Homosexual And Heterosexual Relationships example essay topic

For most people, with differing religious backgrounds and beliefs, the words "homosexual" and "Christian" do not mesh. The church body as a whole does not recognize homosexuality as being consistent with Scripture, and leaders within the church provide extensive evidence as to why they have come to this conclusion. The Bible is used as their main source for refuting the gay lifestyle, and many Christians would argue that homosexuality is aiding the breakdown of the family structure in our society. While the evidence against homosexuality seems biblically based and compelling at first glance, a closer examination of the biblical context shows something somewhat different. People must also take into account the recent advances in scientific research regarding homosexuality, and question whether or not sexual orientation is truly a choice. Fortunately, many denominations are taking an active stand in support of gay and lesbian rights.

There are churches headed by gay ministers; and in some places, same-sex unions are being provided as well. Perhaps in time, more churches will follow their example. In order to model what Jesus taught in the Bible, we are called to love God above all, but also to love our neighbors as well. Whether or not an agreement concerning the sinfulness and morality of homosexuality is made, there must be a recognition that we all share a common humanity and can learn and grow by building each other up - no matter what sex, nationality, age, religion, or sexual orientation a person might be. he major arguments against homosexuality are based on verses found within the Bible. Each of these verses should be reviewed and discussed.

The story of the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19: 1-25 is referred to frequently. God had sent two angels to the city of Sodom and they took shelter in the home of Abraham's nephew, Lot. The men in the town became aware of the "visitor's" presence and demanded that Lot send them outside; their intentions were to have sex with them. In order to protect the angels, Lot offers his daughters to the men instead, but they refuse. The mob of angry men then began to charge at the door; however, the angels blinded them and then warned Lot and his family to leave the city because it would be destroyed (Homosexuality 1). Many scholars believe the destruction of Sodom was due to the homosexual intentions of the men in the account; this, however, is up for debate.

According to Walter Wink, a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, this was an attempt at demasculinizing other men. The sexual act that might have occurred would not have been expressed out of love but rather out of force (1). In all aspects, the actions were quite similar to rape, which should be viewed unacceptably in homosexual and heterosexual relationships alike. Jude 7 makes reference to the sexual perversion of Sodom's people, but this verse could be taken as a condemnation of sexual crimes toward all people. Ezekiel 16: 48-50 should also be noted in this case. It states, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen". No distinct reference to homosexuality is made in the list of reasons for Sodom's downfall, thus this verse seems to lose its credit in regards to the churches stance against a loving homosexual relationship. Leviticus 20: 13 must also be examined - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads". This verse appears unquestionably in opposition to the act of homosexuality. Certain issues must be discussed concerning this verse, however. If Christians feel the need to follow the Scriptures completely, then they should do just that. This verse specifically states that a man who lies with another man must be put to death. Then should Christians be in support of capital punishment for all homosexual couples?

Let us hope not. Homosexuality is referred to as being a detestable abomination. The Hebrew word for abomination, "to " ebay", refers to things that are ritually unclean. "It's not about a moral or ethical issue" (ECWR 2). The abomination described here is merely a part of the Holiness Code set out in Leviticus.

In the Hebrew culture of this time period, semen was viewed as the producer of life itself; so homosexual acts and masturbation were seen as a waste of life, quite similar to our present day conflict with abortion. In any case, theologians might still use this verse in order to attack homosexuality. They should truly consider the repercussions of choosing to do so, however. By insisting "on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus" (Homosexuality 2). Other infractions against the Holiness Code, deserving punishment, included the following: sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual cycle, tattoos, wearing certain types of jewelry, eating certain kinds of meat, wearing clothing made from blended textiles, cross-breeding livestock, sowing a field with mixed seed, eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, and men cutting their hair or shaving their beards (2). If the rules of this Holiness Code were carried out, then most people would have no chance of escaping punishment.

These laws were established for the Jewish nation; however, the Christian church must also take note of them because of their place within the Scriptures. Fortunately for mankind, God is abounding in grace and forgiveness rather than judgment and condemnation. For this reason, Christians do not follow the law, but rather live according to the Spirit. These two Biblical references are not the end of our discussion.

There are verses that deal with Homosexuality in the Bible's New Testament as well. The Apostle Paul makes this statement in Romans 1: 27: "the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion". Commenting on this verse, one individual believed that specific medical consequences are the penalty received literally "within" gay men. Namely, AIDS is referred to as a direct punishment on homosexuals because of their "sin" against God (St. Paul 1). Walter Wink would be in direct opposition to this idea of divine judgment though.

He makes the following comment: "Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are diving punishments for homosexual behavior; we know it is a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a diving punishment, since non promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk" (Wink 3). Continuing with the discussion of Romans 1: 27, Paul may have been referring to the pagan temple orgies which occurred in the Greek culture of this time period. It's quite possible that he was speaking out against "the fertility cults involving sex among priestesses and between men and eunuch prostitutes such as served Aphrodite at Corinth, from where he was writing this letter to the Romans. Their self-castrating rites resulted in a bodily 'penalty' " (ECWR 3).

Paul was not a witness of mutual love and commitment between two gay people; he also knew nothing about the psychosexual and scientific research concerning a person's inborn sexual orientation. He witnessed the indecent acts of Greek paganism, and made condemnation against exalting the body of a person over the Spirit of God. Homosexuals attempting to live within the church community are faced with overwhelming emotions of guilt and fear at times. These emotions result from uncertainty and the belief that gay people will be separated from God and forced to spend an eternity in hell.

Even I Corinthians 6: 9-10 states the following: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". This is another verse that can be used to discourage a homosexual lifestyle. Read the verse. It doesn't seem to be confusing. It says that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Read the whole verse though. It also says that a sexually immoral person along with those who are greedy and drunkards and anyone who places anything at all above God will also not inherit the kingdom of God. It doesn't seem like many people are going to make it. We will all be doomed by the sinful nature within us. Is this really the case though?

When we read the verse that follows those listed above, Paul goes on to say that "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God". You see, it isn't God's desire that any man should perish. He created man to fellowship with him. We may disappoint God at times due to the sinful nature within us; but we must realize that each of us shares in that sin nature, not solely homosexuals.

Perhaps not one of us really deserves to inherit the kingdom of God; but he loves us so much that he provided atonement through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus, to provide a way. To further the discussion on I Corinthians, reference must also be made to the inadequacy of present-day translations. The term "Homosexuality" wasn't coined until the 1900's, so the authors of the Bible did not share the same meaning of the word that society does today. In the original text, the words "arsenokoitai" and "malak oi" are used to describe what the Bible now terms as homosexuality. According to an article by Evangelists Concerned Western Region, Inc., "The Fundamentalist Journal admits, 'These words are difficult to translate' " (3).

Walter Wink doesn't even consider this particular passage of scripture because of its ambiguity. The original meaning is believed to be referring to feminine "call boys" who were expected to maintain sexual relations with elder men of the town. "In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality, or promiscuity and 'sex-for-hire' " (2). With each of the Biblical passages used against homosexuality, a refutation can be made.

There are personal biases and cultural norms that have influenced how the Scriptures have been translated into modern text. It is also difficult to produce the words in English that match the meaning behind the author's actual words in Hebrew and Greek (Homosexuality 1). It seems as though "preachers go to great lengths to explain the history and cultures of the time in other areas of the Bible when it suits their purpose, but not with regard to these particular scriptures. This is a double standard" (ECWR 4). For instance, the Bible makes reference to the following: the practice of polygamy, the expectation for widows to engage in intercourse with their husband's brothers until she bore a male heir, and the regard of slavery as a necessary norm. "The Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage" (Wink 5).

Would anyone recommend that our society retreat to the way it was during the time the Bible was written? Doubtful. Then why do people insist on picking and choosing which lifestyle choices are acceptable or not? If society feels justified in disagreeing with other sexual practices found within the Bible, it would seem that the same concepts would be applied to homosexuality as well. Along with Biblical text, scientific research regarding homosexuality should also be considered. According to the American Psychological Association, a person's sexual orientation is not a choice; and homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor an emotion problem (American 1).

This view towards homosexuality has actually developed only in the past 20-30 years though. It was in 1973 that the APA "voted to delete homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders and issued a strong statement of support for gay rights" (Gay 1). Melvin Sab shin, MD, gives credit to scientific evidence as the force behind this social and political call for change (1). The APA provides information on the development of sexual orientation along with other facts related to the topic. Scientists have yet to understand, completely, the development of a person's sexual orientation; yet certain factors are considered. Genetic and hormonal factors are measured, along with the experiences a person has during their early childhood.

It's most likely, though, that biological, psychological and social factors all work together to determine any person's sexual orientation (American 1). Most individuals develop a certain attraction to either their own sex or the opposite sex without any prior sexual experience. For some people, who have an attraction toward the same sex, therapy might seem the only option. Many homosexuals report feeling alone and concerned over rejection from family, friends, and the religious institutions they are apart of. However, attempts at changing sexual orientation have met with little results. "In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion works and that it can do more harm than good" (2) They continue by saying that altering something that is part of a person's inborn identity could have devastating consequences.

It would be just as difficult for a heterosexual person to become homosexual; but does society expect that of them? No. In regards to psychological causes of homosexuality, the Kinsey Institute had a hard time finding any. They interviewed around 1000 homosexuals and 500 heterosexuals, and asked questions concerning "parental relationships, childhood sexual experiences, peer relationships, (and) dating experiences", but yet they found no conclusive evidence as to why one person would be homosexual in comparison to someone else (Scientific 2). Some theories would suggest why same-sex attraction occurs-perhaps someone was segregated by their gender during puberty, was a victim of sexual abuse, or lacked the influence of a male role-model while growing up. Despite the theories though, nothing concrete has been determined (3).

Researcher Simon Levy attempted to break down the codes of cell clusters. His findings would lead some to believe that "sexual orientation is at least partly physiological". He discovered that "The cell cluster was reliably larger in heterosexual men then in women and homosexual men" (3). Also, Laura Allen and Roger Gorski have found that "a section of the fibers connecting right and left hemispheres is one-third larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men" (4).

These researchers suggest, from their findings, that homosexuals are born that way and have no control over their sexual orientation. Other scientists would refute this belief, stating "perhaps biological factors predispose a temperament that influences sexuality 'in the context of individual learning and experience' " (4). Perhaps then, people are not necessarily born that way but are more likely to "become" homosexual as a result of their biological makeup. Whether or not a person is born as a homosexual is sure to be disputed for years to come. After taking into account the Biblical verses dealing with homosexuality and the latest scientific research, where do churches stand today on the issue? To answer that question, it's helpful to identify the beliefs concerning homosexuality throughout all of the denominations.

"In 1972 the (United Methodist Church) stated that homosexuality was incompatible with Christian teaching, but supported the civil rights of gays" (Summary 1). Same-sex unions are not performed and gay ministers risk being banned if their sexuality is found out. Similar perspectives are held by the Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Presbyterian denominations as well. Some congregations do perform gay ceremonies, but this is not the norm. The Roman Catholic Church condemns homosexual acts as being sinful; but they do distinguish between sexual orientation, which they are neutral on.

Seventh-Day Adventists are explicitly against homosexuality along with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that "has the most anti-gay policies of any religion widely practiced in the United States" (1). On the opposite end of the spectrum we find the Unitarian Church and the United Church of Christ. "The United Church of Christ became the first Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay person to the ministry" (3). Along with the Unitarian Church, they perform same-sex unions and take an active interest in protecting the rights of homosexuals.

It's intriguing to see such varying perceptions on homosexuality within the one religion of Christianity. The treatment of gay and lesbian people will differ according to the denomination. One might assume the church would have a specific belief concerning the treatment of homosexuals; however, the apparent disagreements prove otherwise. Who then is right, and what should Christians be expected to believe? Perhaps a clear-cut solution will never be made regarding this issue, but a certain common ground can be established. It can be argued that the Bible does not overtly condemn homosexuality, as society perceives it today; however, the practice of homosexuality still goes against the intent God had planned when creating man and woman.

Genesis 2: 24 states that "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". Despite the discrepancies in Biblical translation and the refutations made against verses dealing with homosexuality, one thing is still apparent-God created men to be with women rather than other men. Anything outside of a committed marriage relationship is a deviation from God's original plan, and is sin. But where does this leave the homosexual person desiring to maintain their own relationship with God and who desire to play a part in the Church setting? The important thing to understand is that each of us is dealing with sin. It's simply a part of our human nature.

Arguments in support of homosexuality are not sound when referring to the Bible.