace; other figures state that it may be slightly higher, between 8%-10%. Irrespective, there is little chance that this will threaten the human species because not enough people are procreating. This also erroneously assumes that gay couples will not want children. There are several modern options available to gay couples wanting their own children (other ethical and moral issues aside).

Therefore, this is just plain scaremongering: some conservatives would have us believe that one's sexuality is a choice and, therefore many more people could easily choose homosexuality and not procreate. As we do not choose our sexual orientation it is therefore not possible for heterosexuals to become homosexual and visa versa.

_________________________

3. Theological View

In my first blog on whether or not homosexuality is simple choice, I touched on the one aspect of the theological argument that homosexuality is unnatural as it is against God's design. Here I wish to examine why some argue that Leviticus and Romans do state that homosexuality is unnatural.

3.1 Leviticus

Many feel that as Leviticus regards same-sex male penetrative sex (note: female same-sex behaviour is not covered in these verses) as an abomination; that it is therefore regarded as unnatural. It is incorrect to translate the original Hebrew words "shiqquwts" into the English word "abomination". The Hebrew word in Leviticus means "unclean" and not "unnatural". It relates to Jewish laws of cleanliness. If one were to accept that "abomination" equates to "unnatural", then a Christian should not eat shell fish or any of the other "unnatural" foods either.

Remember, that these cleanliness laws no longer apply. With respect to the prohibition on unclean food, in Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15, God tells him not to regard as unclean that God has made clean. Additionally Christ is the fulfillment of the laws in Leviticus (Mat 5:17).

3.2 Romans

The use of "unnatural" in Romans 1:26-27, as else where in Romans (Rom 11:21,24), pertains to people behaving "against their own nature", not "against nature".

"... the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals, rather "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" [...] or heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexuality for homosexuality ..."

Wikipedia (2010) Homosexuality in the New Testament

As I discussed in a previous blog, while I do not regard one's sexual identity as a simple choice, I do believe that aspects of one's sexual behaviour are a choice. For example, in a prison where there is a lack of the opposite sex, heterosexuals may adopt homosexual behaviours but when they are released they revert back to heterosexual behaviours. Their underlying sexual identity has not changed.

The Roman's verses are also in the context of idolatry and therefore more likely to relate to temple prostitution when people were having sex with the gods, deities or angels.

"Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation..."

Wikipedia (2010) Homosexuality in the New Testament

The idea of sex with deities or angels is regarded as sin: the cause of Noah's flood and the reason why Lot (a righteous man) offered his daughters to be raped by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Therefore, is a Sodomite not technically a person who wants to have sex with an angel and not one man with another?) Furthermore, it is interesting that the original Greek in Jude 1:17 refers to sexual immorality of Sodom & Gomorrah as lusting after "another flesh" - few translations such as the NIV even reference this in a foot note. Others do include it, such as the NASB.

_________________________

_________________________

Does the Bible really clearly state that homosexuality (a sexual orientation) is a sin?

In my previous blog, I discussed that modern psychology differentiates between one's sexual identity (heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual) and how one's behaviour is informed by one's sexual identity. In this blog, I wish to explore if the Bible does clearly regard all aspects of homosexuality as evil or a sin.

_________________________

1) Interpreting the Bible (Hermeneutics)

Oddly, I'd like to begin the discussion on whether or not the Bible clearly condones slavery. Please bear with me. The web site Got Questions defends the Bible against the accusation that it does clearly condone slavery. I particularly agree that

"what many fail to understand is that slavery in [Biblical] times was very different from the slavery that was practised in the past few centuries in many parts of the world."

It is a very important step in hermeneutics (the theory & methodology of interpretation) to first & foremost understand ancient texts in context of the anthropology and sociology of the time they were written, as well as what we know from archaeology.

Once we understand this, we can then place the scripture in our modern context and defend the Bible against its critics. On the issue of slavery, another website Fighting For God reinforces this important hermeneutic step.

_________________________

2) Homosexuality in Biblical Times

However, the Got Questions web site's discussion on homosexuality immediately abandons this first hermeneutic step. It launches straight into a condemnation of homosexuality using modern terms:

"The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin ..."
Got Questions (2009) What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?

Actually, the Bible cannot consistently tell us anything about homosexuality in the modern sense of the word (i.e., a sexual identity/orientation): the word "homosexual" is a relatively new word (circa 1892) and did not exist in Biblical times. For example, it is erroneous to translate the obscure Greek word "arsenokoitai" into the modern word "homosexual": "arsenokoitai" refers to a person behaving in a certain way, not to a type of sexual orientation. (Fighting For God)

"Biblical writers had no concept of sexual orientation or sexual development as we understand those today. Therefore, passages that reference same-sex sexual activity should not been seen as comprehensive statements concerning homosexuality, but instead should be viewed in the context of what the ancient world that produced the Bible understood about sexual activity."
Fighting For God (2009) Attack #6 - The Bible Is Anti-Homosexuality

Now I appreciate that some readers are probably jumping up and down screaming, "You gay people and your sympathizers will twist scripture any which way you wish to justify your sin!" Please understand that I remain committed to the authority and integrity of the scriptures. However, I believe we must be consistent with our approach when interpreting scripture. We cannot use one technique when it suites us to defend the Bible on slavery and, then use another when we want to condemn homosexuals and justify things like the Ugandan "anti-gay" bill. After all the Bible is not open to private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20).

_________________________

In conclusion I must admit that I was also one who thought that the Bible was very clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. However, I now believe that homosexuality is a modern concept and the Bible does not deal with it. It could not; the concept was not around at the time! What is apparent is that the Bible condemns certain kinds of sexual behaviour, both heterosexual and homosexual. What it is consistent in condemning is sexual behaviours that are selfish, abusive, non-consensual and domineering. In reviewing the texts that apparently condemn homosexual behaviours, this condemnation consistently relates to the latter and I'm not able to find any condemnation of loving, caring and consensual homosexual behaviour.

_________________________

_________________________