Previously on this blog, I have looked at the various Biblical references to homosexuality. The most compelling argument in the Bible against homosexual behaviour is found in Romans 1. Those who condemn homosexuality find their strongest argument in the fact that it is "para phusin" - "against nature".
This phrase is contested, of course (a lot more contested than most preachers ever acknowledge when they preach against homosexuality). According to Paul, for example, it is also against nature for men to have long hair! In the context of Romans 1, there is also contention in how to translate the context. Paul is referring to people inflamed by lust, who give up their natural instincts and pursue same sex encounters without love and "against nature".
One of the foundations of this argument has always been that we don't see homosexual activity in animals. But this is not true. Recent research indicates that thousands of animal species exhibit homosexual behaviour. Read one hews release here and an older medical report here. This includes animals as "advanced" as dolphins, deer, lions, swans, and primates. And it is not "aberrant" behaviour, but natural in response to a variety of circumstances, including overpopulation (as humans are experiencing in most countries around the world), gender imbalances (as China is now experiencing with 40 million more young men than women), and threats to societal harmony.
One of the most interesting animals is black swans, where male homosexual swans will often "kidnap" a cygnet and raise it. Swans, of course, are monogomous throughout their lives. Even more interesting is that the research shows that animals raised by homosexual or lesbian parents fair better on average than those raised by a male-female couple.
This is not proof that God designed homosexuality, of course. Nor is it proof that humans are allowed to be homosexual. But, it does destroy a major argument that people who want to stand against homosexuality have used in the past. That argument is no longer available to them.
Technorati Tags: 
Roger Saner's blog: Journey
Graeme Codrington: Regeneration
Homosex
It is quite apparent to most people that this kind of sex is abnormal, perverted according to history and the Holy Bible.
It is not about what kind of people we are, whether one has the ability to be a good person or a good parent, etc. It is about whether they recognize there is a norm, and a righteous God who created a man and a woman and the purpose for which they were created; to worship and honor and obey God; to love and respect each other and to fulfil and honor God's purposes for them and their offspring.
Scripture tells that ALL of creation suffered from the effects of sin, all the hosts, including animals, of this earth fell under the wages of sin which is death. Everything and everyone is tainted with the scourge of sin and it is only healed and cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ.
It matters not whether we can proove homosex is natural or not; it matters not whether we can prove anything. What matters is whether or not is God pleased with it, and whether our choices are in obedience to him.
It may be considered normal for a man or a woman to have many sexual partners, as I think it is in today's world; well, does that negate the fact that God has said "Thou shalt not commit adultery...fornication...". Homosex is another means of commiting fornication; sexual relations with any other than your husband or your wife.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners; the curse of sin is carried out by those infected with it. If we sin, it only proves we are sinners; as James said, "If we say we have not sinned we call God a liar...".
Scripture tells us that God will turn people over to reprobate minds (minds that cannot discern good from evil) when they persist in evil doing.
Scripture also says, "Someday we will know even as we are known..."
Go, And Sin No More
Sin is so insiduous, it confuses the most intelligent people.
We think, I'm only human; God will understand; if I am a good person; if I say I am a Christian; on and on and on.
Why argue over what is a sin and what is not; why argue over whether homosex is o.k. or not, IF there is no agreement upon which to base the answer?
Concerning the "long hair" statment by Paul...perhaps he never saw a male lion, I don't know. Does this negate al of his other teachings? ...and the fact that some animals have been noted to have abnormal behaviors involving its sexual nature? All creation is fallen. For the Christian, scripture is the only base we have for our faith; we must say that what ever we don't understand, we don't understand; what we do understand, we should take heed, as Chrsit said. God is for us and not against us; whatever he commands us is for our own good, not His; He is NOT being unreasonable; but even if you think He is, remember, He IS God and we are mortals.
Following is what I believe is a sufficient argument against the lifestyles that are so persistent today, including homosexual:
9Know 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,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
future church
Thanks chap - sounds like you have it all laid out. Good to know that as the church evolves into the future there are shepherds who can guide it with such strength.
Actually, sarcasm aside - although your argument on Homosexuality and the arguments the church has used in the past against homosexual practice makes sense, it is about as authoritarian as any Modernist would have been. Is this where we are headed, post postmodernity?
Authority
It is too easy for people to create boxes. It is assumed that everyone in the "emerging church" stream is also a postmodernist. It is also assumed that all postmdern thinkers automatically reject any form of authority. Neither of these statements is true.
It is impossible to live (or, indeed, think) without some form of authority. Existentialism, for example, was an attempt to show the emptiness and angst from a true understanding that the only authority is self. This flowed naturally from Nietzsche's "Superman" concept, as he attempted to strip religion (specifically Christianity) of its claims to authority.
Being a postmodern Christian does not mean we reject all authority sources. Simply put, though, it does mean we are capable of questioning all authorities that set themselves up. This is what I am attempting to do with the homosexuality issue. I don't understand why you would characterise my approach as "authoritarian". I am merely asking questions, and (tentatively) positing an alternative understanding of the original Biblical injunctions.
I fail to see how this is authoritarian. Please help me understand...
shooting from the hip
Thanks for such a quick response.
Forgive me for being so cheeky. On a second reading of your original I must confess that your claim that the former argument is no longer available to those who would use it sounded very much to me as though you had closed the argument against homosexuality with this. To me this sounded authoritarian. I was incorrect to read you in that way and my response was inappropriate.
That you responded so quickly and politely is quite humbling.
I am currently thinking of something really intelligent to say...
Let me rather comment that while I agree that Rom 1 cannot simply be seen as an argument against Homosexuality it does appear to me that Paul was convinced that the behaviour he witnessed or knew of was as a result of the rejection of God.
Is it possible that the rejection of God results in so many other challenges other than homosexuality? Is it possible that those who find they are compelled to argue against homosexual behaviour are ignoring other challenges in our world resulting from rejecting God in societies who are aware of Him? So then, where would we begin?
Those naughty swans probably also rejected God! We can start with them. If we ignore the build up of wealth as a result of greed and pride we will eventually lose our swans anyway - either in the haze of multi-billion dollar industrial pollution or among the highrise buildings which seem to mean so much more.
Doug K
A place to start
Doug,
I am not sure how long you have been following the discussion on this site. But, if you want to go back to the archives, you'll find a full and comprehensive look at the various passages in the Bible.
Probably the best starting point is a summary at: http://www.futurechurch.co.za/old/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosex...
or, a list of articles:
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/graeme-codrington/2008/11/24/homosexuality...
Graeme