8 Terrible Arguments Sacred Texts Makes For Homosexuality

For those of you who don't know, Sacredtext.com is a website dedicated to providing visitors with an array of texts--at least that's part of what they do. They appear as a website as unbiased, hoping to only let users read the texts however if you go to the LGBT section you immediately find an array of arguments for homosexuality--and they're all pathetic.

Here are the arguments and my response to them:

1.) Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality. The only way this could be a valid argument is if (1) All the Bible is is a list of rules and (2) the more something is repeated the more it is condemned. The fact is more than 70% of those verses aren't moral commands; their narrative, genealogy and poetry. And it doesn't matter how often something is identified as a sin--it only has to be condemned once. The argument relies on one's ignorance of what is in the Bible and how much for it deals with sexual immorality. As something that is defined in The Bible as sexual immoral it is referred to along with others collectively as sexual immorality closer to twenty times. 


2.) Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy. Yes and blasphemy, adultery, premarital intercourse, and cursing parents (not simply disobeying them) remains wrong. Although we do not have to enforce the death penalties of the Torah we have an obligation to follow the Moral Law which condemns homosexuality along with the others listed above. 

3.) The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality. Yeah well we don't have express written words of Jesus condemning rape and incest either so I guess Jesus would be okay with those. I'm not saying those equate to homosexuality but the argument that because we don't have a record of Jesus condemning means that He's okay with it is void. By the same logic that would mean He's okay with rape. We know that He believed in the Torah--which condemns homosexuality. 

4.) The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers. No, it wasn't. According to Genesis the men of Sodom wanted to get to the visitors, why? They tell us: "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." They're men wanting to have sexual relations with other men. And as if it wasn't already obvious Lot offers them his daughters instead but they refuse them. The only way you could think this isn't condemning of homosexuality is if your desperately trying to make the text match your own view--which isn't fair to the text or Christianity.

5.) The Bible never condemns same sex marriage. Of course it doesn't do so directly. Let's think about this: The last book of The Bible was written in 95 AD, why would anyone expect The Bible to condemn something that wouldn't exist (in the legal sense) until the 1980's. It calls homosexual acts an abomination. You don't have to guess what it say about the idea of changing the definition of marriage to normalize those acts.

6.) The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union. This is completely un-true. David and Jonathan had a great friendship and they cared about each other. Assuming that David and Jonathan were having sexual relations with one another because Jonathan loved his friend is like saying a father is a pedophile because he loves his son. If you still believe David and Jonathan were sleeping with each other here's the sources we have about Jonathan and David's relationship: 1 Samuel 18, 1 Samuel 19, 1 Samuel 20, 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1. 

7.) Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals. Here they argue that homosexuality should be accepted because animals do it. First of all the hundreds of species part is a bit of a stretch. But even if it were true taking your morality from animals is very much unintelligent. Animals eat their young, kill their own species, sleep-around, steal from one another and yet when they preform homosexual acts people say "Look this proves homosexuality isn't immoral because it's natural!"

The fact is none of these arguments prove anything; they all fall flat. Yet they are still being used to this day; sad isn't it?