During the initial transfer of articles from God Squad Apologetics to Bible Brain, I made the conscious decision to hold off on transferring most of the LGBT articles. Recently, however, an LGBT activist took issue with a newer article on Jesus' opinion on homosexuality. This prompted me to complete the transfer of some older articles, including "If you think I'm homophobic, you might just be an idiot", in which I demonstrate that there is no realistic way to call me, or others who think like me, homophobic. This article caught the attention of an atheist who followed the page in the past. For sake of his anonymity, we'll just call him "Ben" for this article, but this article will be sent to him, and if he requests, he will be fully credited.* Needless to say, I thoroughly disagree with his entire comment. Nevertheless, I was thrilled to receive it, because it allows me to write this article, which will respond to a lot of dogmas in the LGBT ideology. First, let us see his entire comment, unedited (with the exception of the text color).
"The homophobic part is pushing the concept that this individual is inherently wrong due to your religious beliefs. How would you feel if someone told you everyday that their god finds you detestable for an immutable trait? I'm sorry, they didn't say that, their god did. It's an incredibly biased position to take, and supported by ultimately nothing. It's flat out dehumanizing.
The only exception is if you're asked about your religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. A little experiment for you -- replace "gay" and "homosexual" with your height. Does this still seem so innocuous?"
There are several key points in this comment. Let's sum them up:
This gives us a lot to talk about. Let's go through these points and show, with reason, that not only is Ben wrong, but I will also demonstrate that, far from asking me not to be homophobic, he is actually asking me to do the most homophobic thing imaginable.
What is homophobia?
Whether or not Christians are homophobic depends entirely on what, exactly, homophobia is. The radical Left has discovered an excellent psychological strategy: Dominate the language, you end up dominating the culture. "Homophobia" and its variants are all examples of dramatic language they use to invoke an irrationally emotional response in their audience. What do you think of when you hear "homophobia"? You probably think of things that are actually homophobic. You might think of "God hates fags", the famous chant of the Westboro Baptist Church, while they protested at a soldier's funeral. Further up the scale, you might think of parents disowning their gay children. Of course, violence against gay people because they are gay (it obviously should not count if there's a different reason, or even no reason) is definitely homophobic.
But what about mere disagreement with the LGBT ideology? What if you don't hate gay people, what if you love gay people, what if you even are gay yourself, yet you speak out against the LGBT ideology? You can be gay and opposed to gay "marriage". You can be gay and recognise that the natural, two opposite sex married parent system is the best for raising kids. You can be gay and think it is wildly inappropriate to teach young children about gay relationships. Yet, all of that, allegedly, also falls under "homophobia". How is any of that homophobic? Disagreement isn't hate.
Do you disagree that disagreement isn't hate? Need I point out the hypocrisy if you say yes? If disagreement is hate, the fact that you disagree that disagreement isn't hate means you hate me, and are therefore a bigot yourself. Let me ask you a question: Is Jesus the resurrected Son of the Living God? No? Congratulations! If disagreement is hate, you are now a Christophobe.
And while we're on the subject of Christophobia, let's talk about the Christophobic attacks on Christian businesses. Tell me, is it even remotely appropriate to demand a Christian bakery, florist, or photographer, aid in homosexual activity? If you believe homosexuality is wrong, why would you cater to a gay "wedding"?
"But discrimination!" the LGBT activist replies. Um, no. The Christian businesses aren't discriminating against anyone. Some of them have even served the same gay customers, even knowing their sexuality, many times before the lawsuits. The issue isn't the customer, which would be discrimination, but the product/service they are being asked to provide.
Every business has the right to refuse service when their conscience is violated. Should a pet shop sell hamsters, knowing that the intention is to feed them to snakes? Or sell cats, knowing that the intention is to breed them, not give them a loving home? Should a car dealer sell a car knowing full well it will be used as a getaway vehicle after a crime? Should a gun dealer sell a gun knowing it will be used in a mass shooting? That's not to compare all these questionably ethical/obviously immoral things are morally equal to gay "weddings", but if you're a Christian, you're very likely to feel like you are participating in sin by providing that which aids in it. If the radical Left are so insane (and they are) that they believe any gun salesman should be held liable if their gun is used in a crime, they should be sane enough to recognise that a Christian feels morally responsible for knowingly and intentionally catering to a gay "wedding". The mature thing? Give your money to a competing bakery who will quite willingly cater to your gay "wedding". The Christophobic thing is to demand Christians celebrate your sin or face a lawsuit, particularly one which ends up destroying the entire business.
Notice here, the distinction isn't we're homophobic because we disagree with you, you're Christophobic because you disagree with us. Rather, the distinction is, we're not homophobic because we do not hate, or otherwise persecute you, and in fact, we are commanded by our God to love you even though you hate and persecute us. There are only two consistent choices: Disagreement is not hatred, therefore you can vocally disagree with the LGBT ideology without being homophobic, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar, or disagreement is hatred, and therefore LGBT activists, who are much more vocal, and aggressive, in their disagreement, are actually more hateful than Christians, and don't even have a reason external to themselves to justify it. Take your pick. I pick the former, because I prefer to live in a rational society governed by sensible adults.
Is homosexuality an immutable trait?
The word "immutable" means "not subject to change". You cannot, for example, change your hair, eye, or skin color. Black people cannot become white, nor can white people become black. You cannot change your gender. Men cannot become women, women cannot become men. You cannot change your age. Your date of birth will forever remain your date of birth. These are examples of immutable traits.
Can you change your sexuality? Well, as an ex-gay, I can confidently say yes. My very existence proves that changing your sexuality is possible. There was a time in my life when the idea of natural sex was offensive to me, and all I wanted was a boyfriend. Now, what I want is a wife. Doesn't sound very immutable to me. I would imagine a substantial portion of the 13,000 followers of the Ex-LGBT Through Jesus Christ Facebook page would agree. While we may be rare, as indeed homosexuality is in general, ex-gays do exist, and I'm not even the most impressive example. We may well be drowned out, silenced, and made to feel that we're alone in the world, but we do exist. When Ben wrote his comment saying homosexuality is an immutable trait, he was talking directly to the evidence that he is wrong. In my opinion, and I mean no disrespect to Ben when I say this, there is nothing more stupid than telling an ex-gay that he's homophobic because homosexuality is an immutable trait.
And by the way, as an ex-gay, I get hate from both sides. I get hate from genuine homophobes because, obviously, I was engaged in that lifestyle, and unlike Jesus, humans aren't always forgiving. Furthermore, I get hate from LGBT activists, who of course hate that I destroy their narrative. Note, the narrative is demonstrably false. I'm living proof. Yet, it is so firmly entrenched that those who believe it hate me, and either claim I am lying about having been gay in the past, or that I am still gay and just self-loathing now.
The former claim is utterly false. I genuinely was gay, I have very genuinely repented of that, that makes me definitionally an ex-gay. I have no motive to tell, much less maintain, such a whopping lie that catches me so much flak. I do, however, have motive to take the flak for such a whopping truth that may lead to the salvation of souls.
The latter claim is ironic. Effectively, LGBT activists are telling me to change the "immutable" trait that is my sexuality. Imagine if I ran around telling gay people "you must be straight, you must be straight, you must be straight". I'd be beaten half to death for homophobia! Yet, when LGBT activists come at me saying "you must be gay, you must be gay, you must be gay", somehow that's ok?
But it must be immutable, because you can't choose who you're attracted to, right? This is where things get complicated, because now we have to make the distinction between temptation and actual sin. Thankfully for us, James actually addressed this topic in his book. Here's what he has to say: "No one undergoing a trial should say, “I am being tempted by God.” For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn’t tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires." (James 1:13-14, HCSB).
In these two verses, James first of all tells us that there is a distinction between temptation and sin. Temptation is that which may draw one to sin, which is why more mature and educated Christians will say that same sex attraction is not necessarily a sin. The sin is when you act upon it.
We can compare this to smoking. Any scientifically literate person will tell you that smoking is a serious health risk that has a high potential to shorten your lifespan, maybe even causing a particularly painful death. It is not smokephobic to discourage a smoker from smoking, it is actually very loving. I don't want people to die from lung cancer. Do you? But a smoker cannot actually choose to be addicted to smoking or not. They may have chosen the cigarette that caused the addiction, but they can't turn it on or off on command. There are two things to consider here. First, just because a smoker is addicted does not mean remaining a smoker is not a choice. The temptation to smoke is there, but a smoker does not have to act on it. It takes conscious effort to obtain the cigarettes, to light them, and to smoke them. In the same way, even if a gay person is attracted to someone, it takes conscious effort to pursue anything with them. As I often point out, if you have no choice in who you're having sex with, that's called rape.
Second, although one cannot choose what sort of urges we feel, we can actually train ourselves to either defeat them, or make them less severe. It may seem hard at first, it may even get harder in the early days, and even we do manage to defeat our temptations, there is no guarantee they'll never return, especially in moments of weakness ("So, whoever thinks he stands must be careful not to fall." 1 Corinthians 10:12, HCSB), but it is possible. By the way, another example of LGBT hate: If a gay person wants to control their desires, should they not be allowed to seek help? Yet, "conversion therapy" has been used as a buzz term to lobby for laws against even praying for someone who willingly seeks to change! It really does seem this is a one way street, doesn't it?
Should we distinguish between a god and its followers?
This is a very shaky area, because in a sense, it's like Christians are ashamed of God. "No, it's not me saying this, it's God". Ok, but we do follow God, right? So first, let me clarify: When I point out that I have no control over God, it isn't out of shame. Rather, I want to convey that, as a sinner, in my natural state, calling homosexuality a sin isn't a choice I would have made. If I hadn't been a Christian, or if I was comfortable living inconsistently with my faith (as sadly many are), I would still be gay right now. The thought to change simply never occurred to me, nor is it likely it would have, if I had not been a consistent, educated Christian.
That's not to say I would have been right. When God and man disagree, God is right. God's sovereignty and omniscience make Him literally infinitely superior to human beings. How arrogant do you have to be to believe you can speak your "truth" to an omniscient power? God knows literally every tiny detail of our reality, you know an immeasurably tiny fraction of your tiny corner, during your brief time, of your perception of reality. Opposing God's wisdom is more foolish than a child rebuking a teacher for giving him a low score on his homework assignment. Sorry kid, 3 x 3 is not 6. It's 9.
And if I believe I have the authority to question God, where did I get it? If you're an LGBT activist, where do you believe you got your authority to question Him? As strange as it may sound, you can't just claim authority. It's got to come from somewhere. God's authority comes from the fact it's literally His creation. The very cells that make up our bodies come from Him. The air we breathe, He filled our world with. The water we drink, He gave us. The ground on which we walk, He pulled from the ocean, thousands of years before we were even born. Our ancestor, Adam, and his wife, Eve, He breathed life into with His own mouth. It's His world. You live in His world, you live by His rules. And He gets to dictate the consequences when we disobey. It's fair, it's logical, and there's actually nothing you can do about it.
The truly glorious thing is that there's something He did about it. See, in His Holiness, God cannot tolerate sin. It must be punished. Yet, penal substitionary atonement, a process of the innocent voluntarily taking the wrath owed to the guilty, is a valid option. Morally speaking, because homosexuality is sin, God owes wrath to gay people. Yet, not even God is homophobic, but rather, He loves gay people, takes no pleasure in their deaths, and would rather they lived (Ezekiel 18:32, 33:11; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
But setting all of that aside, is it possible to distinguish between a god and its followers? Logically, and indeed necessarily, yes. First of all, simply due to the law of identity. I am not God, I am "Brian". I did not write, nor even inspire, the Bible. I did not create the world, I did not create the human race, I did not design the human sexual function. Am I homophobic because I believe it? Again, logically, no, because I don't hate gay people. I hate being told I hate gay people when I don't hate gay people, but I don't hate gay people, and so definitionally am not homophobic.
Furthermore, the reason I believe the Bible is because I have been intellectually, and at this point experientially convinced, that the Bible is true. Just like I have been intellectually convinced that smoking is a dangerous habit. It's not because I hate smokers, it's certainly not because I want them to die, it's because smoking is dangerous. But let's suppose you don't believe that.
Coincidentally, there is a religion out there whose god declares me detestable. According to Islam, Allah does not love unbelievers (Qur'an 3:31-32, 30:43-45). We don't even need to add on Islam's... shall we say "dim view" of Christians, or the violence commanded against us. It should be enough, given that God does love gay people (e.g. John 3:16; Romans 5:8, cf. 1 John 2:2), to simply show that Allah, according to the Islamic holy book, does not love me, because I am an unbeliever. Know why that doesn't bother me? Because I'm an unbeliever! As a Muslim, you can be as truthful with me about what the Qur'an says about me, and I won't even blink, because I know that the Allah of the Qur'an is not a real god.
And if you could convince me otherwise? Well, first, I'm not going to blame you as a Muslim for anything that's in the Qur'an. I can't either way, because no Muslim alive today had any hand in the formation of Islamic doctrine. But second, rather than throw a tantrum and accuse you of hatred, I'm actually going to ask you if there's anything that can be done about it? How can I be reconciled to Allah? So once again, why can't LGBT activists be this mature with regard to Christians? Why are they so mentally fragile that while Christians can handle honest discussions, to even discuss the possibility that homosexuality is wrong is considered sacrilege?
There is one possibility. I don't care what Allah says about me because I don't believe in Allah. Is it possible that LGBT activists care what Yahweh says about them because they do believe in Yahweh?
All humans are biased.
Whether Ben likes it or not, the fact is, all human beings are biased. Yes, I am biased, and I admit I am biased. Bias only becomes a problem when you are blind to it, which Ben, unfortunately, is. Ben is so biased that he would tell me, to my face, that I am homophobic, and that I can't be an ex-gay. Rather than examining evidence and letting it inform his worldview, he goes to his worldview to judge the quality of the evidence. When you are so blind to your bias that you believe you have transcended humanity by overcoming it, you have a serious problem. When you believe the only way to disagree with someone is to hate them, when you will tell someone you've never known how they feel, when you believe your worldview should be the default in society while everyone else should bear an unreasonably high burden of proof, when you go as far as to say, without being asked, that others should refrain from speaking on the same topic unless they are asked, you are blind to your bias. I may well be biased against my past lifestyle, but Ben is biased towards it. The difference isn't bias vs. objectivism. The difference is having bias and admitting it, and having bias and being so ashamed to admit it, you hide it.
Three things to support my position.
While Ben claims my position is unsupported, the irony is, first of all, he as an atheist does not have a foundation to make claims about morality. Therefore, to claim any moral position is unsupported is stupid, to say the least. Even if an atheist wants to say we can show what causes have what effects, the question then becomes which ends justify which means, and why? On the flip side, three things support my position.
The first, once again, is that ex-gays, like me, do, in fact, exist. This one, you don't even need to do much research for. If you are even vaguely aware of just one ex-gay, you know homosexuality is not immutable. How often do you see black people turning white? You don't. It can't be done. Skin color is an actual immutable trait. No amount of therapy, no amount of trauma, no amount of indoctrination, nothing can change your skin color. But things can change your sexuality.
Science, the second thing supporting my position, confirms this. For years, LGBT activists have sought a way to prove that homosexuality is immutable. The search for the ever elusive "gay gene" has been going on for decades. Yet, not surprisingly, all attempts to prove a natural cause for homosexuality have failed. At a later date, I may write a more detailed article on the history of scientific research into homosexuality, but suffice to say for now, through multiple attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is immutable, even LGBT activists have only managed to prove the opposite. Which should be obvious to anyone who understands the basics of reproduction. Each sex has the parts the other needs in order to reproduce. A man needs a woman to reproduce, a woman needs a man to reproduce. But not even the world's largest gay orgy could result in a single child. Thus, if a gay gene existed, it wouldn't be very likely to get passed on. It's called "natural selection". Of course, there are ways it can be passed on, especially now that we have sperm banks. But homosexuality simply could not have survived for thousands of years if it was genetic.
Other facts about sexuality are also scientifically demonstrable. It is a fact, for example, that children tend to do better in a natural family environment (i.e. one mother, one father) than in gay families. Similarly, anal sex, even with use of protection, is damaging to the anus, which of course naturally resists penetration (as opposed to the vagina, which is very well designed to receive a penis). Gay people also make up a disproportionate percentage of aids victims. These are just a few very simple facts that have been known for a very long time.
I will point out that, in the above two paragraphs, I did commit what is called the "reification fallacy". That is, when an abstract concept (in this case, science) is treated as being a factual entity. Science does not say anything, scientists do. However, based on what scientists say, we can logically draw certain conclusions.
Ultimately, however, as the saying goes, "you can't get an ought from it is". The fact that human sexuality is fluid, the fact that it is inherently dangerous, and the fact that it causes damage to things that are not used according to their natural function, do not prove that homosexuality is wrong. Similarly, if we entered a parallel universe wherein the laws of logic were the same, but biology was significantly more favorable towards the LGBT agenda, that wouldn't prove homosexuality is right, either. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. That brings us to the third thing that supports my position: The Bible that informed it.
As I said, opposition to homosexuality was not something I came up with myself. Rather, I was shown what the Bible says about homosexuality, and after a considerable amount of resistance, I finally surrendered to God. If the Bible is true, homosexuality is morally wrong, plain and simple. Of course, as an atheist, Ben does not believe it is. It's simple: Ben is wrong. But for sake of simplicity, we can reduce this to any evidence supportive of Christianity is indirectly supportive of its view on sexuality.
LGBT activists are the true dehumanisers.
Especially given the nature of the original article Ben commented on (header image shown left), I can't, for the life of me, figure out why he thinks the Christian view is dehumanising. It is quite literally the opposite. We believe gay people are equal in every respect. Does that include in moral accountability? Absolutely. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything more patronizing than to be told I shouldn't be held accountable for my choices because I'm effectively a slave to my desires. It is animals that can't be held accountable because they don't know any better.
Coincidentally, this is what LGBT activists compare gay people too. They argue that homosexuality is found in animals, and so it must be natural for us too. Now tell me, is there anything more dehumanising than to be literally compared to that which is not human?
So which view is more dehumanising? The one that says gay people are equal to even the "best" of Christians (if it be lawful to use such a phrase) in every way, or the one that says "you're not capable of accountability, you're like an animal"? I'll give you a hint: If I treated a gay person like I treat my dog, I'd be arrested for false imprisonment. I feel dehumanised when I hear the atrociously low view LGBT activists have of gay people. If I was still gay, I'd speak out a lot more aggressively than I do now.
Free speech goes both ways.
As a Christian apologist, freedom of speech is a right I value very closely. I believe the pen is mightier than the sword, and so free speech is to be cherished. It sets good and bad ideas on equal footing and allows the truth to bulldoze Satan's lies. I despise what LGBT activists say. And not just them. Other anti-Christian voices too. Atheists, Muslims, even false Christians, these are just a few groups I'd love to hear less from. But not by force. Rather, while these people believe what they spout, let them spout it. One condition: I have the same right. I can challenge false beliefs.
As we have already established, Ben is both biased, and blind to that fact, so he does believe that his worldview should be the only one with the right to speak. But that's not how things work in a free and enlightened society. Indeed, ideas that resist criticism should, themselves, be resisted, because the only reason to fear criticism is to know you can't withstand it. Does a lion fear a lamb? Does Russia fear Madagascar? Does Muhammad Ali fear a drunk on the streets? You have no need to fear that which you can withstand. So, if Ben believes his worldview can withstand our criticism, why does he need us to stay quiet while he is free to open his gob as often as he chooses? Fear. The same fear the devil felt when Jesus' feet hit the bottom of His tomb that Sunday.
Ben's challenge backfires.
Finally, Ben issued me a challenge: "A little experiment for you -- replace "gay" and "homosexual" with your height. Does this still seem so innocuous?" Of course, we have already demonstrated that his challenge is flawed. Height is not a behavior. You cannot "do" feet and inches. I did not, for example, open an app, swipe left on 4ft 10, and right on 5ft 7. I grew to the height I am based on various factors, ranging from my genetics to my dietary and exercise habits.
By contrast, homosexuality is a behavior. So, let's alter Ben's challenge to make it more logical. Let's replace "gay" with "minor attracted". Straight away, the hair on your arm should stand up on end. Minor attracted? What kind of weak terminology is that? Worryingly, it is the kind that some people are using to normalise paedophilia in our culture. Praise be to God, it is not catching on very well. Yet. I both highly doubt, and sincerely hope, Ben will be in support of pedophilia. But it would be consistent for him to do so. And actually, if he rejects it, inconsistent of him.
To disarm a common straw man, I am absolutely not suggesting that homosexuality and pedophilia are morally equal. I advocate the death penalty for pedophilia, with very few exceptions, whereas homosexuality between two legally consenting adults should have no legal repercussions. There are exceptions, such as when one partner knowingly infects the other, unknowing partner with a disease, but that's not for the sex, that's for the disease.
However, while the acts are not morally equal, the argument is logically equal. You can replace homosexuality with pedophilia in every common LGBT argument and the argument remains exactly as sound. Thankfully, that's not very sound at all, but the point still stands.
By contrast, what if we replace "gay" with "Christian"? Well, now we have Ben's case! Now, Ben is the hateful one, by his own logic. Ben therefore reveals himself as the ultimate hypocrite, doing the very thing he condemns.
Conclusion
As you can see, everything Ben said is tragically wrong. I am not homophobic, and it remains illogical to say otherwise. Homosexuality is not an immutable trait, and everything we currently know about our world proves it. There absolutely is a distinction between gods and their followers, but that would be irrelevant anyway, since Jesus loves gay people so much, He died for them. Bias is completely unavoidable and acceptable, but Ben's bias is so extreme, it should be considered blinding to him. My position is absolutely supported by three very strong pillars: My own experience with homosexuality, the history of scientific study on homosexuality, and the fact that my position is informed by the infallible and sovereign Creator of human sexuality. Far from my position being dehumanising, I actually treat gays with more dignity than LGBT activists do, as while I consider gays my equal, the consider them mere animals, slaves to their desires. Freedom of speech goes both ways; if Ben can speak freely, so can I. Ben's final challenge was fundamentally flawed due to his erroneous assumption that homosexuality is an immutable trait, but when you consider that it is actually a behavior, and compare it to other behaviors, you see that there is no way to justify homosexuality without justifying, for example, pedophilia, or even Christianity. The ideologies that cause Ben, and others like him, to think like they do, ought to perish from the earth, though sadly, we know that even if they do, the devil will replace them.
Nevertheless, while these ideologies need to perish, people who hold to them don't. Jesus, according to 1 John 2:2, died for the sins of the whole world. Ben is no more beyond redemption than I was the day I surrendered to God. There is nothing easier to obtain than eternal life, because it has been offered so freely by our allegedly "homophobic" God who supposedly hates us so much. All it takes is to confess Jesus as Lord, and in faith, believe He rose from the dead. You can't take your next breath as easily as ensure your sins are forgiven.
*Post-publication update: Following the publication of this article, he amped up his hateful rhetoric, and eventually became unbearable to talk to, earning him a full ban from the Facebook page.