“I’m sure God doesn’t want to withhold something so beautiful to me. It’s just a fruit on a tree; everyone knows there’s nothing wrong with that.” – said Adam. Human reasoning and worldly influence fail. There was nothing wrong with the fruit, it was wrong to eat it because God said so, period. If God says something is wrong, no amount of human reasoning or worldly influence should be able to change that. There was a lot of chatter recently about the new pope and how maybe he will usher in a new reign of acceptance and modernization. The underlying message many people were trying to communicate was that maybe this new pope will finally ‘get with the times’ and agree with homosexuality. This implies that culture should shape religious doctrine. Does that seem right? If God is real and He sets the rules, then does it really follow that we have the right to define what those are and are not?

Revisionists are trying to make the claim that when the Bible talks about homosexuality being an abomination that it is talking about only in cases of rape. This explanation does not hold up to critical scrutiny. Why would the authors single out homosexual rapists as an abomination and not all rapists? Some say “an abomination” is not the same as a sin. Fine, I can accept that – but if God thinks it is an abomination, then I want nothing to do with it and will flee from it. Accepting it is the polar opposite of fleeing from it. If I need some scholar’s two cents on the matter to distinguish what the Bible is really trying to tell me, then there’s no point in my reading it at all. God would not have given me a guidebook that needed a doctorate to interpret. No matter how you spin it, the Bible clearly describes homosexuality as unpleasing to God.

In the beginning God created male and female with the purpose of procreating and filling the whole earth. Homosexuals do not honor this commandment. Skeptics are quick to snap back – what about barren people, does God hate them? No. In the original creation, men and women were not created barren and were never intended to suffer from such a problem. All suffering, all problems we experience today are a result of us breaking our covenant with God in the Garden of Eden. Suffering today is a reminder of the broken world we live in, and how much more we need to come back into God’s will. Compromising his will even more will do the exact opposite of this.

The church has lost hold of the culture because of our prior willingness to compromise. The answer is not to compromise more as the people hoping for a ‘progressive’ pope would offer. The answer is the same as Martin Luther proclaimed – a reformation back to the word of God on all matters. Jesus always answered an issue with “it is written”. The temptation is the same as Adam and Eve faced in the Garden from the serpent: “did God really say….”? The answer is simple and not up for debate. It is written “do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.” Period.

As insensitive as it may sound, your personal opinion on the issue doesn’t matter. Society’s opinion on the issue doesn’t matter. The pressure to conform comes from this idea that morality evolves. Atheists need an evolving morality to make a case for their morals outside of God. A Christian does not need to subscribe to evolving morals, and should not. Jesus said that in the end times it will become like the days of Noah – not one righteous. Moral compromise will get us there quickly! It can only take one generation to lose the culture. You can see it happening today before your eyes.

There is nothing wrong with taking a position against homosexuality. There is something wrong with hating any group or person! If one qualification of me loving someone was to agree 100% with every position they take, then we’re going to have a bad time. I don’t know anyone with whom I agree 100% on everything with. Does that mean I don’t love anyone?? Christians on both sides of this issue have approached it poorly in the past. Marriage should have never become a part of the political world. I don’t see why we can’t have government-led civil unions for anyone/everyone and then if a religious person wants to hold a marriage ceremony as well, then they can. Yes, there could still be “gay marriages” if that church it was performed in was willing to do it – which several are. How does this not solve the whole debate? It takes the marriage debate out of politics, it puts unions on a level playing field governmentally, and still allows heterosexual and homosexual marriages at the religious level.

Although I personally disagree with practicing homosexuality and see it as one of the topics revisionists are using to create even more compromise in the church, I also don’t believe I have the right to withhold government-protected legal statuses from anyone. If a vote for civil unions came up for me I would vote for it. If a vote for gay marriage came up I would vote against it. It is in no means an attempt to withhold any rights from anyone. It is simply my opinion (based on the Bible) of what marriage is and is not. If other churches or religious institutions want to define it differently, they are welcome to. But if the government is going to ask my opinion I am going to give it. This does not make me a bigot or a homophobe. This makes me committed to my religious convictions, a right guaranteed and protected by the constitution.

I absolutely love my homosexual brothers and sisters. We all suffer from our own issues. Unfortunately homosexuality is just the cause of the moment getting a lot of attention. It is no greater a sin than eating one particular fruit in the garden of Eden. But God has said no, and I have no right and no interest to reinterpret that to fit in with society and make you or I feel more comfortable.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” – 2 Timothy 3:16.