Beckett: Homosexuality – Revealing the Sin and A Call to Repentance

Every human being is bound to a moral standard. That moral standard may originate from his or her rationality, a political affiliation, or a religious belief. Whichever standard our morals operate by, we are bound to abide by that standard alone. Failing to do so is hypocrisy and claiming the belief system in which one’s morals operate within becomes self-defeating and illogical, and therefore no longer credible. Whichever standard we claim, it would be intellectually honest of us to operate by that standard alone without deviating from it, otherwise there is no point in claiming the standard and the individual’s position becomes untenable.

Without a standard to operate by, no one can honestly make a claim to absolute truth. If we create our own moral standard, morality is free to be bent and broken by our subjective rules, and we then begin to change those rules or ignore them based on when they best suit our needs, which is dangerous. If one’s morals are influenced by politics, one’s beliefs must submit to a specific way depending on which party he or she affiliates with. If one’s morals are influenced by his or her religion, one’s morals are bound to the authority of the god they worship (or the teacher in the case there is no god, such as Buddhism). Or perhaps, as an atheist, one’s morals are influenced by his or her fallible rationality, changing as often as the wind.

As Christians, we strictly believe the Word of God is the main authority over all governments, all political agendas, and all human rationality—over all men no matter one’s socioeconomic status. If you’re not Christian and you’re reading this, or you are and happen to support the sin of homosexuality, don’t expect your mind to be changed because it’ll never be changed so long as you continue to deny God’s authority over all things. This is a message to Christians who condone the sin of homosexuality. At first, it may seem this entire article consists of Law, but after discussing the fallacies involved with condoning homosexuality, there is a Gospel message at the end, so please bear with me. If one claims to be Christian, one claims God’s Word as the ultimate authority and when one indefatigably and unrepentantly deviates from His Word, he or she declares otherwise. Therefore, as God’s Word indubitably declares homosexuality as a sin, the responsible Christian must not contradict this declaration and therefore must not condone the sin as they would any other sin.

The Abominable Sin

I will be covering three fallacies (and three sub-fallacies) people utilise to condone homosexuality, but before I get to them we need to go to the Scriptures that reveal the sinfulness of homosexuality. We first see God unequivocally forbidding homosexual activity in the Law recorded in Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Before I continue with this, I’ve heard the objection from progressive liberals attempting to justify their sexual perversion that “shall not lie with a male” is ambiguous and more closely means lying with a child who is a boy. As a theologian who is proficient in Hebrew, this is absolutely absurd. The word used for “male” is זָכָר (zakar), which a literal translation is, “a human person that is a male”—a generic term for “man.” If the Hebrew writers were exclusively writing about a child who is a boy, why would they not have used נַעַר (na’ar), which means “boy, lad,” a noun specifically designated for male children? The Hebrew writers were purposeful in their writing, so if they were writing about male children they would have used a completely different noun than zakar. This stupidity is what happens when assumptions are made by biblical illiterates who lack knowledge of the original language.

Anyway, before God said this, He condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality and other sexual deviances (Genesis 18:20-21; 19:4-5, 24-25). No sin is greater than another, for all sin is equal in God’s eyes because all sin corrupts. However, it is interesting to note that homosexuality is singled out as “an abomination.” The Hebrew word for “abomination” is תּוֹעֵבָה (to-ay-bah), which literally means “of physical repugnance.” Homosexuality, then, is the only sin God finds “physically repugnant.” This doesn’t mean it’s the worst of all sins to commit, but it apparently means God finds it disgusting.

Think of one thing that disgusts you—that when you look at it, it sickens you to your stomach. God has a similar reaction to homosexuality, if not worse. Gay rights advocates like to point out the fact that homosexuality wasn’t the only sin of Sodom and Gomorrah—that they were guilty of other sins as well, as if this somehow negates homosexuality as a sin. Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for other sins, and homosexuality was one of those sins. The only thing this argument accomplishes is bring to light other sexual sins to be condemned alongside homosexuality. The condemnation of homosexuality, however, is not only found in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well. It’s in various places in the New Testament ,but in 2 Peter 2:6-10, St. Peter uses the example of Sodom and Gomorrah as a warning for people of all ages:

…and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what He saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

There is both Law and Gospel in this passage. The Law here is that homosexuality is a condemnable sin along with the other sins Sodom and Gomorrah committed, using them to illustrate what will happen to those who are unrepentant of the same sins. The Gospel here is that since God rescued the one righteous man, Lot, from a sinful city because He saw his righteous soul being tormented by such iniquity, then certainly God knows how to rescue us from our sin as well as the surrounding sins of those around us. I don’t think this means God will destroy America with sulfur and fire, but what do I know? Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t see it coming in the midst of their hedonism.

Similarly, in Jude 6-7 we read, “And the angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

In Romans 1:18-32, Paul begins his letter to the Romans heavy with Law, delineating God’s wrath against the godlessness and wickedness of man, homosexuality falling under that category. Specifically in verses 26-27, St. Paul describes homosexuality as a wicked perversion of God’s will: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

“Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality.”

Before I start with the first logical fallacy, I must discuss this common—and incredibly ludicrous—argument people make and then briefly discuss the origin of marriage. Gay rights advocates say, “Well, Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, so it’s not a sin.” (These people ignore the rest of the New Testament that defines it as a sin, denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised to send and teach them.) Let’s take a look at 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men [this generic noun for “men” means mankind in the original Greek] who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

What Paul is essentially saying is this: the Law is not for the righteous because believers are no longer under law but grace (Romans 6:14). Rather, it is for the “lawless and disobedient” and “the ungodly and sinners”—unbelievers and unrepentant sinners, because since they do not believe and are therefore not under grace but remain under the Law, they therefore suffer its condemnation, whereas believers are judged by grace, which is the justification of Jesus Christ.

This is why God’s Word offends unrepentant sinners (and people who support them) because His Law still condemns them, whereas Christians are no longer condemned (Romans 8:1). (The Law also offends unrepentant Christians because it convicts us of our sin and leads us to repentance in the Gospel, but it no longer condemns us because of the grace of Christ.) Also, the Law is “in accordance with the gospel” of God (which came through Christ). This means the Law and the Gospel are in agreement.

So, “Jesus never talked about homosexuality” is an invalid argument. Jesus never talked about rape either, or pedophiles, or an employer firing an employee for the colour of his skin, yet we know all these things and more that Jesus didn’t specifically discuss are immoral because we can infer from other Scriptural principles that they are. 

To put it even more simply for this who can’t follow this logic, since Jesus is God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1, 14; 8:24; 10:30), He did in fact talk about it. People just wish He didn’t.

The Origin of Marriage

The origin of marriage begins in Genesis 2:18, “Then the LORD said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'” God did not want man to be alone. This is the first time God said something in creation was “not good.” So, to counter this, He created “a helper fit” for Adam. While it is vital to see the implications of marriage inherent in this verse, we should also see that God did not want man to live in isolation. God solved Adam’s loneliness by creating a wife for him, but keep in mind Eve was not just a wife—she was another human being, specifically a woman, who was someone completely different than Adam yet complementary. In other words, God designed human beings to live in relationship with one another; and in this case in marriage, only with the opposite sex.

The “helper fit” for Adam was a woman; therefore, a man would be unfit for Adam, and vice versa for women. All Adam knew was the male sex, but God didn’t give him a choice. God could’ve made another man in adherence to the only thing Adam was familiar with or given him a choice, but He didn’t and He specifically created someone different yet complementary—a woman, because that’s how He intended it. Our sinful desires and wishes do not nullify God’s order of creation.

One argument I’ve heard from progressive liberals is that Genesis never says Adam and Eve were married. Clearly, they’ve never read past chapter one:

And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man He made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed (Genesis 2:22-25). 

The Love Fallacy & Equivocation

There are three commonly used logical fallacies to condone homosexuality. The first is what I call the Love Fallacy. I believe this is the most often used argument for homosexuality, especially with the vexatious hashtag “love wins” when gay “marriage” was legalised (which is ironic because they don’t extend that love towards people who disagree with the gay lifestyle, so hate really won on that day). The argument is that because homosexuals “love” each other, that gives them the right to fulfil their sexual desires.

This argument commits three sub-fallacies within itself: equivocation, special pleading, and argumentum ad populum (literally, “an argument to the people”). Equivocation occurs when the definition of a word changes in the middle of a proposition or syllogism (i.e. a discussion). A person who is sexually attracted to their dog, mother, or even little children could take the same argument as homosexual advocates to justify their lust. However, someone using this argument for homosexuality will quickly and angrily say it’s not the same thing, although it is when one uses the same logic in a similar situation. The definition of love suddenly changes when the definition of their narrative fits a narrative they disagree with.

Christians have forewarned that if gay marriage is legalised, then pedophiles will also use this love fallacy to legally marry and have sex with children, and indeed they have (see this article for details). The argument used with the love fallacy is that love justifies all things—that if you love this person or thing, then you have the right to have sex with them and even marry them. However, if one uses that same logic towards something other than the homosexual drive, suddenly the definition changes to mean something else. This is precisely the fallacy of equivocation. A person cannot assign a definition to love that supports their perspective then suddenly change that definition into something else when it’s used for a different perspective they disagree with. Therefore, the love argument is invalid.

The Love Fallacy & Special Pleading

Special pleading is when a law or rule applies to every circumstance except a specific circumstance because of a unique property it has. Unfortunately, Christians commit this fallacy often. With this fallacy, Christians have the knowledge that God defines homosexuality as a sin, along with other sexual sins, but they will make the exception with homosexuality and accept the sin whether it’s because they know someone who’s gay and doesn’t want to offend their friend or loved one or because they believe it’s “not as bad” as adultery, premarital sex, rape, bestiality, or pedophilia. It is logically fallacious to be aware of a category of sins/wrongs (sexual perversions in this case) yet deny the sinfulness of one of those sins just because one cannot manage to agree with that part of God’s decree. We don’t get to pick and choose what is and what is not sin. Only God can define sin, and He has done that in Scripture.

An example of special pleading is a mother who says, “Yes, Your Honour, I know all convicted drunk drivers go to jail, but he’s my son! He’s a good boy who’s just made a mistake!” Sure, he may have made a mistake, but the law and the magistrate don’t care; the law shows no partiality, has no compassion, and it certainly does not care about your circumstances or prior reputation. If you break the law, you break the law and deserve to face the consequences.

Currently, I have a spotless criminal record; there is not a single crime on my record. Yet if I were to drunk drive tomorrow or get caught shoplifting, the law is not going to look at my past and waive my sentence just because I was previously a “good person” or good citizen. The law dictates the illegal act as wrong and sentences the proper punishment. I don’t get a pass just because I’m a good citizen.

In the same way, special pleading with homosexuality is, “Yes, God, I know all the sexual sins You’ve listed in Scripture are sinful, but homosexuals love each other, so it’s okay!” Or, “My friend is gay, and he’s a good person and I don’t want to lose their friendship, so it’s okay!” Wrong, it’s not okay. God shows no partiality (Romans 2:11), so to say God doesn’t care because they “love” each other is in fact an enormous lie. Their “love” (read: lust) for one another does not exempt them from God’s Law.

In fact, we could use that defence for any sin. We humans love to sin, and we could rationalise all day long that the sin is okay since we enjoy it, but God shows no partiality and has defined sin and there is nothing we can do to redefine it. Well, we can redefine sin—as we often do—but it’s unjustifiable. The Law of God dictates homosexuality is a sin and that if you commit any sin, including homosexuality, you are condemned, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). However, there is forgiveness (1 John 1:9), there is redemption (Ephesians 1:7), and there is freedom to overcome our sin in Jesus Christ who died for our sins (1 Corinthians 10:13).

The Love Fallacy & Argumentum ad Populum

Before we get into the next major fallacy, argumentum ad populum is an argument claiming to be inherently true or false because the majority of the population confirms it to be so. This is a major flaw in rationality, yet humourously gone unnoticed. The majority of Nazi Germany, for example, practised this fallacy to justify their belief that it was right to kill Jews, the mentally ill, and anyone else who didn’t subjugate to their idealism, but did that make it morally right? Of course not because God defined murder as sin and genocide is an improper use of government.

Murder and genocide didn’t suddenly become morally justifiable just because there was a majority consensus that accepted it. It’s the same thing with homosexuality. Popular consensus does not define sin or make something moral when both natural law and God’s Law say otherwise. Humans don’t get to redefine sin. God defines it, and Scripture is where we have a record of His definition. As I established earlier, the Bible states in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality and all other kinds of actions are sinful. You can believe what you choose to believe, but that does not change what the Word of God has declared and there is nothing our puny minds can do to change that.

The Born-This-Way Fallacy

In my discussions with people, many of them believe homosexuality is a gene one is born with and several of them have asked me, “When did you choose to be straight,” as if it’s their trump card for the “legitimacy” of homosexuality. My answer is this: I didn’t choose to be straight; God made me straight. All people are born within the male and female order of creation. Even natural law (science) agrees with this. If I choose any other sexual deviancy (LGBT, adultery, premarital sex, etc.), I am choosing a perversion of God’s good design. Those who propose there is a gay gene make the claim with no scientific evidence whatsoever. It is not science; it is dogma.

No one is born having decided they’re going to be an adulterer, or a rapist, or a sexual sadist, or any other sexual perversity; and neither is there a single type of gene that destines people to commit certain sexual deviancies whether it’s homosexuality or premarital sex. Homosexuals are no different and no more special than other sexual deviants who choose to act outside the sexual order of God’s creation (which was a monogamous marriage free of sex prior to marriage, free of adultery, etc.). When we choose to sexually act out of God’s created order, we are willingly choosing to act on sexual desires outside of God’s will, which He has defined as sinful, rather than embracing what God has commanded.

All of these choices are made by turning away from God’s intention of what is acceptable, not away from some mythical neutrality based on an evolutionary view of man. But even evolution speaks against homosexuality. Here’s an excerpt from World Net Daily on the basis that even if a gay gene hypothetically existed, it would quickly be nullified and therefore still be irrelevant:

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back 10 generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate what would happen. Even a slight difference would cause a homosexual gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children?

In other words, true homosexuals cannot have heterosexual sex because of a lack of being aroused by the opposite sex. However, homosexual supporters will bring bisexuals into account, but if you’re bisexual you’re not truly homosexual, so there cannot be a purely homosexual gene for it if you’re not completely and utterly homosexual. And if one truly is homosexual, that “gene” would be canceled out by evolution since it cannot have a chance to be reproduced into another human being with a complementary sex to pass it on. Irvin continues:

Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool. Ask any genetics teacher, “Could homosexuality be genetic if there is no mechanism for gays to pass their genes on to children as frequently as straights pass genes on to their children?” While you are at it, propose any percentage of gays in the starting population and any fertility rates for gays and straights, and ask for the mathematical calculations of how rapidly a homosexual gene would die out. (qtd. Irvin, 2012.)

So, even if there were a gene for homosexuality, the gene would quickly fall out of the gene pool with the overwhelming population of heterosexual genes at the rate they reproduce. Not to mention the fact there’s no true way for a homosexual gene to live on without actual sexual reproduction; and one who claims to be gay cannot truly be gay (and therefore lack the “gene”) if he or she has heterosexual sex.

Furthermore, without the foundation of a moral absolute, there is no basis upon which anyone can call any kind of sexual behaviour right or wrong; they can only call it different and pass no moral judgements. As Christians, we look to God for the absolute truth and trust His revealed Word to make our judgements. Arguing that people are born gay and that it is therefore not a choice is arguing against what God has revealed as His will in His Word, and indeed against the science of nature itself, which God created and rules over.

Sexual orientation that’s anything other than heterosexuality is a social construct, not genetic. Even if people have the propensity to seek sexual affection from the same sex, that does not make it right or “normal.” From this line of logic, the people making this argument would have to dismiss other moral wrongs and sins because people have the propensity to commit adultery, compulsively lie, murder, rape, steal, and so on. Any moral perversion, from the propensity to be a compulsive liar to the propensity to be a murderer, would have to be justified under the same “born-this-way” argument. We would then have to dismiss certain serial killers for their actions because their brain chemistry makes it “normal” for them as an individual human being. Of course, gay rights advocates will disagree, once again committing the fallacy of equivocation.

The Happiness Fallacy

This argument proposes homosexuality is acceptable because “everyone has the right to be happy.” This is the asinine new age thinking modern western civilisations have developed, which heretical preachers like Joel Osteen have adopted for their heretical prosperity gospel. Following this line of logic that everyone deserves to be happy supposes that if something makes you happy, you should be allowed to do it. This leaves no room for morality and anyone who adds morality into the equation becomes self-contradicting.

The underlying problem with this thinking is: who becomes the definer of happiness? Moreover, who gets to decide whether this happiness is moral or not? Who gets to have that power? The growing popularity of moral/cultural relativism suggests: if it is right for you and makes you happy, then it’s right. Truth, then, becomes subjective rather than absolute and truth ultimately becomes annulled.

Following this worldly thinking, we would have to accept all sorts of morally wrong behaviour based on one’s “happiness.” Murderers are happy murdering innocent people. Sexual sadists are happy raping women and molesting children. Many men are happy viewing women as sexual objects and having sex with as many of them as they can, and the same goes for women with men. So, by this logic, we could justify all such peoples’ actions since it makes them happy. And again, gay rights advocates will object and then we’re back to the equivocation fallacy again. 

Notice any patterns here? Homosexuals and their advocates come up with many arguments to justify their sin, and as soon as their logic is used against them to expose the falsity of their worldview, they disagree with it and the definition suddenly changes, then the cycle repeats itself. If you have to do that, then the sin you wish to live in is not inherently moral.

A Call to Repentance

Please remember that homosexuality is not the only sexual sin and neither is it the worst. (If you haven’t gotten that by now with the many times I’ve said “and other sexual sins,” then you need to pay more attention.) Aside from homosexuality, God also condemns adultery (Matthew 15:19; Hebrews 13:4). God condemns bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). God condemns incest (Leviticus 18:6-7; 1 Corinthians 5:1). God condemns rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-28). Lastly, God condemns fornication, which is premarital sex and promiscuity (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18).

People who are unrepentant of all these sexual immoralities, including homosexuality as well as other non-sexual sins, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Speaking of this passage I just referenced, if you support homosexuality or you are a homosexual, you may have heard that passage thrown at you numerous times. Or if you’re not gay and you oppose it, you may have been the one throwing the passage at people (which I exhort you to stop). In either instance, verse eleven is always left out, which says, “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.” 

Christians in the Corinthian church were guilty of all these sins Paul listed in verses 9 and 10, including homosexuality, but then he reminded them of their baptism in verse 11, so this word is for believers and not unbelievers because he was reminding the Corinthian church of their baptism. But if you’re not a believer, then it’s not too late to believe and be baptised and forsake your sins! As Christians, because we are justified by Christ in our baptism, all of these sins (and more) are unnatural ways of life. We have been forgiven for these sins; therefore, we must not continue to live in them unrepentantly like the Corinthian church was doing, otherwise we are denying what God has done in our baptism as well as denying the Holy Spirit. Whichever sin enslaves you, turn from your wicked ways and let Christ enable you to overcome it! God forgives and cleanses all our sins.

Therefore, do not fret. Through baptism, daily repentance, and the forsaking of our sins through the Spirit, we are able to be free from any sin that enslaves us. After confession, forsaking the sin must follow. If you repent of a sin and yet still commit the sin, then you’re still guilty of it. “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy” (Proverbs 28:13). Confessing the sin grants you forgiveness, but physically forsaking it frees you from its physical bondage, which can only be done through the strength of Christ. Otherwise, how can you be free from the physical clutches of the sin you were once bound to when you still practise it?

I’m not implying you’re saved by works. God forgives us before we even ask. However, consider a criminal who served his or her sentence and upon being released for completing their sentence, they commit the crime again. Obviously they’re still guilty of that crime because they committed it again. Or say you’re a recovering drug addict. If you start indulging in the drug again after a period of sobriety, are you still sober? Of course not. It’s the same thing with sin.

Even when I lie, repent of that lie, and commit a lie again, I’m still guilty of lying again. So it is with any other sin. Repenting of the sin with a contrite heart results in God’s immediate forgiveness, but if you continue to commit the sin in spite of the repentance, then you’re still guilty of that sin because obviously you weren’t contrite enough to forsake it. God still forgives you, but you’re still guilty of that sin if you just turn right back to it.

As a Christian, this going back to the sin doesn’t condemn you since you’re justified, but all sin has the danger of becoming our idol (replacing God) until it—God forbid—leads you away from the faith. Just look at the number of homosexuals who renounced their faith in Christ because they’d rather live in the homosexual lifestyle. Even the number of those who renounce the numerous sections in God’s Word condemning their sin while claiming to be practising “Christians.” A homosexual who repents of their sin and temptations will still suffer with the temptations, just as I still suffer with my heterosexual temptations in having sex with women before marriage, but I’ve repented and by the strength of Christ alone I no longer commit that sin. Homosexuals can do the same thing by the grace of God.

Baptism cleanses the Christian from sin. Forsaking a sin enables us to live free of its shame, misery, and judgement. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Likewise, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).

Conclusion

Suffering in sin is an inevitable part of life we all must endure in a sinful world. The good news is that God enables us to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13). Whether we allow it to overwhelm us and therefore rule our lives or let God take control is ultimately up to us. It may require some necessary and arduous sacrifices. The sacrifice for non-reformative homosexuality is celibacy for one’s entire life (just as it is for the forgiven pedophile). I have to make sacrifices myself as a recovering pornography addict. By the mercy and grace of God, I’m already forgiven for my sin in my repentance and baptism. But the cost of discipleship is to follow Christ above all things. In order to not relapse, I’ve had to make the sacrifice of not watching sexually suggestive movies and TV shows, most of which I actually enjoy on the entertainment side. For example, I’m a fan of Game of Thrones, but in the past that show has caused me to relapse several times because of its nudity and sex scenes, so I’ve had to give up watching that show for the sake of my sexual purity—for the sake of following Christ.

In this way, we can see how faith truly is a gift as one is enabled through the grace of Christ to conquer the sin and its dominion over him or her rather than living completely bound to its chains. Sure, sex may feel great, but do you absolutely need it? One may say yes, but unless you’re planning on procreating or you’re in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, sex is not necessary at all. Sex is a privilege, not a right. I personally know some Christian men who suffer with same-sex attraction, but they’ve repented, and as a response to God’s merciful forgiveness they no longer practise homosexual acts. Although the temptations are still there for them—as it is for any other sinner with their favourite sins—by the grace of God they no longer act on them Temptation remains with us, but by the strength of Christ they don’t act on their haunting sin anymore, just as I don’t with pornography.

God is faithful and just and He forgives their sins, and my sin, cleansing us from all unrighteousness because He always remains faithful even we are faithless.

Bibliography

Irvin, P. (2012, October 21). Proof You Can’t be ‘Born Gay.’ Retrieved October 14, 2015, from http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/why-you-cant-be-born-gay/