Natural

by Valentine Logar

Created on: January 28, 2008   Last Updated: January 05, 2009

First let me say that I am taking this argument only from a Biblical Christian standpoint, or should I say based on this standpoint. My arguments that Homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition within the human gene pool is based on scientific evidence, historical evidence, and Biblical evidence. Nature is a marvelous and diverse thing, if you are religious, I can only say that God does not make mistakes.

Sin, the concept is staggering that one would intentionally transgress Gods moral laws. But is Homosexuality in fact a deliberate transgression? How does modern society determine this is the truth? Homosexuality has been a part of every society since man began to record and preserve history. Different societies have treated homosexuality much differently, some treating it as normal while others, such as our own treating it as an aberration.
In truth, a historical study would show globally and historically homosexuality has been an accepted part of nearly all societies. It was not until the Christian Emperor Theodosius I, on August 6, 390 passed a law against passive homosexuality that things begin to change in the Western world. With this law he condemned passive homosexuals be burned at the stake. It wasn't until the year 558 that Justinian passed a law condemning the active partner as well.

Matthew 19:12: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The Biblical quote above is the only reference in the New Testament that could be construed as Jesus discussing directly homosexuality. Given the issues of language and translation errors, the only possible rendition of this passage would be an acknowledgement that homosexuals are born and thus a natural part of humankind. It is important to note that this passage follows a discussion regarding marriage and is in direct response to why not all men are fit to marry women. If homosexuality were indeed sin, as religious authorities would have us believe why then is there no direct discussion by Jesus of this "unnatural and sinful act". Why is the only point of reference by Jesus directly the above? Many good Christians will take offense at what I have written, I understand their anger I have been down this path before. I am aware of all the Biblical arguments and can quote them, the issue is that most of them, if not all are contextually misused and none of them are the words of Jesus but rather of his disciples speaking with what they believe would be the voice of Jesus, just as our ministers do today.

There are first a couple of issues to get out of the way so let us clear the air. For anyone who does not understand the history of Biblical interpretations, it is important to provide this history. The original writings were likely in Hebrew and then later in Aramaic, both ancient and dead languages. Later, after the death of Christ others wrote in Greek many of the books of the New Testament. These scrolls were copied many times over, by men of various degrees of skill. St. Jerome completes the Vulgate, the first complete Latin translation in approximate 405AD, at which point according to him "there are almost as many texts as manuscripts". For the next several centuries the scriptures are copied by hand and by man. There is no assurance that they are true to the original. Between the eighth and fourteenth centuries there are several complete or partial translations for various purposes. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries see significant reformation and the first real new translation, the King James Version. Finally in the nineteenth century through today multiple translations have occurred, some specifically to create a more accessible Bible translating the more formal language of King James into modern vernacular. With all this being said it is time to move on to the purpose of this article, homosexuality Sin or Nature.

Now let's deal with the Old Testament and the all too often misquoted passages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. First let's deal with the specific language there are two Hebrew words that have been consistently mistranslated or ignored in both of these passages. These are as follows:

Qadesh: This is a male temple prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temple rights. The Qadesh is nearly always mistranslated as sodomite or homosexual. The companion or female equivalent is Quedeshaw; this word is usually mistranslated to mean whore or prostitute. Both of these were common professions in Israel and the surrounding countries. Neither the Qadesh nor the Quedeshaw were simply temple prostitutes they had very specific roles in the temple, representing the God or Goddess.

The other word that causes great difficulty is to'ebah. This is translated as abomination in both the King James and the NIV. In truth the word has a much broader meaning. To'ebah is a condemned, pagan, foreign, religious, or cult practice. It further encompasses such practices as food that contains both meat and dairy products. For example, Jew eating with an Egyptian was To'ebah.

So now we have gotten that out of the way let us examine Leviticus first as this is the favorite of Christians to condemn homosexuals with. The actual interpretation of Hebrew is ambiguous and many Talmud scholars argue the passage does not condemn monogamous homosexual relationships but rather only specific behaviors that lead to promiscuity or passivity on the part of one partner. Another argument is that the entire passage is focused on issues of bestiality and incest not normal human relations. Further Leviticus 18:3 opens with a condemnation of pagan temple rituals and commandment that the Hebrews are not to follow these rituals.

Next we have Deuteronomy 23:17 and here we have a clear mistranslation of the original language from Qadesh, a male temple prostitute to the modern term of sodomite or homosexual. This same error is made in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7. In all these cases the real word was Qadesh. In fact there was no word for Homosexual in either Hebrew or Greek. Again the translation of the original language has led to problems with interpretation and misunderstandings of intent.

So now to the real question Homosexuality Nature or Sin. My response Nature of course. How can sin ever be associated with what is a born and natural part of a person. We do not condemn a person for their nature. Certain God does not condemn a person for their nature. Homosexuality is not something new it has been part of us since the beginning of time. Homosexuals make up 10% of our population. Homosexuals are not an aberration they are simply part of humankind always have been. Homosexuality doesn't just occur in humankind, it occurs in all mammals; in fact, over 1,500 different mammals have been observed in homosexual relationships both transitory and forming long-term partnerships.

We, as humans do not awaken one day to our sexual preferences and decide that this isn't the way we will live our lives. Indeed, we awaken sexually and follow our predetermined sexual preferences, heterosexual or homosexual we are attracted to one or the other without consciously making a choice. I have heard some enlightened Christians say that it is not the Homosexual that is the sinner, only the act that is the sin. I take this to mean that if one is born Homosexual they should choose to live out their live as a celibate so as not to sin. In the past many men and women entered Catholic Orders for just this reason, to live celibate lives and avoid sin. Though homosexuality continues to carry a social stigma this is no longer necessary.

I would pose this to those who believe that homosexuality is a choice that one makes. I have a time machine that not only sends you back but allows you to select your gender, race, and ethnicity in the transition. You have decided to go back to 1830 America, specifically Mississippi for a quick look around. Do you choose to return to this place and time as a Black Male? That would simply be stupid, wouldn't it? So really what is the difference from believing that an intelligent person today would choose to be homosexual if there was another option? Would a person really choose homosexuality in a society that condemns them, provides no legal protections, does not allow them to form families, and even turns their back on violence?
Certainly most people would choose another way if they could.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66

The Bible NIV and King James

The Bible Gateway

Learn more about this author, Valentine Logar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.