Fact Sheet on Homosexuality

A number of claims have been made by activists within the gay community. These have been repeated often enough that they have become part of the vernacular. The nature of these claims is such that those who disagree are painted with the brush of intolerance. We are labeled as bigots and haters. Any opportunity for legitimate discussion is nonexistent.

This article contains information that radically challenges many of the claims made by those who continually harass and seek to intimidate Southern Baptists. This information has the added advantage of being supported by ample documentation. For convenience sake the statements will stand alone but the documentation can certainly be made available.

Aldus Huxley has said, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."  We think an honest evaluation of all the relevant material will clearly show that the most loving, compassionate approach to homosexuality is to be faithful to Scripture. We must be reminded that we are always called to speak the truth in love. We must continue to be redemptive and kind.

But we must know the truth and we must speak the truth. We believe that God intends for His people to live joyful, abundant lives. We are also convinced that if we choose to live contrary to the revealed will of God we can never know all the fullness and genuine peace God intends. It is possible to experience pleasure and various degrees of happiness but never to the extent God desires. We share that desire for all people. We want all people everywhere to know His fullness. We can only know this through obedience.

Much has been done in recent decades to point out the dangers of smoking. Knowing the truth about lung cancer, emphysema and other illnesses means we can do no less. What kind of love would be aware of a group of people more inclined to early death, suicide, various sexually transmitted diseases, depression and drug and alcohol abuse than the general population and say nothing?

Science and the American Psychological Association

• Not one scientifically accepted and replicable study supports the gay gene theory. Many who should know better have accepted as fact something, which has never been established.
• The argument is more political than scientific. "The APA is too (expletive deleted) politically correct...and too obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research."
• Dr. Warren Throckmorton, immediate past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, studied a broad cross-section of research on sexual-orientation change. He says such treatment has been effective, can be conducted in an ethical manner, and should be available to those clients requesting such assistance.
• Dr. Raymond Fowler, CEO of the American Psychological Association, says that his interpretation of the APA's position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client's right to self-determination.
• The A.P.A. did admit that there was no body of evidence to prove that reorientation therapies are harmful.
• Researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality. “Homosexuality is not purely genetic... environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.... I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” Citing the failure of his research, Hamer further writes, "The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants. "What's more interesting is that when Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be non-significant.
• Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
• While no studies claim an immutable behavior rooted in genes, Dr. Robert Spitzer did find that change is indeed possible. The findings surprised Spitzer himself. Dr. Spitzer also found that before entering counseling, over 40% of his former homosexual research participants were markedly to extremely depressed. After they had reoriented their sexual preferences, 1% of men and 4% of women were depressed at this level. This is a striking change.
• If it isn’t scientific discoveries driving the argument, then what? The Wall Street Journal  reported on August 12, 1993, to suggest that current biological-cause theories are unsubstantiated is to risk one’s career. As New York psychiatrist William Byne put it, “I’m told my criticism is not politically correct.... What they’re saying, therefore, is that I should subjugate scientific rigor to political expediency.”

Who’s Message is Really Damaging our Kids?

• In a recent (2001) study from the Netherlands, the prevalence of a number of DSM-III-R Disorders, including mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders, was significantly higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals - even though, as the authors admit: “Compared to other Western countries, the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been, and remains, considerably more tolerant.
• According to Bill Maier, a psychologist with Focus on the Family: "If you look at the attempted suicide rate in San Francisco, it's extremely high among gays, as is the rate of substance abuse, alcoholism and homosexual 'domestic' violence.  It seems quite a stretch to blame the attempted suicide rate on anti-gay bias."
• A study involving women indicated that most who had attempted suicide did so following a break-up with a lover. Another major cause was general depression. Again, studies from the Netherlands support these conclusions. The depression and attempted suicides clearly come from the lifestyle itself, not from societal disapproval.
• Young gay men entering into homosexual behavior today have a 50% chance of being infected by the AIDS virus by the time they are 55 years old. (Sexual Ecology, by gay activist Gabriel Rotello) Rotello also quotes a study by Donald R. Hoover saying, “A telling indicator of the death wish that dominates the gay community is the fact that the suicide rate among gays (especially gay teens) is extremely high and going higher. The gay activist community would have us believe that these teenagers are committing suicide in record numbers because society disapproves of their behavior. However, societal approval of homosexuality has gone up sharply in the last 40 years. So suicide rates should be going down, not up.
• In a 2000 newspaper report the San Francisco Department of Public Health said “new HIV infections in San Francisco increased sharply in 1999, primarily because of  increases in sexually risky behavior.” The proportion of gay men who say they have  unprotected sex with more than one partner grew from 23% in 1994 to 43% in 1999.The  proportion who said they always used a condom, meanwhile, dropped from 70% to 54%  during the same period.
• Rolling Stone recently (2/6/03) published an expose on a growing population of homosexuals known as “bug-chasers.”  These are homosexuals who purposely contract the AIDS virus from “gift-givers.”  The article quotes Dr. Bob Cabaj, director of behavioral health services for San Francisco County as saying that many new AIDS cases come from men who are actively seeking the virus.  The same phenomenon has been reported in London in the Spectator, which depicts bug-chasers as having a “macabre attitude - a bizarre, fatalistic, almost mystical obsession with death along with a pronounced rebellion against traditional societal values.”  (Culture Facts, 2/11/03, Family Research Council)

If we ignored the data, which clearly indicates otherwise and accepted the idea that many of the suicides were from societal disapproval, we are still faced with the reality that most deaths in the homosexual community come from high-risk sexual behavior. Those who are truly concerned with protecting the young should be discouraging the behavior that exposes them to these danger factors.

We must also ask ourselves the question why some are so unwilling for our youth to have the opportunity to change. It does no good to claim that it is harmful to hold out this hope. Statistics show otherwise. True science shows otherwise. Hard questions must be asked and honest answers expected. Those who would use data in a disingenuous way should not be allowed to skirt the truth. They should be held accountable for refusing hope to those who simply don’t want to live as homosexuals.

The Bible and Homosexuality

Some gay activists attempt to convince America that modern understanding of exegetical principles has explained away the biblical prohibitions. Three thousand years of scholarship among all three major world religions has spoken with one voice on this issue.

Only in recent years have questions been raised. It should be noted that these questions for the most part have not been raised because of any new developments in exegesis. The issue has been raised because of a determined effort to remove any possible opposition to a point of view.

These revisionists use a shotgun approach to various theories and conjecture. They disagree among themselves. All ignore the concept of biblical authority. Biblical trustworthiness rests not on Paul’s understanding of homosexuality but of God’s intent. It rests not on various ideas of how homosexuality was perceived or practiced in any time period but on what God said about it in every time period. Nor does the Bible delve into “motive” when it warns against homosexual conduct. It is His concept of holiness that must be our primary concern.

Dr. Albert Mohler says the essence of the complex revisionist arguments come down to this: “either the biblical texts do not proscribe homosexuality...or the texts do proscribe homosexuality, but are oppressive, heterosexist, and patriarchal in themselves, and thus must be rejected or radically re-interpreted in order to remove the scandal of oppression.”

Mohler goes on to say, “The passages are not merely re-interpreted in light of clear historical-grammatical exegesis - - they are subverted and denied by implication and direct assault.” He then quotes theologian Elizabeth Achtemeier who asserts, “The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman.”

Numerous scripture passages along with the history of biblical interpretation by Jews and Christians alike make it clear that the Bible speaks frankly about homosexuality. Until the last fifty years the consensus was never questioned by serious scholars. Today some are attempting to use various exegetical smoke and mirrors to obscure this truth. Scripture prohibits homosexual conduct.

Some argue that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. While any serious student understands the fallacy in this argument, we should point out that using that same flawed line of reasoning, Jesus never mentioned things such as pedophilia or wife beating either.

One final thing should be pointed out. While revisionist theologians would seek to find an exception to each of the prohibitions, we should note two things. First is that sex within marriage between a man and a woman is consistently held up as the biblical standard, indeed the only standard for sex in God’s eyes. Secondly, nowhere in Scripture can we find one instance of approval of homosexuality.

Surely, if we are to believe that God is ambivalent on this issue or that He created men and women this way, He would have found room somewhere in 66 books to let us in on this. He didn’t nor did He intend to. The random quotes of a group that has clearly demonstrated that they are motivated more by political agendas than a search for truth will not cause us to abandon the solid foundation of God’s Word.