Gospel Prism

Other arguments for gay acceptance come from the famed (or infamous) Kinsey Study in 1948. Kinsey concluded that at least ten percent of the American population (or approximately 25 million people) is gay. If this were true, most homosexuals would argue that something regularly practiced by so many people could not be morally wrong. But the Kinsey report was anything but objective and scientific. Joseph Gudel designates four reasons as to the skewed conclusions of the Kinsey report. First, 25% or 5,300 of his interviewees were prison inmates. Incarcerated individuals would obviously have no access to having heterosexual relationships even if it was that person’s desire to do so. 44% of these inmates admitted to a homosexual relationship in prison. Second, he used several hundred male prostitutes as part of his sample. Third, his methodology for choosing many of the other interviewees was on a “volunteer basis.” That is to say, most of his volunteers were already practicing homosexuals. Finally, Kinsey did not say that 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was homosexual. Rather, he affirmed that ten percent of white American males were ‘more or less’ exclusively homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 65.” (Joseph P. Gudel, “Ethical Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal 1992 Summer, 22.)

Recent developments in medical research, particularly in the field of genetic studies, have been instrumental in legitimizing homosexual behavior to the world and even to the church. Homosexual advocates in the church now appeal to these new biological and technological breakthroughs as new grounds of acceptance. An article by William A. Henry in Time underscores this finding,

Whatever its ultimate scientific significance, however, the study’s social and political impact is potentially even greater. If homosexuals are deemed to have a foreordained nature, many of the arguments now used to block equal rights would lose force.” (William A. Henry III, “Born Gay?,” Time July 26, 1993, p. 37-38.)

Thus, the logic flows, “if one is born gay, one is not responsible (even if it were wrong) for its effects.” Such thinking stands on flimsy ground because Scripture never links responsibility to genetics. Since both homosexual and heterosexual have a predisposition to sin (Romans 3:23), no person is held blameless for sin as a result of one’s sexual orientation. Heterosexual orientation too might also be genetic, especially if one argues that homosexual orientation is genetic, but that does not give license for adultery and promiscuity.

In terms of medical research, the premise of the whole argument is misplaced. There has been a shift from the classification of sin, to a justification towards “natural tendencies,” an argument homosexuals used in arguing against Romans 1:26-27. The neglect is in the underestimation of sin. It is a horrific affront to God; one that has labeled all sinners as “God’s enemies” in Romans 5:10. Thus, if one concedes that homosexuality is a sin, then even the findings of medical research are inadequate. The depraved nature of sin goes far beyond medical justification. A tendency to sin medically does not justify a continued penchant to sin. If one has kleptomania that does not mean that one can steal freely and not worry about the consequences. If one is mentally insane, then he or she is not free to kill on the grounds of mental insanity. If a heterosexual struggles lusts after someone of the opposite sex, even though on biblical and biological grounds, one could argue that this person is acting in accordance with his or her genetic makeup, this does not excuse such a person before God in acting out sexual fantasies. Morally, we are all responsible for a sinful nature. Biblically, we are condemned for the first sin (Romans 5:12-13), but we are also saved by grace despite our sinfulness through the righteousness of the second Adam, Jesus Christ (whether it can be even proved if homosexuality and heterosexuality is a genetic trait). We are all hideous before God’s eyes. Yet, forgiveness and redemption comes in Christ. Thus, it is Christ, not medical research that all sinners must turn to in humble repentance and worship.

The Kinsey study speaks for itself. Its flawed results do not leave much room for its legitimate use. Also, recent surveys have concluded that the figure for the number of homosexuals in the United States is approximately from 1 to 2% mark, sharply lower from Kinsey’s findings. However, this number will surely grow in the coming years as the media promotes gay acceptance, and as the post-modern culture no longer enforces any moral standards. Homosexuality is no longer an alternative lifestyle, but now it is the admired lifestyle [1] as it penetrates the schools[2] and is promulgated to the emerging generation.

Some have argued that homosexuals have not been granted the human rights that they deserve. This might be true, but once again the emphasis has shifted from the responsibility for sin, to human rights. Perhaps the church has neglected a critical responsibility to reject hatred and speak out against malicious and deleterious prejudice against the gay community. The homosexual is as much in need of a Savior as the heterosexual who attends an Evangelical church faithfully. Jesus did not cringe amongst the worst of sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, beggars. He embraced them (Matthew 9:12), but never, ever embraced and condoned their sins. His loving words to the adulteress on the street was not “I accept you and I love you and your sins,” but “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11).

—

[1] Bravo’s “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” is the preeminent example of the admired gay lifestyle. While some homosexuals frown on the television show as a proliferation of a stereotype, most homosexuals, and heterosexuals for that matter, see the show as praise for the gay community. “Queer Eye” projects gay men as being hip, cool, stylish, and in. The show has even been able to take what used to be a derogatory word, “queer,” and turn it into a word of approbation. CNN reported, “Now ‘queer’ is sneaking into the mainstream — and taking on a hipster edge as a way to describe any sexual orientation beyond straight. Jay Edwards, a 28-year-old gay man from Houston, has noticed it. ‘Hey Jay,’ a straight co-worker recently said. ‘Have you met the new guy? He’s really cute and queer, too. Just your type!’”

[2] Elizabeth Schainbaum of The Daily Review reported that in April “the school board passed a resolution supporting gay sensitivity training, classroom discussion of gay families and homophobia, openly gay staff and a safe environment for gay teachers and students.” She adds, “California laws protect gay staff and students from harassment and discrimination, and they support discussing homosexuals in a historical context or in terms of their being a minority group.” The irony is that schools are duty bound to promote homosexual agenda as a support for homosexuals. This, however, fails to recognize that those parents who do not wish such pro-homosexual bias on their children have no choice. This has been a longstanding critique of Christian ideals being introduced in schools. Today’s Christians face many points of harassment and discrimination. And yet, schools continually deem Christians a viable target. The double-standards held to by those who espouse such views are quite blatant.