On two different occasions I have had chats with Atheists who first engaged with me about the issue of homosexuality. One began the conversation with asking my opinion about seeing a kid with a t-shirt saying, “I love my dads.” He went on to be very belligerent, calling me names and constantly cursing at me. The other guy asked me my opinion on the LGBTQ+ community. He already knew I was a Christian and was searching for an answer because every church he called was against it. He ended up being very interested in hearing about what the Bible teaches and had never before heard the gospel. Both of these individuals were confused at why the church was standing against them (one felt personally attacked by the church). They were both also confused as to why people have a view of this practice because in their opinion, it does not cause any harm.

I wanted to write this article for two major reasons: 1. To inform the LGBTQ+ community about reasons the practice of homosexuality can cause harm and 2. To provide a clarion call to other Christians as to why this practice is so harmful. I am not so much writing to provide an exegetical argument (that is, an argument derived from the text of Scripture); although, Scripture is what forms my background in this discussion. Rather I will attempt to write from the perspective of Natural Law.

Approaching the Topic: The Elephant in the Room

Before diving in to the major content at hand, I think that it’s important to discuss the elephant in the room. There is a lot of vitriol between the Christian and LGBTQ+ communities. Christians have classically held to the teaching that sex is reserved between one man and one woman within the confines of marriage. This is not to say that Christians, or at least people who claim to be Christian, have practiced this truth perfectly in the past or present. No Christian has conformed to God’s righteous law perfectly in this life. God commands us to love him with all of who we are, our entire being. There is not one millisecond in any fallen human’s life where that command was fully obeyed. This imperfection does not prevent us from proclaiming exactly what God’s righteous standard is. If the standard for morality were our own practice of it, we would all be in trouble.

Furthermore, the LGBTQ+ has made their desire and practice a part of their identity so that it could be more widely accepted in society. This is where the acid is added into the relationship. Because when a Christian decried the practice, they are simultaneously decrying the person. This puts the believer in the Bible between a rock and a hard place. The Bible tells us to love our neighbor, but also to uphold God’s righteous standard. We are commanded to seek the welfare of the society in which we live (Jer. 29:7). We know that God designed the world to operate in a certain way, obedience to God brings blessing and sin brings curses. This is true for any sin, not just homosexuality. Think about the curse that the lottery brings, for example. The government in the USA sponsors a lottery in which, statistically speaking, the poorer buy in to and a lot of the time the extra money goes to the government and sometimes educational programs. And so, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The government is preying on the weakest in society in order to build its own selfish aims, it’s deplorable and has negative consequences. As a Christian, I would want to point that problem out and put this practice to an end for the welfare of my society. There would probably be people who stand against it, but there aren’t many people going around saying, “I identify as a lotterer! These people are denying my existence!”

In the same way, I have a friend who really loves golf. He desires to play golf. He plays golf regularly. He finds some of his greatest satisfaction on the course. Golf is part of who he is. I can come up to him and say to his face, I don’t really like golf. Now, he does not hear me saying, “I do not like you,” but simply that I do not enjoy the activity itself. However, this is not the case for most within the LGBTQ+ agenda. I say, “I do not like homosexuality,” and it becomes an afront against the person to whom I speak. It is from the LGBTQ+ perspective that to disagree with the practice is a form of sin. One fellow I was talking to claimed that the church’s teaching causes him harm and therefore it is wrong.

On the other side of the issue, Christians have a tendency to vilify and treat people in the LGBTQ+ agenda as aliens or nonhuman. The Pride parades and demonstrations have certainly done outlandish things in order to normalize these deviant practices which can instill fear in the Christians watching these things. However, that is no excuse to dehumanize a person for having alternate sexual desires and behaviors. Now, some would say that calling homosexuality itself a sin is dehumanizing. I would disagree. But certainly how we say that homosexuality is a sin could be dehumanizing. Christians, there are people who have homosexual and other abnormal desires sitting in your pews and perhaps living in your home. I think that time has come that we stop decrying the practice as if its “those people” out there because they are in here and need someone to talk to. One question we could all ask ourselves is would someone who has homosexual desires or some other abnormality be willing to come talk to me about it or would they be afraid to because of something that I have said which deviated from God’s Word?

Now this has to be a generic test because just quoting Romans 1 could cause someone to be afraid to come forward and have a discussion. We are all under the same thin line of common grace. We need to infuse some sympathy into dealing with this deviance. What if your earliest sexual memory was same-sex attracted and you never had anything different? What if you were abused and it made you feel uncomfortable in your own body? Sympathy does not require us to affirm sin, agree with sin, or celebrate sin. Sympathy does require us to step outside of our experience to understand the struggle of others. The supreme example of this is Jesus, who being fully God, did not take advantage of that status and glory, but humbled himself by becoming fully human (and yet still fully God; Phil. 2:11ff). He experienced every temptation known to man, yet never sinned (Heb. 4:15). Every temptation? Would that not include the temptation to homosexuality?

Some Christians may recoil even at the thought of that question. But, how many times have you been comforted by that verse? When you are in the throws of the battles with your sin, whatever it may be. Time and time and time you think this sin will defeat you, it will drown you. But then you turn to the captain of your salvation and see that in Hebrews 4:15, “My great Lord has faced this same temptation and it did not best him! Lord give me your resolve to face this beast!” Why should we deprive a sinner of a different sort of that same comfort? And I hope, dear Christian, if it is your desire to deprive someone of the LGBTQ+ community of this comfort that you can see the hypocrisy of your soul. Though you may doctrinally claim that Christ died for all manner of sins, would you practically deny this by excluding the LGBTQ+ community from the reach of his grace?

So what is the answer to addressing the elephant in the room, the elephant of the negative relationship between the church and LGBTQ+ community? We apply the same gospel to this relationship that we do with every other group of sinners. We apply the same gospel that we apply to ourselves, which, by the way, we too are a group of sinners. All humans are made in God’s image no matter their sinful choices which gives them dignity, value, and worth. Sinners can forfeit their right to life by committing a capital crime, but this in no way lessens their worth endowed by their creator. Christ died for all kinds of sinners. His grace extends to all of us with each breath we take. Saving grace is not withheld from one class of people because of what they’ve done. When we begin to believe the lie that we deserve God’s grace, we have the tendency to exclude people who we think do not deserve it. But the reality is, none of us deserve his grace, hence is why it is grace.

So the answer is not to water down doctrine, redefine sin, ignore parts of scripture, or start a new marketing campaign. The answer is to put ourselves under the same grace which reaches out to every lost soul and perhaps reached us as well. The answer is to double down on the fundamentals of the gospel message because it certainly is the only answer.

Does LGBTQ+ Ideology and Practice Cause Harm?

It is my contention that the LGBTQ+ movement will lead to the destruction of humanity. However, the movement did not originate this problem, but merely precipitates it. The problem finds its ripest fruit in the fruition and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ movement. Still people, even Christians, arguing things like, “Have sex with whoever you want, just don’t sexualize my children” also precipitates the problem. So this movement is not the root of the problem, but it brings the problem into wider cultural acceptance by forcing people to deny reality and celebrate that denial. So while the LGBTQ+ movement did not initiate our societal dilemma, it has been active in culminating it.

The serpent came to Eve and told her she could become like God knowing good and evil. The ability to determine right and wrong on our own terms has been the driving force for the destruction of humanity since its inception. The LGBTQ+ movement is merely a symptom of the deeper issue: rebellion and self-assertion against God. However, this movement is also categorically different from other moral and revolutionary movements for three major reasons: it continues the unmooring humanity from real reality, it determines morality by desire, and espouses an ineffective “do no harm” ethic.

Denying Reality

The societal dilemma was originally philosophical. Humanity derived reality from ontology, that is what is. What is is what is real. This is why you can examine law practices from a multiplicity of cultures and find several convergences. Law was derived from what is real, how God created his world. Jesus says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matt. 7:12). This is Natural Law and its basis. How do we treat someone? Well, how do I want to be treated? If I want to be treated with respect, I want my things not to be taken, I want people to not punch me in the face, I want people to not kill me, then I should treat others that way. That is what is and law was derived from it. At the same time Natural Law alone is not a sufficient standard. God gave his law which is good and righteous in its proper application.

So the classical philosophical questions was, “What is real and how do we conform ourselves to that reality?” Socrates would constantly ask questions to get close to this answer. What is good? What is virtue? What is moderation? What is justice? But there was a shift in the enlightenment to the question “How can we know what is real?” Various theories came about: by reasoning, by experience, by causation, by a combination of these things. But ultimately the skeptic won out, and postmodernism has settled on the answer “We cannot know what is real.” But this philosophical understanding has a devastating application. If we cannot know reality, we have no way to conform ourselves to it. So we can no longer ask the questions about goodness, virtue, and justice, and dig down like Socrates to the answer by examining reality and reason. Instead we say, “I feel like. . .”

Christianity says that God created and designed the world with purpose. If you want to know reality, real reality, you have to go to God (even the ancient Greek philosophers rationalized to a supreme being such as the Prime Mover). Philosophy always tends to go that direction when it was tied to what is real. But, just like the serpent in the garden, we have decided we get to determine what is real, not God. Goodness, truth, virtue, being, and practice are all determined by how I feel. In other words today’s philosophy is what I feel is what I am.

The LGBTQ+ movement is harmful to society because it demands humanity to reject reality and celebrate that rejection. And although this movement did not initiate this harmful philosophy it precipitates it. Where before, people were able to continue on their life in reality, we are all now being forced to bow the knee mainly because of the LGBTQ+ movement. Where before, a child might say, “I’m a dog” and go on pretending to be a dog until it made her parent uncomfortable and put it to an end; because it’s make believe, it’s not real. And sure, it’s fun to indulge in make-believe and fantasy for a time, but if that indulgence leads us to reject reality it becomes a watershed moment. But now if a child engages in this fantasy, thanks to the LGBTQ+ movement, we could be denying her existence as a furry. This is the type of insanity that the LGBTQ+ movement not only wants us to accept as reality, but also celebrate. Therefore this movement is harmful to society because it demands a rejection of reality.

Morality by Desire

Rejection of reality is closely tied to morality. Remember that one of Socrates questions was “What is good?” He would seek the answer in reality. “Born this way” was the cry to connect the homosexual movement to reality. But when the T was added, that motto had to go because clearly the boy was not “born” a girl. Furthermore, you are encouraged to take time and discover who you are. And those discoveries could change over time as we move further away from reality. 10 years ago you really only had two options when it came to gender. And in reality marriage only had one option too. But now since we have decided we feel like there are more genders–tada!–there are. And because we have decided that only marrying one person is not enough, we can say a throuple is fine too.

C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man different ways to determine morality without looking to reality (what he calls the Tao). And one of those ways he discusses is “instinct.” Of course, this could come from a macroevolution background. We know what is right because of instinct. Sounds pretty good, right? But Lewis mentions the problem: Our instincts are at war within us, we all recognize it. When someone cuts me off in traffic my instinct is not to give a friendly hello. Instinct and feelings is an improper place to find morality.

But this is exactly what the LGBTQ+ movement wants to force upon society. Again, this movement did not begin the idea that whatever feels right is right. However, this movement is forcing the entire society off that cliff. “Love is love” “Love who you want to love” is the motto, all based on what? Feelings. Of course, what if someone wants to love a Barbie Doll? Can they get married? What if someone wants to love a child? Can they get married? And it’s at this point where the objection would come in that I’m just a bigot using a slippery slope fallacy. But in reality, if feelings determine morality, this is not a slippery slope but a logical conclusion.

Ironically, at the beginning of this movement they knew most people did not feel like homosexuality was right. But they, through some major tactics, have swayed popular opinion to their side. And now they can boast, “Most Americans feel like homosexuality is okay.” And this is somehow supposed to be good? A society that was already living on the cliff of “do whatever feels right” has now taken the plunge and we are supposed to celebrate it? It sounds more like a society getting ready for The Purge than something to be celebrated. And to be clear, The Purge (I have not seen it, nor could I stomach it) is based on a premise that everyone gets to do whatever they want for a day without any consequences (at least from the government). The LGBTQ+ movement is harmful to society because is bases morality on whatever feels right and forces everyone else to follow suit. Society needs an objective standard for morality (such as reality), not our feelings.

Do No Harm Ethic

Furthermore, often times you hear, “What two consenting adults do in bed does not harm anyone.” This is the ethic of “do no harm” which is often perpetuated by the LGBTQ+ movement. One of the guys I was chatting with that I mentioned in the first paragraph was motivated to talk to me because he believed my community was causing his community and him personally harm. Well, I hope I have demonstrated in the paragraphs above how the movement has caused harm. Yet, I want to take time to unravel this ineffective ethic.

First of all, if the ethic is applied to the feelings then causing harm is possible when one feels like it. For example, one of the guys I was chatting with constantly called me names and stupid. I asked if he believed he was causing me harm by doing such things. He said he believed he was, but that it was okay because of everything my community had done. Notice that he justified himself in causing me harm not because of something I had personally done. He also justified it based on how he felt.

Furthermore, there is an insistence that the homosexual sex does not cause anyone harm. But the sex does not stay in bed. In the LGBTQ+ movement’s zeal to normalize their sex, they also demanded the government to recognize their marriages (which Doug Wilson rightly calls mirages). Well, what harm could this possibly cause? Well for one, family is the foundation to society. If you want to destroy a society destroy the family. To normalize a family that God did not ordain is a frontal assault on his institution of family. And to remove the family is like to take out all the blocks at the bottom of the Jenga tower: it will all collapse.

But, you may insist, the percentage of homosexual mirages is so few, how could that cause such an effect? Well, sadly, the LGBTQ+ movement has become a social contagion. The number of people identifying with the movement is increasing rapidly, and should that be celebrated? The LGBTQ+ community celebrates it as people finally have the freedom to be who they really are. And of course, reality is determined by feelings. Furthermore, even people who don’t have those desires are identifying that way for attention (and thanks to intersectionality).

And the assault on the family continues as homosexual couples demand the right to adopt. You see how this is going? They feel like there’s nothing wrong with homosexual sex. Then they feel like homosexual marriage does not cause anyone harm either. Furthermore, they feel like to prove their marriage is just as good as any other, why not have children too? Numerous studies have been done on the harm divorce does to the child’s health. Divorce is not part of God’s plan for the family either. But can we apply all these studies of the negative effect of not having both sexes in the home to raise children to homosexual mirages? No. Why? Wouldn’t that be logical? Well sure, it would be logical. But we don’t determine morality by what is real, we determine it by how we feel. So while the LGBTQ+ movement claims to do no harm, they are leading our society to a swift destruction

Conclusion

In Romans 1, Paul speaks about what some theologians call the dark exchange. People exchanged truth about God for a lie, and worshipped creation rather than the creator. So how did God respond? Well, he gave them over to their desires. “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” This is the “whatever feels right” morality. And although the homosexual movement did not start this morality, they conclude it. Paul himself recognized that truth thousands of years ago when he said, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Why is this? Because it is so obvious in reality that the male sexual organ was made for the female sexual organ. The very act of homosexual sex is denying reality, denying the way that God created the world. So, the act itself along with the whole movement causes harm to society. Some may argue, “animals do it!” Perhaps, but animals also eat their own poop. Animal behavior is hardly a method to determine reality unless of course reality is based upon instinct (which is the case I suppose for this movement).

So while homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, it remains categorically different because it demands the denial of true truth and real reality. And Paul recognizes that in Romans 1. But all of us sinners are in the same boat. Paul also recognizes that, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” But that’s not all.

“and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins”

So a word to the Christian

  1. Be informed on how the LGBTQ+ movement causes harm rather than resorting to blindly shaming or fearmongering
  2. Know that we are all sinners and under the same grace. We are all made in God’s image and Christ’s grace extends to all kinds of sinners.
  3. Be sympathetic and willing to be introspective and perhaps repent for dehumanizing the LGBTQ+ community (if that actual sin was committed).
  4. Be ready to counsel in world where reality and morality is determined by desires.
  5. Remain steadfast to the truth to the gospel and apply it regularly to yourself, we never grow beyond our need of the gospel.
  6. Do not fall into the temptation to water down the truth for the sake of “love.” Love without truth can only be a lie and disingenuous.

A word to the LGBTQ+ community

  1. Christians must stand firm on the doctrine of Scripture, but this does not mean we hate you. I believe your ideology leads to societal destruction, but not you personally. I do not view you as my enemy, I view the ideas as wrong.
  2. Consider the bigger questions in life: how is it possible to determine what is good and virtuous? Is it really based on how we feel? Is the do no harm ethic really consistent?
  3. Know that there are Christians out there who are willing to come along side you and provide your felt needs and share Jesus with you.
  4. I believe that I can both love you well and believe what you practice is wrong. I also believe that the best way I can love you is to inform you how these ideas are destructive.
  5. The LGBTQ+ movement is not at fault for originating these destructive ideas, but rather will continue to bring them to their full conclusion.
  6. I would also encourage you to know that who we are is not determined merely by what we want.