In short, the Bible teaches that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is to be interpreted as sin, and that participation natural between a male and a female. The concept is tightened in that it not only is between male and female, but that it is an original male and female unless death or violation (in the area of sex) releases at least one of the two members of a marriage. Penalty for violation by law was harsh in the Old Testament. If rape was cause the innocent party was spared, unless there was no resistance. Both men and women were held to the same standard. Homosexuality was included as violation, as was also bestiality. Homophobia is not the point, but one may encounter homophobia as one encounters racial prejudice. Prejudice is belief and attitude, based on a lie. For Christians the issue rests in a biblical theology of anthropology. Homosexuality cannot evade theology for Christians. Lot knew the standards for sexual intimacy long before Moses codified the law. The man in Sodom was aghast when Sodom’s men asked for access to his male guests. A sacrifice of his daughters was taken as less heinous. Sodomy came from Sodom as history has it.
Physical intimacy, rightly bounded, is part of the creative image of God in us, and an order He has for us. We cannot sustain the race without it, or the routing of it. Violation of the order becomes serious. It is even a current matter of legal tension, as a factor in social problems, as well as other venues, including religion. During the 1970s limited studies were made that suggested sexual orientation did not make a meaningful difference in personal and social contexts. The corner turned for homosexual causes. Most early studies came from educated white lesbian couples living in high density urban centers. There was included a demand for marriage for same sex couples. The debate moved along, not so much on sound studies of the impact on persons and society, but on the feeling that freedom included legal approval for all personal issues. Researchers, some favoring same sex marriages, warned the public that there were problems. For example, they found there were differences in children raised in gay and lesbian homes as compared to heterosexual homes. Many children adopted by homosexual couples come from dysfunctional and/or divorced heterosexual couples, perhaps from unmarried couples. Children reared by homosexual couples do develop differently than those from traditional homes. Is this because of the nurture, or is it because of less promising beginnings? Are the young people becoming troubled or improved for this reason or that? (Pressure continues for legalization in society. The movement continues at this writing.) How does one gain objective information?
There is a point to be made by studies available at the time of this writing. The children do emerge differently, as statistical averages note. Mona Charen summarized the research she gathered showing that homosexual homes differ from traditional: There are statistically significant differences in gender identity, sexual experimentation and promiscuity. The children raised by homosexual couples were more likely than the traditionally nurtured children to tell researchers that they experimented with or considered homosexuality for themselves. Females reared by lesbians tend to have a larger number of sexual partners from puberty to adulthood. Boys raised by lesbians have fewer sexual encounters than those from heterosexual couples. Most children raised by homosexuals live heterosexual lives. What is the case? It is, for the Christian, that everyone has equality before the law. The moral matter may not be legal, and vice-versa. The two may differ. In scriptural and spiritual terms, homosexuality is a sin. If made legal in society the Christian accepts rights of all, without yielding on the issues of morality. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020