Homosexual Rights?

President Obama’s decision to support gay marriage demonstrates his commitment to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law. As Chief Executive Officer, the President is committed to providing equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, national origin, or religion. I have no problem with that; hence my support for the civil rights movement.

Historically, the Civil Rights Movement referred to differences over which one had no control. Hence the emphasis on race, gender, disability and so on. To include gay marriage into this category is to suggest that being gay is like being black or being female – in other words, being gay is an inherent genetic or biological condition. Hence, just as one cannot change his or her gender, one cannot change his or her sexual orientation.

Simply put, one needs to answer the question, is one’s sexual orientation determined by behavior or a biological condition? If behavior, then behavior modification is possible; if biological condition, then one’s sexual orientation is natural.

For a moment, let us look at a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based on pederasty – a socially acknowledged relationship between an adult male and a younger male, usually in his teens. Some scholars believe pederasty was introduced as an initiation ritual in Crete, where it was associated with entrance into military life.

Pederasty and eventually homosexuality were practiced in Greece and Rome for centuries. If such practices were genetic, why are they not as prevalent in these cultures today? Has the gene pool changed? The truth is, the ancient Greeks and Romans were both homosexual and heterosexual. In other words, ancient Greek and Roman males typically were married and had families, yet these same married men also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.

The practices were so prevalent in those ancient cultures, many may even have thought they were natural. However, with time the practices waned and the prevalence/frequency relegated to the archives. That would not be the case if the practices were genetic. Rather, if the practices were genetic, the tendency for increased homosexuality would be understandable.

By the first century, pederasty was no longer as accepted as it had been in classical Greece, nor did such “Greek love” ever enjoy equal acceptance in Roman life. Female homosexuality was hardly ever mentioned in classical Greek literature.

Jewish historians like Philo and Josephus concur that homosexual behavior was common among non-Jewish communities. Jews considered the practice to be unnatural and intolerable before God who created human bodies to be compatible with the opposite gender.

Paul picks up the Jewish rhetoric and strongly condemns homosexuality. Interestingly, during Paul’s time, pederasty was not as prevalent as in ancient Greece. Hence, to use that as an argument to suggest that Paul was discussing pederasty in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is untenable.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul actually used two Greek words to describe what he was talking about. He used the word malakos in a metaphorical sense to designate the passive partner of a homosexual relationship. Some English translations correctly use the word effeminate in reference to malakos. Paul also uses the Greek word which identifies the male in a homosexual relationship. To be more specific, the Greek term describes “a man who lies with another man.”

As far as Paul was concerned, he was describing a behavior. Actually, he listed other undesirable behaviors in the text. Paul went further to remind the Christians in Corinth – “and that is what some of you were” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

From this brief historical overview, it would seem obvious that there is nothing in ancient history to suggest that homosexuality is biological. If this were to be the case, then the Bible would be unreasonable to condemn practices for which the practitioners were totally not responsible. Furthermore, the Bible would again be unreasonable to expect persons to change genetic or biological conditions for which they were not responsible.  

When in need of a companion, Adam was presented with “a helper suited to his needs.” In Hebrew, the term actually means “that which is opposite” or “that which corresponds.” The person who was provided was biologically and emotionally compatible to meet his needs.

The Defense of Marriage Act, although not a religious document, was designed to defend the compatibility referred to in the Bible. The Act was intended to protect the family, a social institution that has successfully served civilizations for millennia. The Act reflects my biological right. It should not be replaced to accommodate behavioral rights.