Homosexual activists and apologists frequently accuse those who disapprove of homosexual behavior of “hate” and “discrimination” because of their opposition. We saw that last night in the discussion of changes to the Rapid City School District nondiscrimination policy.
Actually, our opposition has nothing at all to do with such things. It has to do with what is both scientifically the proper use of our bodies, and the proper moral use of our bodies. It is quite clear in both of these areas what is the correct use of our bodies, and homosexual behavior does not qualify.
In the broadcast today, Zacharias answered a question about Christian opposition to homosexuality by telling a story about a conversation he once had with a woman. The woman told him she perceived a double standard among Christians concerning racism and homosexual behavior.
I’ll tell you what turns me away from Christianity. You people will talk against racism an awful lot, and I respect that, but then when it comes to the homosexual you discriminate against homosexuals. I see that double standard.”
Zacharias pointed out that the first part of her question dealt with an idea (racism), while the second part was personalized and made about a person (“the homosexual”).
The reason we are against racism is because a person’s race is sacred. One’s ethnicity is sacred; you cannot violate it. My race is sacred, your race is sacred, I dare not violate it. The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do is because sexuality is sacred. You cannot violate it.
My question to you is, ‘How do you treat sacred one and desacralize the other?’ If you can answer that, I will be glad to answer you, then.
She was silent and she said, ‘I’ve never thought of it in those terms.’
Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no more justify an aberration of it in somebody elses life than I can justify my proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries. Every man here who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse? Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight, entertained by the imagination, and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter. They are not; they leave you emptier.
So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity, and that goes across the board for all sexuality.
When God created mankind and womankind, it was his plan, not our plan.
If you are one of the few people who believe human beings are only highly evolved animals that are the end-product of innumerable random biological events, then the question of morality is irrelevant to you (though biological function still points inescapably to heterosexual conduct). Those who call themselves Christian, however, do not have the option of disregarding the moral question.
Besides the very clear language in the Bible in both Old and New Testaments which tells us God does not approve of homosexual behavior as a perversions of his design for human sexuality, people who call themselves Christian but who claim God approves of homosexual behavior miss this fundamental truth about human sexuality: God as our creator sets the standard, and we as his children are obligated to live by that standard.
When we fail to do so so, we not only put our spiritual destiny in jeopardy, we invite the physical and emotional consequences of acting contrary to the way in which we were created to behave. In addition to the teaching of the Bible, nature and science themselves testify to the fact that our bodies were created to function in a heterosexual manner; everything about our sexuality points to heterosexual function.
As Zacharias pointed out, our skin color is an innate physical characteristic. It is a genetic trait and a part of who we are; there is nothing moral or immoral about our skin color.
Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, has never (despite decades of desperate research by pro-homosexual researchers) been found to have a genetic cause. Instead, the most reliable evidence points toward relational problems and dysfunctions when a person is very young that distort their understanding of how same and opposite sexes are supposed to relate to one another.
Homosexual behavior cannot be equated to innate, morally-neutral physical characteristics, and we do people caught up in homosexual behavior a grave disservice when we tell them they cannot change, and when we whitewash the very real spiritual and physical dangers associated with this behavior.
Failing to warn another person of danger is not a loving act.