A Christian Understanding of Homosexuality
A Christian Understanding of Homosexuality
A Christian Understanding of Homosexuality
Introduction
Over the past 45 years, our society has undergone a revolution – there is really no
other way to describe it – in the prevailing cultural attitudes towards
homosexuality and various related ‘alternative’ sexualities, an entire range of
behaviors now collectively referred to by the acronym LGBTQ – Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (this last term being a catch-all for identities and
behaviors that do not fit into any of the preceding categories). Most of the
contemporary population has come of age during this revolution. Older readers
will remember a time when if such things were even mentioned, it was usually in
the form of a tasteless joke, or in the context of an insult. Indeed, the behaviors
associated with homosexuality were once criminally punishable in almost every
jurisdiction – federal, state, and local – in the United States, and similarly abroad.
To be ‘outed’ credibly as someone who engaged in homosexual behavior usually
meant that one’s reputation and career were ruined. Active homosexuals stayed
carefully closeted, as they could become targets of blackmail or worse.
Today, not only does our society broadly tolerate homosexual behavior, it is
legally recognized and given protected status. The US Supreme Court’s
Obergefell decision in June of 2015 made the United States the 22nd country to
officially recognize same-sex marriage. Homosexual characters are everywhere in
television and films, and the attention of social progressives is moving towards the
mainstreaming of ever more exotic sexual identities. Young people are growing up
in an environment where casual acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality is
increasingly seen as the norm, and where dissenters from the new orthodoxy are
regarded with contempt, not only as ignorant and unenlightened, but as positively
evil.
This change in attitudes presents an array of challenges as we seek to live our lives
as Christians. In some respects, the issues we face are similar to those of our
brethren in late-classical antiquity. On the other hand, for them the norms of pagan
sexuality represented a long-prevailing status quo, for which the Church was
proclaiming a revolutionary alternative. For us, we face a newly remade moral
landscape, and one which, far from being static, is evolving rapidly as it is driven
forward by powerful social and political forces.
1) Homosexuals are born that way. Same-sex attraction (or if you prefer,
sexual orientation) is innate, and largely genetically determined.
In this discussion, we will consider the extent to which these beliefs are true or not
– and what insights the teachings of our faith can provide us.
2
We need first to have a thorough understanding of this phenomenon – historically,
scientifically, and spiritually. So comprehensive has been the assault on the
realties surrounding this issue that many Christians have been influenced by it, at
least at the margins. For that reason, the ‘educational’ portion of this discussion
will be the most detailed and comprehensive. We will start with some historical
and cultural observations.
(We’ll consider the issue of attraction, or orientation, a bit later in the discussion.)
With respect to the specific behavior under consideration, one ethnographic study
found that 21% of the historical and contemporary cultures surveyed accepted or
ignored homosexuality, 12% had no concept for it, 26% discouraged but did not
punish it, and 41% strongly disapproved of and punished it.1
In the ancient world, attitudes towards homosexual behavior ranged from 1) the
institutionalization of the behavior by society, to 2) fierce intolerance, and 3)
everything in between.
That it existed, for example, among the Canaanites of the 21st century BC is evident
from the familiar Biblical account of Sodom – whose name forms the root of our
word, sodomy, for certain unnatural sexual practices.2
In China, homoerotic art exists from a number of periods in China’s long history.
However, the Song Dynasty (11th century AD) criminalized homosexual
prostitution; and in the 16th century the Qing Dynasty criminalized all homosexual
intercourse. Literary references are more difficult to identify, since Chinese erotic
poetry invariably employs elaborate metaphors when discussing sexual topics; it is
often difficult to specify the gender specifics of the parties. Thailand, on the other
hand, has had a long history of effeminate males, which in Thai society are
sometimes regarded as a third gender.
3
In the New World, the Spanish conquistador Vasco de Balboa reported
homosexual behavior among upper class natives of Panama.3 Among Plains Indian
tribes, there existed the phenomenon of the so-called ‘two-spirited’ person,
typically a male with feminine behavioral traits. These individuals sometimes
functioned as shamen, and interacted sexually with tribesmen of the same
biological gender.4
The Greco-Roman world deserves more of our attention, both because it is often
cited approvingly by contemporary homosexual activists, and more importantly,
because it was into this environment that Christianity first emerged.
In classical Greece, a range of norms prevailed among the various city-states. The
practice of pederasty is significant. This was a relationship intellectual, emotional,
and sometimes sexual, between an adolescent youth and an older man, each pair
consisting of an older erastês (ἐραστής, or ‘lover’) and a younger erômenos
(ἐρώμενος, or ‘beloved’), both of whom would be citizens of approximately equal
social rank. The prevalence of this practice varied widely by city and social class.
The popular view of archaic and classical Sparta, that the city encouraged
pederasty in the ranks of its soldiers, is probably incorrect; the only classical writer
with first-hand experience of Spartan military training, Xenophon, explicitly denies
it. Thebes, on the other hand, was known for its 4th-century ‘Sacred Band’,
composed of 150 pairs of erastai and erômenoi, who served as elite troops for the
city. The written record is most extensive for classical Athens, where many
scholars argue that pederasty was an upper-class phenomenon, a form of mentoring
and career sponsorship. Early in his career, Plato speaks approvingly of these
relationships; in his later writings, he changes his view, describing them as
unnatural and suggesting that they be banned. Aristotle, on the other hand, accepts
them as a matter of course.
It should be noted that these cultural practices and attitudes were rooted, in part, in
a deep misogyny. Women in most Greek city-states were regarded as extreme
inferiors. The existence of true love was considered impossible in the context of so
unequal a relationship. As one classical scholar put it, “among Athenian upper
class males, if you wanted children, you went to your wife; if you wanted sex, you
went to a prostitute; if you wanted love, you went to a boy or youth.”5
There is less evidence for female homosexuality in the ancient world. The Greek
archaic period poetess, Sappho of Lesbos (7-6th centuries BC), wrote much that is
4
homoerotic in character, and in the process gave us our contemporary terms
Sapphic and Lesbian. However, the character of her literary output is almost
unique. Moreover, our knowledge of the lives of aristocratic women in archaic
Greece is extremely limited; it is impossible to state, one way or the other, whether
Sappho was bisexual or lesbian in the contemporary sense of those words.6
As one would expect, Roman mores changed steadily after the adoption of
Christianity by St. Constantine, with a steadily increasing discrimination against
homosexual practices. According to Zonaras (Book III), both Theodosius the
Great and St. Justinian condemned sodomites to forfeiture of possessions and
severe punishments. In the Roman East, proscriptions against homosexual conduct
became fully institutionalized in law by 618 AD.
5
orientation and identity are front and center. And third is the importance of
accepted social norms in conditioning sexual behavior. We will discuss all of
these, as we continue.
Most are all familiar with the relevant citations in Scripture, so they will not be
enumerated in detail. However, it should be noted, that while these may be to most
conservative Christians self-evident truths, the preceding historical survey suggests
how ‘revolutionary’ and transformative they were to the life of fallen man.
The people of God – the patriarchs and Old Israel – had definite views about which
sexual behaviors were permissible and which were not, by which they stood out
from among the peoples of ancient Canaan. The revelations to the Israelites, from
the Law of Moses, were direct and specific:
The 20th chapter of the same book goes so far as to make such behavior a capital
crime [13]:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination; let them be put to death: their blood is upon them.
In the Old Testament histories, the books of the Kings, we find King Rehoboam
criticized because he permitted sodomites in Judah, and King Asa praised because
he drove them out.
6
The views of the New Testament writers were consistent with their Old Covenant
forbearers. The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans [1:22-27], comments:
Knowing this, that the law is . . . made . . . for the lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners . . . for whoremongers, for them that defile
themselves with mankind . . .
Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged
in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by
undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Christianity emerged into the world of late-classical antiquity with a radical, life-
transforming alternative to the worldview of pagan society. Among these new,
life-changing virtues was a chaste life as the aim of every faithful Christian. The
Apostle Paul alludes to this in his first letter to the Corinthians [6:11]:
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you
were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
God.
7
Note that these verses makes clear that among the Christians in Corinth and
Colossae were people who had led sexually immoral lives prior to their conversion
to Christianity. Corinth, in particular, in both classical and apostolic times, was
notorious for its sexual immorality.8
The Holy Fathers of the first centuries of Christianity bluntly describe the world
they sought to transform. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes:
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watch-tower, you could gaze into the secret
places – if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall
their dark recesses to the perception of sight – you would behold things done
by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see
what even to see is a crime; you would see what people imbruted with the
madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do – men with
frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification
even to those who do them.” St. Cyprian of Carthage, “Letters” c. 250 AD
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26-27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad
lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more
dishonored than the body in diseases. The sins against nature are more
difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only according to nature.
But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! . . . A
murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the
soul inside the body . . . There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or
damaging than this perversity.” St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on
Romans”
And in words which surely must seem, to us, prophetic, St. John in another place
writes:
“The worst of it is that such an abomination is committed boldly and that the
monstrosity becomes the law. Nobody nowadays fears, nobody blushes.
They boast and they laugh at these actions. The people who abstain appear
stupid and they who condemn are regarded as fools. If they appear to be
weaker they are crushed with blows. If they are stronger, people laugh,
people mock them and make many jokes about them. They have no redress
in tribunals or in law.” (Against the Opponents of Monastic Life, III.8)
Perhaps there is also some consolation here for us, that the worldly attitudes
against which St. John preached sound so familiar to us.
8
Concerning those in Holy Orders who fall into these sins, Saint Basil the Great
writes:
We find similar comments in St. Clement of Rome, in St. Aristides, in the Epistle
of St. Barnabas, in Blessed Augustine and in Tertullian.
The early Canons of the Orthodox Church also speak to these practices:
From the 92 Canons of St. Basil (affirmed specifically by the 4th, 6th, and 7th
Ecumenical Councils):
Canon 7:
“Sodomists and bestialists and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers and
idolaters deserve the same condemnation, so that whatever rule you have as
regarding the others observe it also in regard to these persons.”
Canon 62:
“As for any man who uncovers his nakedness in the midst of males, he shall
be allotted the time [i.e., 15 years] fixed for those transgressing in the act of
adultery.”
Canon 9:
“As for sexual intercourse of men with one another, such as practicing
double masturbation, it received the stated penance of up to eighty days
[together with strict fasting and one hundred prostrations a day].”
It should be noted that the canon for double masturbation is precisely twice the
penance prescribed for solo masturbation in the preceding Canon 8 because, as St.
Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain notes: “each of these offenders is not only
9
hurting himself, but is also hurting his brother, and this makes the sin a double sin”
(The Rudder, p. 938).
Canon 18:
“It has seemed advisable to exclude any man who has been so mad as to
copulate with another man from Communion for three years, weeping and
fasting, and towards evening confined to xerophagy (i.e., a strict vegan raw
diet), and doing two hundred prostrations. But as for one who prefers to take
it easy, let him fulfill the fifteen years [i.e., of Canon 62 of St. Basil].”
We see in these Canons a number of things. The first is that, as in Scripture and
the writings of the Fathers, unnatural acts are regarded with great seriousness.
Second, that the act of anal sodomy is regarded as a much greater fall than certain
other homosexual behaviors; and third, that even anal sodomy is grouped with a
number of other sexual sins, such as adultery. This has some significance for us,
since in the context of this country’s ‘culture wars,’ it is easy to fall into the trap of
regarding temptations of this kind as a kind of ‘ultimate sin,’ rather than as one of a
number of related passions against which man in his fallen state must struggle.
In summary, an enormous weight of Scripture, together with the Holy Fathers and
the Holy Canons, fences us from homosexual behavior. That our loving Lord,
Who is love (1 John 4:8), and desires that we might have life, and that . . . more
abundantly (John 10:10), so directs, gives unassailable witness to the
destructiveness, of both soul and body, of these behaviors. Some reasons why this
is so will become plain during the portion of the discussion on the science of
homosexuality.
St. Paul urges us to be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2). The word translated here as ‘world’ is not the
usual κοσμός (‘kosmos’), the material world, but αιώνι (‘aioni,’ eon or time) – the
age in which we live. And this is our challenge as Christians, that we not allow
ourselves to be conformed to this age, but to the will for us of our loving Lord.
10
This understanding – that unnatural sexual relations are destructive of soul and
body, and therefore to be discouraged – was universal in the Christian world for
the next 1300 years.
How then, did an almost complete reversal of this understanding occur in little
more than a generation?
It should be emphasized, at the outset, that it had very little to do with science –
rather, it has been characterized by the systematic suppression of science.
The roots of the change in popular attitudes are much deeper than the last 50 years.
In the 18th century, the writers and philosophers of the Enlightenment largely saw
the fallen state of man as natural. Associated with this was an increase in religious
skepticism, challenging Western culture’s Christian foundations and restraint of
man’s passionate impulses. The psychological theories of the late-19th and early-
20th centuries (e.g., those of Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries), following
their Enlightenment forbearers, described attempts to curb the spiritual illnesses of
fallen human nature as unhealthy ‘repression.’ In the characterization of
sociologist Pitirim Sorokin and others, the cultural mentality of the West became
increasing ‘sensate’ – that is, one in which truth is drawn exclusively from the
senses, and in which pleasure is therefore always the goal, because pleasure is
always the (material) good.
In literature, the years prior to World War I saw few novels with homosexual
characters, and in these novels the homosexual characters typically came to a bad
end. Following World War I, Hemingway wrote a number of short stories with
homosexual characters and themes that may be described as descriptive and
cynical in tone, as opposed to cautionary. However, the first novel to deal openly
with homosexuality and to achieve wide distribution was Gore Vidal’s The City
and the Pillar, in 1948. In this novel, Vidal – himself a lifelong homosexual –
portrayed overt homosexuality as a natural behavior. Even among the literary
establishment of that day, this was too much; major newspapers would not
advertise the novel, and magazines blacklisted Vidal’s work for a number of years.
Eugene O’Neill’s famous play, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, in 1955, brought an
11
underlying homosexual theme to Broadway, complete with a star-studded cast, but
this aspect of the play was written out of the 1958 Hollywood film based upon it.
In the field of scientific research – although perhaps it is now more aptly regarded
as science fiction – the Kinsey Reports of 1948 and 1953 opened sexual topics for
discussion, including homosexuality, that had formerly been taboo. Although
Alfred Kinsey’s work is now widely recognized as flawed, it had a significant
impact for many years. The notorious 10% figure for the incidence of
homosexuality in the general population originates with Kinsey. During the
1970s and 1980s, gay activists quoted this figure as often as possible. (Although
one would think that it should have been so thoroughly discredited as to be
extinct today, it can be found in contemporary brochures prepared for adolescents
questioning their sexuality. Notwithstanding the discrediting of much of his
research, Kinsey was treated sympathetically in a 2004 film.)
However, underlying changes in Western culture were laying the foundation for a
major shift in the attitudes of the general public. Although couples had long
controlled their fertility with various prophylactic devices, the introduction of oral
contraception in 1960 contributed to the separation of procreation and sex in the
mind of the public. The affluence and leisure of the post-war period facilitated
pleasure-seeking in all its forms. And although nominal religious observance
remained strong through the mid-1960s, at least in America, there was a significant
‘social’ dimension to this participation, which masked a strong current of
theological liberalism and the decay of traditional religious belief.
The movement to mainstream homosexuality has been, from the start, a political
struggle.
12
The start of a formal movement in the United States can be traced to the New York
Stonewall Riots of mid-1969. In the 1960s, the New York City Police Department
routinely raided bars, bathhouses, and clubs catering to a homosexual clientele, in
enforcement of then-current anti-sodomy and public decency laws. Their raid on
the Stonewall Inn on June 28, 1969 attracted a large crowd, and the police lost
control of the situation. Rioting occurred over several days. This event served as a
catalyst, and within six months, two ‘gay rights’ organizations focusing on
confrontational tactics and three homosexual periodicals had been founded. The
first ‘Gay Pride’ march was conducted in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
and Chicago on June 28, 1970, the first anniversary of the riots. Such events are
now held worldwide at this time of year, in commemoration of these events.
If the Stonewall Riots were the initial catalyst, unquestionably the most significant
enabler of the homosexual revolution was the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a
psychiatric illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The story of
how this occurred is representative of the politicization of science pursued by
homosexual activists from the very inception of the movement.
As an example of the status quo ante, in 1963 the New York Academy of
Medicine asked its Committee on Public Health to report on the subject of
homosexuality. The Committee reported that:
Some homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now
argue that deviancy is a “desirable, noble, preferable way of life.”
In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the APA, homosexuality was
initially (in 1953) defined as a ‘sociopathic personality disturbance’; in the DSM-II
of 1968, as a ‘sexual deviation.’ DSM-II read, in part:
This category is for individuals whose sexual interest are directed primarily
towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts . . .
performed under bizarre circumstances . . .Even though many find their
practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior
for them.
13
No new scientific evidence emerged during the 1960s and early 1970s to contradict
these statements. How, then, did the APA come to make such an extraordinary
reversal?
Franklin Kameny, a homosexual activist, said “I feel that the entire homophile
movement . . . is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not
homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it.”10 Indeed, it
would be difficult to promote a mental illness or pathology as a civil right. Their
principal target therefore became the classification in the DSM-II.
In the absence of supporting scientific evidence, the only possible avenue was
political action. This took two forms: internal and external.
In the early 1970s, open homosexuals were not permitted to practice psychiatry.
As a result, homosexual psychiatrists were very closely closeted; not surprisingly,
they regarded overturning their professional association’s definition of
homosexuality as an illness as a most-desired goal. With this in mind, they began
to work their way into the upper echelons of the Association.
If these sound like storm trooper tactics, this is quite literally true. The co-founder
of ACT-UP/DC, Eric Pollard, stated frankly:
Meanwhile, the efforts of the underground homosexual lobby within the APA were
beginning to bear fruit. Dr. John P. Spiegel became president-elect of the APA in
1973. Dr. Spiegel was a homosexual so carefully closeted that his own family did
14
not suspect it until he revealed it on his 70th birthday. In fact, Spiegel had for some
time been leading a covert group of activists within the APA, some of whom began
referring to themselves informally as the GayPA. They had facilitated the
disruptive activities of outside agitators by providing press passes that gave them
access to APA meetings.
At the 1973 Honolulu meeting, Dr. Robert Spitzer, head of the APA’s committee
on nomenclature, was convinced by a meeting with homosexual activists to draft a
change to language in the DSM. The key phrase in the forthcoming DSM-III
would be that
Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior and, like other forms
of sexual behavior which are not by themselves psychiatric disorders, is not
listed in this nomenclature of mental disorders.
The sole caveat to this change was that homosexuals who were unhappy with their
same-sex attraction could still be diagnosed with ‘ego-dystonic homosexuality.’
Even this caveat would be removed in 1987, in the DSM-III Revised.
The new language was submitted simply to a vote of the Board of Trustees,
without a single supporting scientific paper. The matter was later submitted to a
referendum of the membership, who were lobbied in advance by a letter signed by
unidentified GayPA members, and funded and partly written by the National Gay
Task Force (NGTF), which had purchased the APA’s mailing list. Because a
majority of the APA members who responded voted to support the change in the
classification of homosexuality, the decision of the Board of Trustees was allowed
to stand. But in fact only one-third of the membership did respond. Four years later
the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality conducted a survey of the
membership, which reported that 69% of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote, and
still considered homosexuality a disorder.
It never was a medical decision – and that’s why I think the action came so
fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays
first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board
of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list
of mental disorders. It was a political move.13
15
psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years.”14 The 1973 APA
decision, he said
remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for,
they can be lost – a disillusioning warning that unless we make no
exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism
and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public,
to the rest of the medical profession and to the behavioral sciences.15
The decision appalled even some liberal psychiatrists. Drs. Rogers Wright and
Nicholas Cummings noted that it was “the first time in the history of healthcare
that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than
scientific evidence.”16 Even a supporter of the homosexual cause, Professor
Ronald Bayer, commented
The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975, and today states,
as a ‘scientific fact’, that “being gay is just as healthy as being straight”, and that
“same-sex sexual attraction, behavior, and orientation per se are normal and
positive variance of human sexuality.”
The APA has not slowed in its march towards a polysexual future. The 1994
edition of the DSM (DSM-IV) further altered its definitions of ‘paraphilias’ or
sexual perversions. In order for an individual to be considered to have a paraphilia
– such as sado-masochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and pedophilia – the DSM
requires that, in addition to having or acting on such impulses, the patient’s
“fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors” must “cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” In
other words, it’s only a ‘problem’ if it’s a problem for the patient. In the 2013
DSM-V, ‘gender identity disorder,’ in reference to transsexualism, was replaced
with a more neutral phrase, ‘gender dysphoria,’ in the context of an embrace of
hormone therapy and gender-reassignment surgery as clinical ‘best-practice.’ (To
a considerable extent, transgenderism has now replaced homosexuality as the next
psychological and civil-rights frontier.)
16
As the mainstream psychiatric and psychological associations abandoned science
(and credibility) on these issues, dissenting practitioners established the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which
continues to regard homosexuality as a treatable dysfunction.
This particular part of contemporary history has been discussed at length to make
the point that the Church need not concede the science around this issue and rely
on spiritual arguments alone. The science has been politicized from the start, and
the new orthodoxy ferociously defended by homosexual activists and their allies.
With the science discredited, the homosexual movement was able to move into
high gear, positioning its activity as a new phase of the civil rights struggle. The
public health scourge of AIDS in the 1980s was turned to an occasion for public
sympathy, which took care to skim over the key behaviors which led to the
epidemic (some may recall the ostracism which commentator Andy Rooney
received in the late 1980s for simply stating the fact, on the television program 60
Minutes, that HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of receptive anal
intercourse). Only a few in the medical community remember that the original
name for this illness was GRID – “gay-related immune disorder.” The
nomenclature was changed to direct attention away from origins of the epidemic.
Gay activists took pains to portray homosexual life, especially among male
homosexuals, as patterned upon heterosexual norms. It was important to avoid
alienating otherwise sympathetic heterosexuals by confronting them with the
realities of the gay lifestyle. One late-80s activist guide recommends, for example,
that “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims . .
. Persons featured in the media campaign should be . . . indistinguishable from the
straights we’d like to reach.”18 Another strikes a similar note: “The masses must
not be repulsed by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.”19
Organizing took place on college campuses and in high schools, where so-called
‘Gay-Straight Alliance’ clubs became a common feature. Idealistic young people
were recruited and indoctrinated with the new post-scientific mythology of
homosexuality’s normality and innocuousness. These new orthodoxies are now
largely institutionalized in curricula.
17
Francisco in 1989. At present, there are over 40 such university programs and
departments. Emerging from the activity of these specialists came, by the early
1990s, ‘Queer Theory’, which challenges the idea that sexual activity or identity is
part of the essential self, and that all such identities are merely social constructs.
The anarchist thinking is obvious; those who recognize its post-structuralist roots
are, of course, correct.
In the military, a historic ban on homosexuals in the service was modified to a so-
called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in 1994 that excluded closeted
homosexuals. This nuance was eliminated by a bipartisan act of Congress in 2010.
Despite assurances that the repeal of DADT would have no adverse effect on
discipline, serving officers report that homosexuals now flaunt their orientation and
behavior, in mockery of traditionally-minded officers and service personnel. In
2016, the Defense Department lifted the ban on transgender individuals serving
openly in the military, and provided funding for hormone therapy and surgery for
service personnel wishing to transition their gender.
The broadcast media, ever alert to social trends and fashionable left-wing causes,
began aggressively to insert homosexual characters and themes into television and
films. It is almost quaint to recall some of the early homosexual characters on
television (older readers may recall a portrayal by Paul Burke in a 1970 episode of
the television series Medical Center, where he sadly declares to a teary-eyed
woman with a romantic interest in him, “I am a homosexual – not one of the
obvious ones, thank God!”). Times change. By 2003, we had Queer Eye for the
Straight Guy, based on the premise that homosexual men are superior to
heterosexual men in matters of fashion, style, personal grooming, interior design,
and culture. Homosexual characters are often depicted on television as wittier,
hipper, more creative, and better dressed than straights – in every way, a superior
class of human. They are also represented vastly out of proportion to their
incidence in the general population. This has affected public perceptions to the
point that a 2011 Gallup survey found that “U.S. adults, on average, estimate that
25% of Americans are gay or lesbian” (versus an actual figure of around 1.6%).
18
organized homosexual pressure groups has already been discussed; their significant
financial commitments to sympathetic (or purchasable) politicians should not be
underestimated. Nor have the courts been a source of restraint; to the contrary,
they have been quicker to appreciate the implications of protected class status.
Although politicians, in 1996, could still be influenced to pass the Defense of
Marriage Act (excusing states from recognizing marriages in other states not
recognized in theirs), a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court struck that down in
2013, and the same 5-4 majority in the 2015 Obergefell decision established
homosexual marriage as a constitutional right in the United States of America,
superseding all previous federal, state, and local legislation and judicial decisions
to the contrary.
The Obergefell decision, by the way, enjoys wide popular support. A May 2016
Gallup poll found that 61% of adult Americans agree with the Court’s judgment
that same-sex marriages be legally recognized, similar to the 58% found in a 2013
WP-ABC survey; in the latter poll, support among younger adults under age 30
exceeded 80%. Polls in Western Europe find similar sentiments.
Activist groups have not been inclined to be generous in victory, and openly call
for private associations (including the Church) to ‘change with the times.’ Many
organizations have already submitted to these demands. A number of large
mainstream Protestant denominations – the United Church of Christ (UCC),
Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and
Presbyterian Church – USA (PCUSA) – ordain openly homosexual clergy, and are
moving to (or have already established) ceremonies that recognize same-sex
unions. The Boy Scouts, one of whose stated methods is to provide ‘strong male
role models,’ now allow openly homosexual leaders, following the opening of the
youth ranks to self-identified homosexual Scouts, although these are officially
barred from engaging in homosexual activity at events. Girl Scouts and Camp Fire
are officially ‘inclusive,’ and prominent LGBT women are held up as role models.
Uniformed Boy and Girl Scouts participate in Gay Pride marches.
In response to a 2012 state law, California public schools have developed curricula
“that ensures kindergarten through 12th-grade students learn about LGBT figures
and the roles they played in shaping society.” Proposed themes and topics include
“Teaching second graders about family diversity and non-traditional families”, and
fourth-grade lessons on the “possibilities and motivations for same-sex
relationships in Gold Rush-era California.”
19
Nearly all large public universities, in pursuit of diversity goals, have active
programs to identify and support self-identified LGBTQ students.
The attention of activist groups has now turned to mainstreaming a wide range of
transgendered identities, seeking to institutionalize the ‘Queer Theory’ mentioned
earlier, asserting that all gender identities are essentially a matter of taste, and
should be fully supported and accommodated by society.
That’s how the revolution happened, and where is stands today. Let’s turn now to
the science.
This is consistent with the 2013 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
survey, in which 2.3% of the population identifies itself as homosexual or bisexual.
This was the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual
orientation.
20
The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6%, labeled themselves as heterosexual
in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1% declined to answer, responding “I don’t
know the answer,” or that they were “something else;” this percentage (and the
latter response) is consistent with the number of people who self-identify as
‘asexual’, a choice not provided in the NHIS.
The figures are lower than some earlier estimates of the size of the homosexual and
bisexual population, which have typically placed the overall proportion of
homosexual identity among men at 2.8% and among women at 1.4% (an aggregate
rate of 2.1%), and bisexual identity at 1.8%. Needless to say, these figures are all
dramatically lower than the long-discredited Kinsey ‘10%.’
Belief 1
Let’s consider each of the ‘four core beliefs’. The first was: Homosexuals are
born that way.
In reality, the proper scientific question should be, in the words of one psychiatrist,
To what degree is homosexuality (or any other behavioral trait) genetic and
non-genetic, innate and acquired, familial and non-familial, intrauterine-
influenced and extrauterine-influenced, affected by the environment and
independent of the environment, responsive to social cues and unresponsive
to these cues, and when and in what sequence do these various influences
emerge to generate their effects and how do they interact with one another;
and after we have put these all together, how much is left over to attribute to
choice, repetition, and habit?20
This is a much more difficult question to answer, although it is the proper scientific
question. However, let us consider our original questions.
To begin, we should first clarify the distinction between ‘genetic’ and ‘innate.’ A
trait is ‘genetic’ if it is found in the subject’s genetic coding, and consequently
heritable from generation to generation. Such genes may be expressed, not
expressed (e.g., recessive), or partially expressed (usually through the action of
multiple genes).
21
‘Innate’ is a much broader term that encompasses both traits that are genetic, and
those which are acquired through other physical/biological means, such as the
action of hormones and other influences on intrauterine development.
A larger study of gay brothers in 2013 at Northwestern University, using the many
genetic markers now available through the Human Genome Project, tended to
confirm Hamer’s work. A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some
correlation with men's sexual behavior – although scientists had no idea which of
the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the
genome. Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also appeared to play a role in
male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism was unclear.
Much recent work in psychiatric genetics indicates that expression of traits is often
correlated not simply with the presence or absence of a genetic marker, but by the
number of copies of a particular gene in the DNA (i.e., by the number of copy
number variants, or CNVs) – which considerably complicates any predictive
analysis.
What is striking about these gene studies, in general, is how weakly they correlate
with actual expressed sexual identity. Studies of identical twins, which share
exactly the same DNA, show that the identical twin of a homosexual man is more
likely to identify as straight than gay.21 This means that even a perfect genetic test,
which recognized every gene linked to sexual orientation, would less predictive of
future orientation than flipping a coin.
Compared to the search for ‘gay genes’, the research into intrauterine influences
reveals more candidates. Hormones have an important role in fetal sex
22
differentiation, and so anomalies in hormonal exposure may affect sexual
orientation or gender identity in the developing fetus.
Recent studies have provided evidence suggesting the effect of prenatal androgen
levels on future sexual behavior. It has long been known, for example, that birth
order is correlated with incidence of homosexual identity (younger brothers have a
higher rate), and androgen levels are known to vary with birth order. Similarly,
stress hormones can cross the placental barrier and interfere with a fetus’
production of sex hormones, and studies have suggested that maternal stress during
pregnancy is correlated with a higher incidence of homosexual and bisexual
identity in offspring.
Again we refer back to the identical twin studies. Identical twins are not only
genetically the same, they also have the same intrauterine influences. As we noted
before, the identical twin of a homosexual man is more likely to be straight than
gay. That means that even a full accounting of all genetic and intrauterine effects –
that is, all innate factors – is still less predictive of future sexuality than flipping a
coin.22
However, any science that overtly seeks to correct errors in sexual orientation is
subject to attack by gay activists and their allies.
23
If genetic and intrauterine influences are less predicative of future sexuality than a
coin flip, then clearly, post-natal environmental factors must be of great
importance: family structure, socialization, personal choices and experiences.
There is no question that these environmental influences have a significant
influence on the development of sexuality; in fact, there were over eighty years of
research and clinical experience in this field which the APA chose to overlook in
its 1973 decision.
The clinical and research record indicates that in the background of homosexuals
one or more of the following is often present:
an emotional mismatch between the child and same-sex parent, such as the
overt or implied rejection by a hyper-masculine father of a son who is
sensitive by nature and unenthusiastic about the father’s interests
an emotional mismatch between the child and the opposite sex parent,
creating alienation towards the opposite sex
sexual abuse of the child by either parent
a rejection of the child by his or her same-sex peers
The first of these may give rise to a profound longing for love from that parent, a
longing that may be enacted in later relations with peers of the same sex. This
longing may also become sexualized – that is, linked to the anxiety-relieving
capacity of orgasm.
The second of these may give rise to the child’s fear of that parent, which will
likely show itself later as a heightened wariness and avoidance of opposite-sex
relations.
It should be mentioned that support for these concepts is hardly limited to those
who see homosexuality in negative terms. Social critic and historian Camille
Paglia, herself a prominent homosexual figure for decades, strongly supports this
view. Dr. Paglia wrote the following:
I have said many times before that I do not believe homosexuality is inborn
but that it is an adaptation to specific circumstances and possibilities. What
many gay men are remembering as their innate gayness was in fact some
other attribute (often an artistic gene) that may have led to a dislocation from
roughhousing male bonding. The sex instinct, which comes later, is in my
view heavily symbolic among human beings . . . . I understand the biological
imperative of hormones, which drive male and female to mate and
reproduce. But why is anyone entirely gay? It seems incontrovertible to me
that at root there is indeed a dissatisfaction of some kind with the opposite
24
sex, grounded in early experiences and reinforced in adolescence. There is
not a single gay person whom I have known over the course of my life since
high school for whom childhood factors played no role whatever in his or
her adult choice. And yes, behavior is a choice, even if fantasy and
imagination are uncontrollable.25
Many studies describe the complex interactions between these and other factors,
which are characterized as ‘psychic traumas.’ What is important to recognize is
that first, the susceptibility to such traumas varies widely between individuals (i.e.,
some are highly sensitive to these influences, while others are more resilient), and
second, that it is the individual’s perception of these influences that is decisive,
rather than an objective measure of harmfulness. Obviously, sexual or physical
abuse are objectively harmful, although individual resilience varies; emotional
factors are more subjective and difficult to quantify. This point should be
emphasized because parental behavior, for example, can range from being
objectively “bad” to “good,” while still not meeting the needs of a child, through
no fault of the parents.
Whatever the source of trauma, it can lead to the use of self-medicating, anxiety-
reducing behaviors: alcohol and drug abuse, promiscuity, homosexuality, and
others. An individual will often combine more than one of these behaviors; hence,
the correlation between homosexuality, and drug and alcohol abuse. These
behaviors are at first soothing, then habitual, then compulsive, and finally
addictive.
As with many behaviors, repetitive experiences of these kind rewire the brain
(specifically, the neocortex) over time; we become ‘hard wired’ to certain
behaviors. This physically alters the brain in ways that cannot be entirely undone,
if at all, and so will be modified only with great difficulty. Connections in the
pleasure centers of the brain are particularly powerful, releasing opioid chemicals;
the pleasure areas of the brain are most intensely activated at the moment of sexual
orgasm; this is why any time chastity is lost, the road back to it is so difficult.
Modification therefore requires a greater effort of will, additional repetition of the
new behavior, and more time, the more deeply embedded in the brain the old
behavior has become.
25
Belief 2
Let’s consider the second of the ‘four core beliefs’: Same-sex attraction is
immutable.
The answer to the first question is unquestionably, ‘no’; to the second, a qualified
‘yes’.
With respect to the first, we may begin with a basic statistic: three out of four boys
who think they are homosexual at age 16 aren’t by age 25, with no intervention
whatsoever.26 That sexual identity is mutable is an evident fact, not even worth
serious debate.
As has been suggested, the success rate varies significantly based on the extent to
which habituation has taken place. For those who have not yet begun acting on the
behaviors that lead to addiction, education and counseling can be very effective.
Once addiction is present, the therapeutic needs become dramatically different.
Remarkably, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who as head of the APA nomenclature committee
had written and steered through the 1973 DSM change, came to agree. In 2001 he
conducted his own study of 200 subjects on the mutability of sexual identity,
26
expecting it to discredit therapeutic approaches. Instead, he found the contrary.
Spitzer wrote:
Warned that publication of his paper would constitute professional suicide, Spitzer
nevertheless delivered it at the 2001 annual APA meeting28 and submitted it to the
journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.29 Retribution was not long in coming, as gay
activists furiously attacked this ‘treason’ from a figure prominent in their founding
mythology. Spitzer for years defended his work, nor were any flaws in it ever
found.29 However, social pressure took its toll, and in 2012, nearly 80 years old
and suffering from Parkinson’s, Dr. Spitzer ‘recanted’ before gay activists. His
Dutch colleague, Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, said that in discussing potential
follow up research with Dr. Spitzer, the latter replied that “he would never touch
the whole subject ever again. He had nearly broken down emotionally after
terrible personal attacks from militant gays and their supporters. There was an
outpouring of hatred.”30
Dr. van den Aarweg reported similar results from his own therapeutic work:
27
Of this group, however, about one-third could be regarded as having been
changed ‘radically’. By this is meant that they did not have any more
homosexual feelings, and in addition that they showed a fundamental change
in overall emotionality from negative to positive – from instability to
reasonable, normal stability – with a follow up period of at least two years.32
Belief 3
Let’s consider the third of the ‘four core beliefs: Homosexuality is normal. Is
homosexuality ‘normal’? Are active homosexuals ‘just like everyone else’ from a
social standpoint, with the exception of whom they love?
The risk of anal cancer soars for those engaging in anal intercourse. According to
one study, it rises by an astounding 4,000%, and doubles again for those who are
HIV positive.33
28
When combined with promiscuity and other oral-anal practices of active male
homosexuals, the litany of their characteristic illnesses is extensive, and should be
sufficient to establish the public health dimensions of these behaviors. These
include:
Other studies report dramatically higher numbers; one study found that 43% of
male homosexuals estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners, and
28% with 1,000 or more different partners. Seventy-nine percent said that more
than half of these partners were strangers, and 70% said that more than half were
men with whom they had sex only once.36
29
These numbers rise with age, as one would expect; many older respondents return
answers such as “over 1,000”, “too many to count”, or “I have no idea.” Average
partners during the last twelve months average eight. If we factor in the reality that
male homosexuals are a very small proportion of the population and constitute a
relatively closed group, the communicability of illnesses is correspondingly
magnified.
By contrast, the authors of Sex in America found that 90% of heterosexual women
and more than 75% of heterosexual men have never engaged in extramarital sex.
A study of data collected by the 2013 and 2014 National Health Interview Surveys
by the Vanderbilt School of Medicine and the University of Minnesota School of
Public Health37 found significant health disparities among male homosexuals,
lesbians, and bisexuals. Compared to heterosexual women, lesbians were 91%
more likely to report poor or fair health; bisexual women were over 100% more
likely to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to heterosexual women.
Homosexual men, lesbians, and bisexuals were all more likely than their
heterosexual counterparts to experience psychological distress, and to drink and
smoke heavily.
It should be noted that this study was done at a time when mortality from
HIV/AIDS was much higher than it is today. Since treatment has improved
significantly since then, the mortality rate for homosexual men has likely
improved. Unfortunately, there is little, if any, recent research specific to this
topic, as any research with the potential to cast homosexual behavior in a negative
light has become politically toxic to undertake. However, the
Vanderbilt/Minnesota study cited above suggests continued poorer health
outcomes, and consequent higher rates of mortality.
What is striking in this study is the high mortality for homosexual women, who
have been relatively unaffected by the AIDS epidemic, and who generally
experience fewer physical illnesses related to promiscuity. This suggests that
30
underlying drivers for them are higher-than-average rates of emotional problems
and related addictive behaviors, which, as noted previously, are highly correlated
with homosexual behavior.
Belief 4
Let’s consider the last of the ‘four core beliefs: Orientation equals behavior and
self-identity. Are all the desires that humans experience natural to man, and
therefore proper to pursue to the extent they do not involuntarily injure others?
And if one is inclined to a certain behavior, does that inclination define one’s
essential self?
As Christians, we understand that we were created with a higher part of the soul in
spiritual union with God; that we are fallen creatures that have lost that spiritual
union, and who therefore are at war within ourselves; and that we earnestly desire,
in the very depths of our soul, to reestablish that lost union with God. We may
attempt to medicate the pain of that lost union – to fill the resulting void – with
many things: money, power, possessions, physical pleasures of various kinds. But
none of these things can compensate for that loss; none can cure the underlying
illness.
31
It was to heal fallen mankind that the second Person of the Trinity took on our
nature and entered into the world as Jesus Christ, uniting Divinity to our humanity.
By this salvific act a path was opened for fallen humanity to enter into union with
the Creator, and to become fully realized individuals in God. Having chosen to
walk this path and enter the Church is the core ‘identity’ of any Christian.
Although one may exercise various roles in society – parent, worker, teacher,
student, and the like – none of these roles are ‘identities’ in the same sense that we
have an identity as Christians.
As we are created as a natural union of soul and body, our gender identity is
mirrored within soul and body. In our fallen state, the intrinsic harmony of soul
and body is lost; the body no longer serves the soul, but struggles with it. If our
psychological identity and urges are at variance from our body’s gender, this is
also a consequence of the Fall and the resulting struggle. This is in stark contrast
to the attitudes of our secular society, which assigns, as did the ancient Greeks,
personal identity entirely to the mind. This essentially pagan, secular attitude was
eloquently expressed by Chastity Bono (daughter of singers Cher & Sonny Bono)
on Good Morning America, shortly before beginning sexual reassignment surgery:
“Gender is between your ears, not between your legs.”
And so to the question recently posed to a one Christian leader in a public hearing,
and to which he gave a halting and most unsatisfactory answer – “Do you believe
that God made me gay?” – we can confidently give an answer to the correct, if
only implied, question, “No, God did not create anyone to live their life as a
homosexual.”
An all-embracing mythology
As one considers the extraordinary fabric of falsehoods and suppression of the
truth that has characterized the evolution of this issue in the West, it is impossible
not to hear the laughter of our ancient Enemy, the Father of Lies. This is one of his
greatest masterpieces. Indeed, it is almost incomprehensible that gay activists, a
small subset of people within a tiny minority, have been able to overturn reality
within an entire culture in so short a period, unless it be with the help of an ancient
intelligence and malice that we can scarcely comprehend.
That the Enemy enjoys the degradation of humanity is a given. But always, his
ultimate target is the Ark of Salvation itself, the Church – to bring it under
ostracism and persecution, and to direct people away from its saving message.
That the kindly intentions of well-meaning people have been turned to hostility
32
towards the Church’s traditional teaching, and towards the Church herself, is an
extraordinary accomplishment of his malice and art.
One of the most tragic aspects of this new social orthodoxy is that rather than
guiding those who struggle with this passion to counseling and support, they are
now subject to relentless propaganda that rejects any consideration of seeking help,
and urges them to whole-heartedly embrace a self-destructive path. It is as if we
told drug addicts, ‘hey, it’s okay that you want to do drugs, it’s who you are – just
be sure to use clean needles.’ An absurdity, to be sure, but this is essentially what
homosexuals and pre-homosexuals are now told. And this view, if embraced by
the sufferer, will likely separate them from the Church.
Counseling
We have discussed in the preceding sections the general success rates of
therapeutic approaches to this problem. Most of these were purely secular
approaches, although some were ministries. As with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), the introduction of a spiritual dimension
measurably increases success rates, and so many of the most successful programs
have been ministries.
And this is unsurprising. Beyond the mere acknowledgment of a higher power that
can affect the lives of men, a genuine understanding of the nature of man is, and
should be, invaluable in treating the ailments of our fallen state.
Only a few of us have the training to treat addiction. So what can be done, in a
practical way, to help someone who is struggling with this passion?
To begin, we will say very directly and emphatically, that the first rule is not to
judge anyone for experiencing this passion. Flee judging like the plague. Not only
will it make it almost certain that any counsel you offer will be rejected, but when
you judge, you fall into sin yourself. So guard your soul. Remember, in our fallen
state we are all subject to many passions, of which this is just one – not something
uniquely sinful and set apart.
Certainly, we may counsel individuals who are struggling with feelings of same-
sex attraction that have not yet begun to act upon them. We want to lead them to
question the ‘four core beliefs’ generally, but especially number 4, which has the
potential to lead them down a self-fulfilling path. You will recall that that one
said: Orientation equals self-identity and behavior. Once a person experiences
same-sex attraction, that is who they are.
33
Say you have a young friend who confides to you that they are experiencing same-
sex attraction, and say they ‘think they might be gay.’ The first thing you might do
is to tell them that it’s normal to experience many physical attractions at their age,
and that it doesn’t necessarily mean that this is how they’re going to be long-term.
If your friend is not Orthodox, one thing you should tell them is that they have
choices in life that are their choices, and that they shouldn’t feel pressured to
behave or live in a certain way just because someone puts a label on them. You
might warn them against getting ‘counseling’ or ‘help’ from LGBTQ
organizations, because “they’re basically going to put a label on you and tell you
how to live.” This ‘appeal to freedom’, if we may so term it, is especially
attractive in a culture that extols personal liberty, however often misapplied. It
legitimizes a cautious and waiting approach, rather than encouraging
experimentation. In other words – “don’t be in a hurry.”
If the topic of pornography comes up, you can express the opinion that “it’s bad
news, and basically messes up your mind.” This is a subject unto itself that could
be discussed at great length, but in the context of this topic one should recall the
processes of desensitization, habituation, and addiction; exposure to pornography
presents a false impression of reality, creates an addictive response, and hardens us
to things that we would by nature reject.
Depending on your situation, and your relationship, you might express concerns
about the destructive physical aspects of the lifestyle.
This is one of the hardest situations to deal with, because we need to refrain from
judging them personally for having made the decision, while not implicitly
endorsing or ‘affirming’ their choice. It is appropriate to reassure people of your
friendship, while expressing frankly your concerns about the destructive physical
and spiritual effects of their lifestyle. For someone who is not religious, or whose
spirituality is accepting of homosexuality, this might prompt the question: “What
spiritual effects?” To this, we should simple reply that our understanding of
spiritual life is that we are striving to transcend, or overcome, our passions – and
34
that to identify with any one of them makes this difficult or impossible. Some
people might not ‘get’ that, but in some cases, it may prompt a genuine curiosity
about what our faith does teach.
To be sure, some individuals will not let you make that distinction – being their
friend, but not ‘affirming’ their lifestyle. They will make their friendship
conditional upon your approval of their behavior. Be aware that in some cases this
stems from insecurity – they need to hear everyone say that everything’s fine, that
it’s ‘cool’ that they’re gay. Withholding that much-desired approval can
sometimes, in the long run, help them to question the choice. Sometimes we will
lose friends, but always put them on the spot first with what they’re doing – “So I
have to approve of everything you do, to be your friend?” (And to the likely retort,
“It’s who I am”, the reply: “No, it’s not who you are – it’s only a way you are.”)
What about family? How should a Christian family deal with a member that has
embraced an alternative sexual identity and abandoned the Church, either for
secularism or for a religious organization supportive of their new lifestyle?
Everything just said about friends in this situation applies to family members,
except that it is even more difficult and painful. Many families simply cut off
these individuals since, admittedly, they are very poor role models for younger
family members. On the other hand, people in this situation are already self-
isolated to a considerable extent within the ‘LGBTQ community,’ which is a self-
reinforcing subculture. Giving them continuing exposure to normal, healthy
family life may be helpful in leading them to question that subculture. Naturally,
boundaries must be established, but in speaking to therapists who work in this area,
their guidance is to err on the side of more contact, rather than less. It will only be
when the individual desires to change that change will be possible – just as it
would be if the person were addicted to alcohol or drugs. Beyond prayer, the only
practical step may be for family members to simply ask that individual, from time
to time – “Are you happy?” And perhaps then there will be an opening, at some
point, to introduce the idea that change is possible, if they desire it.
This discussion should have equipped you with much information that will be
helpful. Again, your spiritual father should be a key resource. If, for some reason,
he is not helpful to you, you should seek out another priest who can counsel you
constructively in dealing with this particular passion.
35
With respect to secular resources, the NARTH Institute will make referrals to
qualified therapists. It should be noted that this will be done strictly in keeping
with the desire of the prospective patient. Remember that the positive results of
treatment described previously were achieved by ‘highly motivated’ patients, who
earnestly desired to change. Let us also recall that in some states, it is illegal for
individuals under eighteen to receive this type of therapy, even if they want it.
Sadly, it may be necessary to wait for the assistance of a professional therapist, if
you’re under 18, although it would be better to first try to find a workaround with a
qualified therapist, or to approach a faith-based ministry.
For in addition to secular resources, there are many ministries that work with
individuals struggling with same-sex attraction, sometimes in cooperation with
NARTH, and often staffed by people who have themselves come out of the gay
lifestyle. I should mention, in passing, how impressive these people typically are;
they have truly come through the fire, and achieved a strength, wisdom, and
humility that is deeply moving. Many have published their own personal stories as
an inspiration to others. Most of these ministries are run by evangelicals of one
stripe or another, if for no other reason than they are more numerous on the
ground, and so have the scale and resources to support a specialist ministry. They
all emphasize that the individual is pursuing Christ, not heterosexuality, and that
by His grace change is possible (remembering, in particular, 1 Corinthians 6:11,
And 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). They are
used to working collaboratively with the parish pastors of the individuals they are
counseling. Meeting Orthodox Christians is often a new experience for them, but
in general they are respectful and supportive of the individual’s existing
spirituality. A worthwhile resource is a video documentary produced by one of
these groups, entitled Such Were Some of You. The testimonies of the ex-
homosexuals in this film, male and female, are truly inspiring, and have a
credibility that no one without such a history can possible have.
Remember always that we are, first and foremost, children of God and His Church,
united to Him and to each other through the Holy Mysteries. The choices that we
make in life are our choices. God respects our free will absolutely, and with the
assistance of His grace we can make God-pleasing choices for our lives.
Closing remarks
36
website entitled Spiritual Friendship (spiritualfriendship.org), taking their name
and inspiration from a treatise written by the 12th century Cistercian monk, Aelred
of Rievaulx,38 and many speak eloquently of their personal journeys to this
position. Needless to say, they face criticism from gay activists, who regard their
position as unrealistic and untenable for most. However, many Christians would
also assert that their position begs the question, why? That is, if you have chosen
to live celibately, what is the relevance of your personal sexual attractions?
Despite what most people might think, the virtue of chastity, like all other
virtues, isn’t so much concerned with what we do or don’t do. Rather,
chastity is the virtue that helps us see things truly and objectively – things as
they really are – within the realm of sexuality. This clarity of vision is
necessary for true human freedom and human flourishing. It is chastity that
gives us the freedom to order our sexual appetites and therefore make
decisions that correspond with reality. Christ lived as a chaste man, not
because He followed every dot and tittle of the law (which of course He
did), but rather, because He lived in accordance with the truth of what it
means to be a man, made in the image and likeness of God. Like Christ, a
man who truly knows who he is will naturally lead a life of chastity . . . Put
more simply, the reason it is immoral for me to live out a life according to
my subjective desires and inclinations is precisely because I am not, in fact,
a gay man . . . Nor is any man.39
Our fallen nature is, in other words, not who we are, but a way we are. And it is by
God’s grace that we can seek to become who we truly are.
Summary
The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), founded upon the
teachings of Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8).
She is not swayed by the winds of contemporary social and political philosophies,
but continues to offer the path to the healing of the human person and the
restoration of fallen human nature. Among the virtues, a chaste life remains the
aim of every faithful Christian. Unnatural acts are proscribed because they are
destructive of soul and body. With respect to marriage, the Church understands it
as an institution established by God before the Fall, Therefore shall a man leave
37
his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh (Gen. 2:24), and later blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ with His first miracle
at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11). This understanding has not, and will not, change.
The Church is a spiritual hospital for fallen mankind. In the Fall, man became
subject to a multitude of infirmities of body and soul, which can find healing only
through the fullness of spiritual life within the Church, which leads to union with
God in Christ. The Church welcomes sinners and strugglers with every passion,
and offers a path of healing and restoration to all.
In the face of such hostility and ostracism, we must respond with both truth and
love. We must live up to our highest aspirations, making clear the other-worldly
dimension of Christianity. Our forbearers emerged into the world of late-classical
antiquity with a radical, life-transforming alternative to the worldview of pagan
society; increasingly, this will be our position in our secularist society. The days
of ‘fitting in’ will come to an end. Under persecution, we will either become more
Christian or less; there will be no middle ground.
We should not be daunted by these things, remembering the words of our Lord and
Savior, In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have
overcome the world (John 16:33). The Church has experienced many periods of
persecution in Her history, and has only added to Her choir of saints. May we be
accounted worthy of them. Amen.
38
Footnotes
1
Bancroft, John, Adolescence and puberty, June Machover Reinisch, p.162.
2
See Genesis chapters 14, 18, & 19; also the Book of Jude.
3
Mártir de Anglería, Pedro, in Décadas del Mundo Nuevo, 1530. De Anglería mentions
that “only the nobles and the gentlemen practiced that kind of desire. (The) indigenous
people knew that sodomy gravely offended God.”
4
Medicine, Beatrice, “Directions in Gender Research in American Indian Societies: Two
Spirits and Other Categories” in W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler
(Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 3, Chapter 2), Center for Cross-
Cultural Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 2002.
5
This remark is paraphrasing and expanding upon two classical writers: Xenophon,
“Surely you don’t think men have children with their wives because of sexual desire,
when the streets and brothels are full of women who can satisfy such needs?” and
Pseudo-Demosthenes, “We have prostitutes for sexual pleasure, mistresses to look after
our daily comforts, and wives for the procreation of legitimate children and to act as
managers of our households.” (as quoted in Freeman, Philip, Searching for Sappho, W.
W. Norton & Company, 2016).
6
Freeman, ibid.
7
Saara Lilja, Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome (Societas Scientiarum
Fennica, 1983).
8
See, for example, the introduction of the Corinthian Woman in Aristophane’s
Lysistrata; and the Apostle Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 5:1.
9
Note that anal sodomy is also a serious sin in a heterosexual context. In the Explanation
following Canon 35 of St. John the Faster, “If any man perform arseneocotia upon his
wife, he shall be penanced for eight years, faring the while with xerophagy after the ninth
hour and doing two hundred prostrations daily.”
10
Tobin, Kay and Wicker, Randy, The Gay Crusaders, Arno Press, 1972, p. 98.
11
“The Militant Homosexual”, Newsweek, August 23, 1971, p. 47.
12
Eric Pollard, “Time to Give Up Fascist Tactics”, Letters to the Editor, Washington
Blade, January 31, 1992.
13
Interview with Gittings in Marcus, Eric, Making History: The Struggle for Gay and
Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: An Oral History, 1972.
39
14
Socarides, Charles W., “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of
Homosexuality”, The Journal of Psychohistory, Winter, 1992.
15
Ibid.
16
Wright, Rogers H., and Cummings, Nicolas A., eds., Destructive Trends in Mental
Health; The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, Routledge, 2005, p. 9.
17
Bayer, Ronald, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, Princeton University Press,
1987, pp. 3-4.
18
Kirk, M., and Madsen, H., After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and
Hatred of Gays in the 90s, Doubleday, 1989.
19
Kirk, M., and Pill, E., “The Overhauling of Straight America”, Guide, November 1987,
p. 24.
20
Satinover, Jeffrey, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker Books, 1996.
21
Bailey, J. M., and Pillard, R. C., “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,”
Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991), pp. 1089– 96; King, M., and McDonald, E.,
“Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands,” British Journal of Psychiatry
160 (1992), pp. 407– 9; Bailey et al., “Heritable Factors,” pp. 217– 23.
22
Ibid.
23
“Martina Navratilova lashes out against ‘gay sheep’ experiments”, The Advocate,
November 3, 2006.
24
Roselli, et al, “Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in
rams,” Physiology & Behavior, November 2004; Roselli, et al, “The development of
male-oriented behavior in rams,” Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, April 2011, pp. 164-
169.
25
Salon, January 14, 2009.
26
The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), completed with government
funding in 1994 by the University of Chicago, found that “7.1% (to as much as 9.1%) of
the men studied (more than 1,500) had at least one same-gender partner since puberty . . .
almost 4% of the men had sex with another male before turning 18 but not after. These
men . . . constitute 42% of the total number of men who report ever having a same-gender
experience.” In other words, approximately 10% of men will have sex with another man
at some point in their life – the origin of the ‘10%’ myth. Most will have identified
themselves as ‘gay’ before age 18, and acted upon it. But by age 18, half of them no
longer so identify themselves, and will never have another same-sex partner. By the age
of 25, the percentage of men that identify as homosexual falls to 2.8%. From this it
follows that three out of four boys who think they are ‘gay’ at age 16 aren’t by age 25.
40
27
Satinover, Jeffrey, “Testimony before the Massachusetts Senate Committee”, 2003.
28
Entitled “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?”
29
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403–417.
29
Other than asserting that the veracity of his subjects’ responses could not be
independently verified. Given the treatment Spitzer received, few of the subjects of his
study would have been willing to identify themselves in any case.
30
van den Aardweg, Gerard, “Frail and Aged, a Giant Apologizes”, MercatorNet, May
31, 2012.
31
Cretella, Michelle A., Affidavit in Ferguson vs. JONAH, May 18, 2013.
32
van den Aardweg, Gerard, Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About
Treatment and Change, Servant Books, 1986.
33
Daling, J. R. et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal
Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (9 April 1982), pp.
1988-1990.
34
See, for example, Bell, A. P. et al., Sexual Preference, Indiana University Press, 1981.
35
McWhirter, D., and Mattison, A., The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop,
Prentice-Hall, 1984.
36
Bell, A. P., and Weinberg, M. S., Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men
and Women, Simon and Schuster, 1978, pp. 308– 9.
37
JAMA Internal Medicine Online, June 28, 2016.
38
That Aelred’s passionate asceticism is regarded by some contemporaries as an example
of proto-gay spirituality, surely says more about our times than Aelred’s.
39
Mattson, Daniel, “The Strange Notion of Gay Celibacy”, Crisis Magazine, January 26,
2015.
41