“Love thy neighbour (unless they’re homosexual.)” We all know that homosexuality is a sin: Lucifer’s work, which should be condemned for the sin that it is. "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" (Leviticus 20:13). Though, I ask myself what the Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians; and I meet uncertainty: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.” (Galatians 3:13) and “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1) so, if you put other Christians under the Law (of the Old Testament and Leviticus), you are subjecting them to the very yoke of slavery Paul warned them about. Of course there is the position of ceremonial law and moral law, yet I am still to find any Biblical reference distinguishing between the so-called ceremonial and moral laws. The solution to this of course is to follow the Old Testament regardless, ignore the conflict because it supports your argument and carry on as before. But, leave the trousers at home, ladies: Women are not to wear men's clothing and vice versa -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." (Deuteronomy 22:5). Oh, and to remain consistent: “A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). It is easy to hide apparent ‘meaning’ in long quotes of the bible. But, I felt the need to demonstrate, the argument works both ways.
Homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuals choose oppression, to spend their days talking to ignorant people and to have to hide their feelings to conform to the ideals of others. They chose to have their lives taken away from them in World War II, just as those without blonde hair or blue eyes chose their fate too. I do not feel the need to take this argument any further.
On a Biological level I could not argue that exclusive homosexuality is conductive to a species continuing, however with over 1,500 animal species practicing homosexual acts to some degree or another, it poses the question how unnatural it is for humans to engage in it too. Unfortunately our larger brains have given us something that none of the other 1,500 species seem to do; the ability to use homophobia to discriminate. In a Christian’s belief, a perfect God made all. It would be terribly naïve to believe that a creator God made the same mistake over 1500 times. I would prefer to argue that homosexuality makes sense on an Evolutionary basis. Illustrated, but with tail feathers, in Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” chapter 8. Or, in short, in our situation: A woman has the genes to make her attracted to a man. If she gives birth to a son, these genes will be present in her son, not necessarily expressed, but without doubt necessary as his progeny will also need to inherit the desire for a male mate (especially if female). These genes may well be, through environment or otherwise, turned on and expressed in a homosexual male. Whatever the mechanism for homosexuality, it is fact that we all hold the ability to be attracted to the same sex as ourselves. So, if homosexuality is, as hypothesised here, genetic; behavioural counselling for homosexuals would be as useful as sitting a tumour in a psychiatrist’s chair and asking it to share its feelings and why it feels the need to plague the body. In quite the same way that a person who believes counsel could help a homosexual, sees gay people as a tumour on the human race which plague us and condemn us to a life of misery.
The act of arguing science against religion, like arguing sense against nonsense is a tireless cause. Free will, however, is a dangerous thing. People feel the need to use it to take away the free will of others, removing choices in all walks of life, simply because they don’t agree or it is ‘alien’ to them. I will happily face the consequences of my own actions, without others feeling the need to interfere and try and sway me otherwise. Homosexuals are told of all the suffering they will face, but, is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer? Yes, because I would be losing out on much more if I were to hide who I really am, and I can be comfortable with my own identity, even if others cannot.
