Do these genes make me look gay?

October 16, 2007 at 6:56 pm (God thoughts, Politics thoughts)

Once again we read of a new effort for scientist to find the “gay gene”. This foxnews article describes a federally funded study of 1000 pairs a gay brothers that will determine if they really are “born that way” and that it’s “natural”.

How do you recruit 1000 pairs of gay brothers? With a website called “” of course.

While I understand the majority of my readers hold to traditionally Christian ethics I will try and look at this topic from an objective opinion. I’ll allow you, my loyal readers, to throw in all of the subjective criticism that you’d like.

Lets talk about this from a secularist point of view.  If it is somehow discovered that homosexuality is a genetic condition what benefits does American society as a whole receive?

#1) This should enable us to make just laws punishing those who discriminate against homosexuals.

#2) This should enable us to factually teach homosexuality as a viable and normal lifestyle throughout the public education system.

#3) This will provide us with the framework to legalize homosexual unions (the marriage kind, not the labor kind).

#4)  This will help make a less stressful environment to those who are trying to decide to “come out of the closet”.

#5) This will cause religious communities to be more tolerant and open in their membership.

I suppose I could continue with potential benefits of successfully finding the “gay gene” but something just hit me.

Don’t the gays already have all these things?

#1) It is illegal to discriminate against gays in 20 states, 140 cities and counties and in all federal positions. In 32 states “bias motivated violence or intimidation” towards homosexuals is a criminal act.

#2)  Here in California the public school system (by law) teaches homosexuality as “normal sexual behavior”. It has been reported to me by multiple witnesses at different institutions that teachers have taught the “discovery of a gay gene” for years now. That’s odd considering we are presently funding research to find a gay gene.

#3) It’s frightening to think that with no such scientific  framework some states already have legalized homosexual marriages. With Massachusetts leading the way there is tremendous hope for losers perverts throughout the country who might just get smitten with their vacuum cleaner (see this article about legalizing marriage to robots by 2050).

#4) The idea that “coming out of the closet” is anything but fashionable is preposterous. Look at this list of the top 10 most powerful Christians in Hollywood. How many of them had you heard of? Do you think you could come up with 10 more popular homosexuals? Or how abut this little experiment. Watch the 10 most popular TV shows, movies or books. Compare the number of favorable homosexual references to favorable Christian references. How about the fashion industry? Who do you think is going to be more accepted; gay designer or Christian designer? heck make it gay designer or straight designer?  While I’m sure it must be difficult for someone who is raised in a family where homosexuality is a sin to admit their preference doesn’t it make sense for their family to be consistent with their rebellious child? What is with the insistence that children tell their parents what is right and wrong? I’m not seeing it.

#5) Along similar line is the question of religious tolerance. A disturbing number of churches are allowing cultural trends to apply some sort of “spiritual white out” to their sacred writings. For every organization that calls itself a “church” and allows this, I pity you. Just like children ought not to tell their parents what is “right” parishioners ought not to tell their scriptures, pastors and denominational leadership what is “right”.

So there you have it. The 5 main benefits of this “study” have already been realized in the homosexual community. It is therefore my conclusion that such a study will only backfire and produce the unwanted reality that homosexuality is not a genetic orientation but rather an individual choice. Unfortunately I doubt highly that the truth will cause the reversal of any of the above, but we can always hope right?



  1. RubeRad said,

    Even if there is a gay gene, so what? We already know that predisposition to alcoholism has a genetic component, so why aren’t the troops rallying to eliminate those discriminatory drunk driving laws? Or enact laws to ensure that nobody can be fired or divorced or convicted of spousal abuse on the grounds of alcoholism?

    And if there are indeed genetic components to sexual preference, what happens when they find the pedophile gene? Will that suddenly make it OK?

  2. danielbalc said,

    For one thing I highly doubt there is. There may be a common gene that homosexuals share but what about those homosexuals who DON’T have that gene. Are they fakers? Isn’t the only way to definitively prove a gay gene by showing it is in 100% of those tested? There is no way. no possible way. Not in a culture where homosexuality is glamorized as it is in ours.

    What they will “discover” is that such and such gene MAY contribute to homosexual urges. They always say “may”.

    meanwhile they have other genes that they say…

    This gene gives you black hair and this gene gives you blue eyes.


    Ultimately maybe this will all go like X-men 3 and they can create a “cure” for homosexuality like they are looking for a “cure” for alcoholism.

    BTW where is the research that shows alcoholism is a genetic disorder?

  3. Echo_ohcE said,

    The motive behind this is simple: make Christians think that gays are not to blame for their behavior. It’s all about waging war on the law of God.

    But I would say a few words to us Christians about this. What do you think? Do you think you were born with some disposition to sin? Don’t we talk about people being born with original sin? Don’t we know that there can be no son of Adam who isn’t sinful? Don’t we know that this is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so that he could be born the Second Adam, born without a predisposition to sin?

    We inherit sinful tendencies from our fathers. Whether it is in the genes or not, I don’t know, but consider what God says his name is in Exodus 34:6-7.

    “The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands,forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.””
    (Exodus 34:6-7 ESV)

    This is God’s NAME. He is the one who visits the sins of the fathers on the children.

    It would therefore be no surprise to me to find that there is a gay gene. But we as Christians must not allow doctors to trump the Word of God. God says sin is wrong, that it is sin, yet we all do it because we are sons of Adam. We have inherited Adam’s sinful tendency. That does not absolve us of responsibility.

    The motive of these people is to make YOU think that homosexuality is not their fault.

    Everyone is saying today that everything is a disease. It’s all about saying that sin is something other than sin. If someone works too much and is stressed out about details, why, he has not sinned, he’s a type A personality.

    If someone is sinful, well, it’s just part of who they are, and we need to appreciate the different types of people we all are.

    Lies. Don’t believe them. Listen to what God says.

  4. danielbalc said,


    Interesting you would quote Ex 34:6-7 I just preached that passage Sunday.

    but back to point.

    While I agree completely that sin is something that everyone is born in the idea of sin it would be unwise for us to think that it is our genetics that cause us to sin.

    While it is our genetics that determine if we are male or female, tall or short, blonde or brunette none of those things are sinful.

    The idea that the genes are sinful (or lead us into sin) allows us to promote the idea that we can sure our selves of sin. That’s not possible. Won’t ever be possible. Can’t be possible.

    As for homosexuality being genetic, again the Bible describes the action as “unnatural” (Romans 1:26).

    And again if it were genetic how could that gene continue to make it’s way into people? A homosexual gene would die off as homosexuals continued to fail in their efforts of procreating with the wrong gender.

  5. Alex said,

    Love the title. Very witty. I like your point Daniel that if it were a gene they would eventually become extinct. That is if it is hereditary… Is a gene in and of itself hereditary? And then why would the number of gays be increasing tremendously in the last two hundred years?? There are just so many things wrong with this theory.

  6. 5najeras said,

    That was me! Hehe!

  7. itsasecret2u said,

    I only have a very basic understanding of genetics, but I think there is a difference between something being straight-up genetically passed down from parent to child (think blood-type… I’m O, my husband is A with an O parent so he is an O carrier. Our kids HAVE to be either O if they get the recessive gene from Franky or A if they get his dominant A gene) and something having a “genetic link” (think alcoholism where there is a gene that influences a tendency toward dependence upon that substance). So while the point of the “gene” dying out is intriguing and would warrant some study, I don’t think it would stand up to much scientific scrutiny.

    Anyway, I’m on board with Echo here. I think homosexuality is like any other sin: some people are born with a tendency toward that sin. Just like the “alcoholism gene,” it is probably true that it is harder for that particular person with that particular genetic make-up (or call it a personality if you like) to resist that particular sin. But that changes absolutely nothing. It IS unnatural. The act of being with someone of the same sex is unnatural. It’s unnatural to “fall in love” with someone of the same sex. But couldn’t it be natural to have a hard time resisting that sin, just like it is natural to be selfish? It doesn’t make it correct. It doesn’t make it acceptable.

    Incidentally, I know some gay brothers. I wonder if they are part of this study…

  8. Echo_ohcE said,


    You understood perfectly what I was trying to say.


  9. Bruce S. said,

    Nerve endings. That’s all this is about. Nerve endings.

  10. danielbalc said,

    first of all I’m very proud that 5N liked my title.

    secondly I understand the point that echo and secret are reiterating, but I don’t believe it.

    I’m of the opinion that it is more societal and psychological/philosophical factors that lean depraved humanity towards one sin and not towards another.

    Thus the percentages of homosexuality fluctuate between the cultures. As we have heard, “there are no gays in Iran.”

    While that statement is laughable, doesn’t it stand to reason that if there is a lesser and greater percentage of a certain “genetic trait” that transcends racial characteristics (which is another bogus idea) than there would be a uniformity of percentages globally as well as historically?

    It just seems so obvious to me that gayness as it is demonstrated in our country is more cultural than biological.

  11. RubeRad said,

    What they will “discover” is that such and such gene MAY contribute to homosexual urges. They always say “may”.

    That’s because it’s true. Very rarely is a single gene to blame for any particular thing (although I think there a number of actual, medical-problem-type diseases that are the result of a specific mutation in a single gene). Usually, a large number of genes (nature), as well as nurture, contribute to an effect.

    BTW where is the research that shows alcoholism is a genetic disorder?

    Google sez

    A homosexual gene would die off as homosexuals continued to fail in their efforts of procreating with the wrong gender.

    (a) not in a situation of abundance, where there is little or no selective pressure against any unfit trait (exhibit A: Jerry Springer guests — those freaks are multiplyin’ like rabbits!), and (b) there are plenty of gays who testify that they used to be married, and had kids, out of cultural pressure.

    Yeesh! I’m starting to sound like a gay apologist! Let me reiterate, even if it’s genetic, it’s still a sin. Echo made the point even better: we are all born into sin. Paul made the point best in his answer to the question “Why have you made me like this?

    But we may still hope for victory by numbers on the genetics front: check this out

  12. danielbalc said,

    in hardly related news this SHOCKING revelation comes out…,2933,302527,00.html

    apparently Ellen Degeneres actually does have a hair stylist.

  13. Alex said,

    The Bible never differentiates between “sin based on genetics” or “sin based on societal and psychological/philosophical factors.” It is all just sin. We are born sinners. I guess you can say that we have have been genetically made to sin. I believe we are seeing an increase of homosexuals because of society’s acceptance of this sinful lifestyle as much as we are seeing an increase in heterosexuals “shagging” before marriage. I think it’s just as difficult to remain a “shagless” christian single than it is for a gay man to not act on his gayness. Whether we are talking about homosexaulity, alcohol or “shagging”, the bottomline is self control.

    Galatians 5:16-26

    16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
    19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

  14. Pablo Honey said,

    So apparently it is a good idea to have a small dog in a house full of cats but not with children under 14? What a crazy story. The dog adoption thing is getting out of hand. I am all for putting animals in good homes, but the requirements these places set up are just ridiculous. The good news is that Bob Barker is trying to solve this thing “Remember to have your pets spayed or neutered!” But when is he going to take it to congress?

  15. danielbalc said,

    He needs to enlist the help of George Clooney.

  16. danielbalc said,

    Re 11

    Rube thanks for the google links but this page in particular stood out as it had this to say about the genetics of alcoholism…

    “Alcoholism, Genetic Factors

    The contribution of genetics to alcoholism and other diseases having addictive behavior has been wrought with controversy for the past two hundred years. Because this is a politically and socially charged issue, there has been much debate regarding the true genetic contribution to alcoholism. Traditional medicine states that disease can be attributed to certain environmental conditions, specific gene alleles inherited from the parents or some combination of both of these factors. Most estimates of the contribution of genetics to alcoholism put the contribution of genetics about equal to that of the environment. Thus, the contribution of genetics to the disease is said to be about 50%. It should be noted, however, that various researchers have put this contribution as low as 10% or as high as 70%.”

    50% 10% 70%?

    Which is it? hardly conclusive and precisely the debate we are having right now regarding homosexuality. The difference is that there hasn’t been many real homo studies while there has been alchy studies. But in either case they lack that term “conclusive”

  17. 5najeras said,

    Does anyone know if Drew Carey is following in his neutered footsteps??

  18. danielbalc said,

    Just 10 minutes ago on the radio I heard that Drew is continuing Bob’s quest to control the pet population.

    Sort of a tribute to the legend I guess.

  19. itsasecret2u said,

    I think that there are probably a huge number of “gay people” (I put it in quotes because otherwise it sounds as though it is something out of the person’s control) in this country and others who have turned to that lifestyle as a result of the glamorized state of homosexuality in our society. I also think a lot of people go there (particularly boys) because of some sort of negative, traumatic experience as a child, possibly in combination with strange parental relationships. Every gay person I have personally known has had this distinction. That doesn’t change the fact that I still think there are some people born into having homosexual urges more than others, just like some people have a harder time not gossiping than others (or whatever… pick your favorite sin). Again – it’s still just sin. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, why it happens, etc. It is sin that needs to be controlled.

    As a side note, I too, was shocked by that story you linked up to, Daniel. I can’t believe she has a hairstylist either…

  20. Zrim said,

    “…some people born into having homosexual urges more than others, just like some people have a harder time not gossiping than others (or whatever… pick your favorite sin). Again – it’s still just sin. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, why it happens, etc. It is sin that needs to be controlled …”

    The attempt to put all sins on an equal ground is disingenuous. Where are the all the invectives against the “gossipers coming to take over our world with their agendas”? I know, I know, no where because gossipers aren’t trying to take over the world like “the gays” are…

    Where are counterpart “make ’em truth tellers” to the “make ’em straight factories”? Don’t flatten out all sins to be equal in an attempt to appear an equal opportunity-like. This is such a common ploy by those who want everyone to believe they are not being “judgmental.” Admit that sexual sins are just plain different from others and they get you riled up. “Same as gossip,” please.

    Most homosexuals are born that way. No one need feign psuedo-science to prove it one way or another. Believe it or not, sexuality was not the one thing that slipped under the door of the Fall. And admitting that gays are born that way doesn’t imply all is well; why do people fall for the “nature implies correctness” argument? People are born blind and with Autism; it doesn’t mean it is supposed to be that way, but it is usually best to admit that it is real and not made up just because it makes you uncomfortable. The project is not to make homsexuality acceptable so that everyone fits in. But neither is it the right project to still hold out that the proverbial jury is out so we can continue to gang-bang them as not really being gay. Admit it, homosexuality is real. My wife and her family used to tell my gay BIL it was all in his head, etc. They used to go through all the usual antics that ultra-conservatives do, and he’s still gay. He will be gay his whole life. And it’s no cover for yourself to say it is just as bad as gossiping, since they are not usually treated with as much charity as the town’s/church’s local blabber-mouth. And that’s because they are different sins, and you know it.


  21. danielbalc said,

    Most homosexuals are born that way. No one need feign psuedo-science to prove it one way or another.

    right, we don’t need to prove it since you’ve certified it by placing your stamp upon it: FACT.

    How can you speak so boldly without any science (psuedo or actual) backing you up?

    My distaste for the homosexual agenda isn’t that it goes against my religious belief’s, but because it never did anything but manipulate majority opinion (via a radical media blitz) in order to get there.

    Think about it. Why do you believe, “most homosexuals are born that way”? Personal experience? Scientific research? Historical observation? Logic? or simply because pop culture tells us so?

    When an entire nation (perhaps planet) can be convinced in a as short a time as a generation that something is the exact opposite of what it actually is (or at least previously was thought to be) without any actual scientific teachings, what else are we susceptible to?

  22. itsasecret2u said,


    In yet another attempt to blast evgangys who are “just like your family,” you have completely missed what I was saying. The price of ANY sin is death, whether they be sexual sins or not. That puts it all on a level playing field in God’s eyes. In fact, what I was saying is pretty closely-related to what you said in your last paragraph. I do think that “gay people” are born with more natural urges toward that sin than others. People struggle with different things. I’m saying it doesn’t make the sin any more acceptable just because you have a natural urge toward it.

    And you are wrong on two other counts: I do treat those who profess they are Christians and struggle with the sin of homosexuality quite the same as I do those who profess they are Christians and struggle with the sin of gossip. I’m not talking in theory, either. I know people in this situation. I also could give a crap if people think I’m judgmental. Of course they think I’m judgmental. Half of my family is very religiously and politically liberal. I have been called narrow-minded more times than I care to count. So my statements have absolutely nothing to do with trying to appear one way or another. You really shouldn’t assume so much.

  23. Echo_ohcE said,

    Hooray for Secret and Alex’s posts. Boo for Daniel.

    About Secret and Alex I say nothing, except hooray.

    Daniel gets booed, because it seems to me that he is fighting the wrong battle. He seems to be trying to argue that it isn’t genetic, that alcoholism isn’t genetic, etc. It seems to me that the right battle is to say, “So what if it IS genetic? It does not resolve one of guilt.” That’s the battle we need to be fighting. To fight Daniel’s battle seems to accept the premise that if it were genetic, it wouldn’t incur guilt. But again, we all, every single one of us, we all inherit a sinful nature, whether we say that it is in the genes or not. Who cares if it is in the genes. We are born sinful. All of us. I’m sure some homosexuals are born that way, just as I was born with certain sinful tendencies, and don’t struggle with others. Maybe we are ALL born with ALL sinful tendencies, and our upbringing gives us a taste for one or the other.


    In Rom 1, Paul puts homosexuals in the same category as children who disobey their parents: fallen. Paul doesn’t say that homosexuality is a super sin, but he knows that most of us find that grotesque. What he’s saying is that fallen man has no scruples in his expression of hatred toward God, so much so that even homosexuality, which we all know is wrong, is something fallen man has done. He is proving that fallen man KNOWS that he has done wrong, that he KNOWS he’s giving God the middle finger. You do it, I do it, we ALL do it – KNOWINGLY.

    “Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.”

    “They exchanged the truth for the lie.”

    “They worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.”

    The point is not how sinful some are and some aren’t, any more than the point is that some have a strong faith and some have a weak faith. Jesus said faith the size of a mustard seed will do the trick. In the same way, just a tiny sin lands you in hell.

    Secret nailed it right on the head.

    And yes, this is why we should not judge or condemn anyone. We do not have the right because we “do the same things”. Paul says to everyone, after he has talked about the depth of human depravity that knows no bounds, as exemplified by homosexuals, that we all do the same things. I am no less a sinner for my gossip than a homosexual.

    Does that mean I’m getting soft on homosexuality? No, it means I take gossip seriously.

  24. danielbalc said,

    Echo you are missing my point.

    I am not trying to look at this from a Christian POV. I am looking at from our societies POV.

    We have simply accepted homosexuality as a fact of genetic makeup WITHOUT any scientific backing. Doesn’t that seem strange to you? Doesn’t that seem wrong?

    If and when the scientist come out and say “we’ve discovered this gen that may contribute to homosexual desires” I will absolutley say, “so what”. But how can I do that without the research ever having been done? How can EVERYONE do that? How can we make laws, write text books and glamorize something that we can’t prove is what we all say it is?

    but wait there is more…

    They don’t want to find a gene that may contribute to homosexual urges. like they’ve found one that may contribute to alcohol dependency. If they do, all they have done is to classify homosexuality as a disease. That is the LAST thing they want.

    They want to find a gene that says homosexuality is as natural as the color of your hair, eyes and skin. They want you to believe (and it sounds like you do) that being born gay is like being born male or female.

    If they find this gene and then how can you say “so what”? unless you want to also say that the color of your hair, eyes and skin is sinful.

    how is this being missed?

  25. danielbalc said,

    Here is another way of looking at it.

    If they were to make all laws regarding homosexuals to be equal to that of religious groups I would have no problem with it.

    What this does is to acknowledge it is their choice and we won’t discriminate against you based on your choice. However they are making laws to protect homosexuals as if it were not a choice. As if it were as natural as the color of your skin.

    Echo do you know your schools discrimination policy?
    Here it is

    Non-Discrimination Policy
    Westminster Seminary California does not discriminate on the basis of race, age, color, national and ethnic origin, disability, or gender in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, services, or scholarship and loan programs.

    Thats a darn good policy. Do you know why? because not one of those things mentioned is a choice. With the possible exceptions of disability and national origin, they are all “genetic”.

    You can’t be consistent in believing homosexuality is genetic (to the degree the world believes it) and then discriminate against it.

    As it is your school doesn’t have to accept taoist, mormons, charismatics or homosexuals. Because each of those is a choice. Our laws are written acknowledging and protecting those choices to a certain degree. Soon (and without any actual evidence) homosexuality will be penciled into our laws as equal to “race, age, color, national and ethnic origin, disability, or gender”. Don’t you think that is something worth fighting against?

  26. itsasecret2u said,

    You can’t be consistent in believing homosexuality is genetic (to the degree the world believes it) and then discriminate against it.

    That is true. But that’s only if you believe that genetic predispositions inevitably lead to conditions and lifestyles outside a person’s control, which I don’t. Example: My husband likely has a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. I get a little drunk just looking at his family tree. Yet he is not an alcoholic. Why? Because he’s made a choice not to live his life that way. He still struggles with the urges to overindulge in alcohol. He just no longer gives in to them… something he could only do with God’s help.

    Homosexuality is, in my opinion based on my observations, the same. It is a sin-lifestyle (like alcoholism) that some people will be drawn to while others will not. I believe that these urges are inborn (in some, practiced by others who are simply rebellious, hedonistic, or enjoy the glamorized status of homosexuality offered in our society). So I guess I fall somewhere in between what society believes (it’s “genetic” and they can’t help it!) and what you were saying earlier (there is no such thing as a genetic predisposition toward gayness). At least, I think that’s what you were saying…

  27. danielbalc said,

    Again Secret,

    I’m not saying that there is “no such thing as a genetic predisposition towards gayness”. I’m saying nobody knows! Nobody has proven it!

    And yet you, Echo, Zrim, and virtually every other American citizen speaks of the subject as if it were a foregone conclusion. Like it’s common knowledge that gayness is genetic.

    You are all walking talking examples of the brainwashing of our culture. Let it be proved and then deal with the “so what”. But we need to stop simply forfeiting every teaching to popular opinion. We need to stop letting political correctness rule over critical thinking.

  28. itsasecret2u said,

    It’s not about political correctness. My conclusion has been drawn from personally knowing (in a friend context and also co-worker context) dozens of gay people. That’s why I said this is my opinion based upon my observation.

  29. danielbalc said,

    Political correctness is a dangerous monster with long tentacles.

    Your observations and your personal experiences don’t stop it from being PC. It just means that the people you’ve seen, known, and been involved with were just as subject to popular opinion as the rest of us.

  30. itsasecret2u said,

    Actually, I think what I’m saying is not politcally correct anywhere. What society says is politcally correct in our liberal “worldly” world. What you’re saying is politcally correct in the conservative Christian world. Incidentally, what is your opinion of the “homosexuality gene” based on? In comment #2 you stated:

    For one thing I highly doubt there is [a homosexual gene]

    Where does this opinion come from? Your primary (and perhaps exclusive) exposure to conservative views may have something to do with it, eh? But it’s not based on science or research any more than mine is… is it?

  31. Echo_ohcE said,


    I think I follow your point.

    I am by no means accepting the idea that homosexuality may be genetic. In fact, I don’t even like talking about homosexuals as such, but prefer to talk about people that engage in homosexual activity, because I don’t even want to allow that to be something that defines them as a human being. The fact that I gossiped yesterday doesn’t tell you who I am, but rather what I did yesterday. Sure it says something about my wicked heart, but whatever.

    Anyway, your point is that we need to fight against people accepting that homosexuality may be genetic. I can see why you’d want to fight that battle.

    But I see myself as arguing even a FURTHER step, saying that the question is irrelevant. Does it MATTER if it’s genetic or not? No. Therefore, all those people who are wasting time and energy to figure out if it IS genetic are doing just that: wasting time and energy.

    You are trying to say that their struggle to discover whether or not being gay is genetic is doomed to fail, while I am saying that their struggle is a complete waste of time, no matter the outcome.

    I do NOT by any means think that being gay is genetic. I do NOT by any means think that being gay is like inheriting brown hair. I do NOT think it’s natural.

    But I also don’t think sin is NATURAL. Sin is UNnatural. Death is UNnatural. We all rightly mourn death because it is unnatural. Nonetheless, we all die. Does that make it natural? No, it’s part of the common curse that is common to all mankind.

    I say that we are born with a sinful nature. We are born guilty because we are the offspring of Adam. We are all born dead in sin, like spiritual still-borns. We are all born sinful, but this is unnatural.

    Is it a matter of genes that we are born with a sinful nature? I don’t know, nor do I care. That’s my point. I don’t CARE. Perhaps it is that we inherit – even genetically – our sinful nature from our parents. Fine. What’s the difference? Who cares? Sin is still sin and rightly punished by God. We are all responsible for our sin.

    Has God made it so that everyone born a son of Adam is sinful from birth? Yup. Are we guilty in our mother’s womb? Yup. Does that mean God is unjust for condemning us? No.

    But why does God condemn us, if we are BORN sinful? How can he condemn us before we are even born, before we have actually done any good or any evil? Well, whatever your answer to this question, you cannot deny the fact: we are all born guilty, and that’s why we sin.

    So I would draw your attention to what I said earlier. Perhaps it is the case that we are all born with a tendency for every kind of evil, but according to our upbringing, we acquire a taste for this evil or that evil. If your dad was an alcoholic, you grow up around that sin, and become an adult with a taste for expressing your sinful nature in this way. If your dad was a homosexual, perhaps you grow up with a taste for expressing your sinful nature in that way. If you parents gossip continually, guess what? You’ll struggle with gossip all your life. Why? Because we’re born guilty, and thus have a sinful nature.

    The connection between the two is this: the more guilty you feel, the more you want to sin. If you feel condemned by God, you hate him and want to express that hatred through whatever sin you can find to do. If, however, you don’t feel condemned by God – i.e., if you believe the gospel – then you don’t want to sin, but want to be righteous.

    Romans makes this point incredibly clear in the first chapter. What is the Word that we must hear and believe that saves us and causes us to want to turn from sin? The Word of forgiveness for our sins in Christ. This is the Word that Paul is not ashamed of in Rom 1:16-17.

    But in the second half of the chapter, beginning at v.18, he talks about how man rebelled against God, and so God delivered them over to sin, even to the point of doing what is shameful in everyone’s eyes, namely homosexuality. But make no mistake, it is GOD who delivers them over to their sins. And what is the result? Paul lists all kinds of evil deeds and desires that unbelievers thrive on. They even seek to invent ways of doing evil. They HATE God. And why do they hate him? Because he has condemned them.

    There is of course more in the passage. You see, though they hate his condemnation of them, they hate the fact that he hasn’t punished them even more. They use this as an excuse for their hatred of him. They say that he hasn’t punished sin, so therefore he’s a weak God, a useless God. Peter has a great counter-argument in 2 Pet 3:5-7. He says essentially that they forget about the flood, and reaffirms that judgment is coming.

    So what is the cure for rebellion? To see in the cross that God is vindicated, because in the cross, God punishes sin. See Luke 23:39-43, for the story of the thief on the cross. Jesus tells him that today he will be with him in paradise. But to what words, to what confession of the thief’s is Jesus responding?

    First the thief says that Jesus is innocent, and that he himself and the other thief actually belong on those crosses condemned to die. But Jesus doesn’t belong there. So what does that mean? That means that Jesus is dying there on account of someone else’s sin. The thief recognized that he was in fact the Christ, which is why he says, “Remember me WHEN (not if!!!) you come into your kingdom.” He recognized him as the rightful king, condemned to die unjustly. He saw Jesus suffer, he saw him refuse to answer the charges and mocking that was going on at their feet.

    So the thief declares Jesus innocent, and recognizes that Jesus is being put to death for someone else’s sin. So therefore, God is justified. He is vindicated. He does in fact prove himself just, because he punishes sin.

    “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
    (Romans 3:26 ESV)

    See, God cannot just wink at sin. He must punish it. But he doesn’t want to punish us, he wants to justify us by faith. But in order to do that justly, someone, namely Christ, had to take the punishment for us.

    So what happens when we are saved? First God is vindicated as being righteous, but then we are moved to trust him. This is what happens to the thief on the cross. First he declares Jesus (God) innocent, and at the same time recognizes his own worthiness to be condemned to die. But this doesn’t get the response from Jesus yet. No, he takes the additional step and confesses that he is trusting in Jesus, saying “remember me…” etc.

    The same thing is going on in Rom 1:17. God’s righteousness is revealed from faith that we might live by faith. In other words, by faith God is vindicated in our eyes, and because he is so vindicated, therefore we trust him to vindicate us, because Christ already paid the penalty for us. This is why the NIV is wrong to translate this as “by faith from first to last”. The Greek says “from faith to faith”. That means that God’s righteousness is revealed to us by faith. His vindication in our eyes is a matter of faith. Faith is the evidence, because by faith we see that God is just, who punishes sin, because by faith we find our sin being nailed to the cross with Christ.

    But what is the end? The end is that we might live by faith, that we might live a life characterized by trusting him who justifies the wicked (Rom 4:5). As it is written, “The righteous (the righteous in Christ) shall live by faith.” This quotes Habbakuk, where the prophet is told by God to wait patiently for the day of the Lord.

    You see the very same dynamic in Psalm 73. The psalmist begins by saying that God is not doing anything about the wickedness of those all around him, and questions God as a result. But then he goes to the house of the Lord, where he is strengthened and renewed in his faith, and God is once again vindicated in his eyes, and he remembers that the wicked will surely have a horrible end.

    This is how it works. This is why I say that if you recognize your guilt before God, you will only be offended at him, because you will find that he is unjust, because, though you deserve to die, as all men know (Rom 1:32), yet you still live. He told Adam that he would die when he ate the fruit didn’t he? But he didn’t! Adam lived on! Satan was right! God is not just, God is a liar! That’s what they say. That’s what the unbeliever says.

    But when by faith we see Jesus, crucified for our sins, all that changes. We recognize God as just, and we live by faith in his justice, that Christ’s sacrifice pays for our sins. And then we may live by trust in him who justifies the wicked. God is just in our eyes, even though the wicked persist, even though we have not been put to death. His judgment is coming.

    That’s why the gospel is so intimately intertwined with the coming judgment. Paul makes a very close connection between the two in his speech in Athens, particularly in Acts 17:31. There he says that the resurrection of Christ proves that he is the one whom God has appointed to judge the world. That’s why in order to qualify as an apostle you not only have to be called to that end by Christ himself, but you must have SEEN the risen Christ with your own eyes. Seeing him risen from the dead vindicates him as righteous.

    So why are people gay? Because they think God is unjust, unrighteous, etc, and therefore God has delivered them over to slavery to their own lusts. That’s what Romans 1:18-32 is getting at. And Paul goes on to demand of us that we find ourselves – all of us – in this story in chapt 2, saying that we have no right to judge another, because we all fell into this fallen category before we were saved, and in some ways we still are in this category even as believers, since we still sin, as he goes on to unfold in chapt 7.

    Therefore, I have no right to judge someone who engages in homosexual acts, because I too was once a sinner, and as the old saying goes, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Paul is using them as an example. Today we might point to child molesters. Everyone knows that’s wrong. Everyone. Even convicted criminals beat these people up because they are so offended at them. And yet people do it. Why? Because WE ALL are fallen.

    If Paul ever talked about a super sin, it would be HIS OWN SIN, namely that he put Christians to DEATH simply for being believers! Truly this is WORSE than homosexuality! Yet even Paul who did this incredible evil was saved, even becoming God’s chosen ambassador to the Gentiles, whose ministry is still bearing fruit 2000 years later.

    So I say, let us not think of being gay as a super sin, but let us rather recognize that they are simply sinners, just as we are, and that the cure for their sin is the same as ours, namely Christ, who proves that God punishes sin, but also is abounding in rich mercy, even to the chief of sinners.

    It makes no difference if it is genetic or not. All sin works the same way. ALL SIN. It all flows from the fact that we were born guilty in Adam. If the problem is the same, the cure is the same, namely the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    For we preach Christ and him crucified. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the cure for the sin problem of all mankind. This is the message that raises the dead to life in Christ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: