Ethics: Renting to a Homosexual Couple

Post image for Ethics: Renting to a Homosexual Couple

What would you do Wednesday!

The Michael Medved Show recently covered the topic of the discrimination lawsuit filed against Aloha Bed & Breakfast by a lesbian couple. The B&B owner, Phyllis Young, allegedly denied the couple a room due to her Christian views on homosexuality. The lesbian couple is suing claiming a violation of Hawaiian law by discrimination based on sexual orientation. Young is being legally represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization which defends religious freedom.

This should be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

As a Christian, would you do the same as Young? As I understand it, Young actually lives in the Bed & Breakfast which is common among B&B owners. At least one Medved Christian caller said that he would have a problem renting a room inside his home to a homosexual couple, but would not be troubled renting a house or apartment.

What would you do?

  • Follow Young’s actions and not rent to them.
  • Rent a room to them.
  • Rent a room to them, but share the gospel first and explain how their lifestyle is sinful.
  • Tell them you’ll rent them the shed.
  • Or…

Also, would your decision be different if you were renting a house or apartment rather than a room in your B&B home?

(Visited 300 times, 1 visits today)

tagged as , in Church Issues,Culture

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Rosemarie December 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm

Interesting conundrum. Here are my thoughts: Christians are first answerable to God and then the law. That’s what the cursory dilemma appears to be here. If it’s really as simple as that the answer to the dilemma would be as simple. If you don’t mind being subject to legal sanctions for violating the fair housing laws, deny qualified renters for whatever reason you choose and call it conscience/worship/morals related. If you want to avoid legal sanctions, rent to qualified renters despite your conscience/worship/morals related objections. If you don’t want to be bothered by the possible legal sanctions and adhering to them, let the house sit vacant, donate its use or sell it.

But that’s not really what this is about. I see the question as this: Do we as Christians have the right to refuse service to anyone based on our conscience/worship/morals/religion when we are offering those things to the general public? Also quite the dilemma. Seriously, if all the Christian business owners denied service to folks who are immoral, Christian businesses would be bankrupt. BUT is a surgeon then required to do an abortion because he/she offers their services to the public? So how do we determine what you can and cannot be offended by?

Would I be condoning sin if rented the room? That’s a more difficult question. I can think of a multitude of sinful behaviors that could take place in the room if a married couple were in it. Would I be condoning their sin too?

Perhaps Ms. Young didn’t think out the ramifications of offering a bed and breakfast to the community- especially given the fact that she is offering services in a state that condones and will legally recognize civil unions in a few days. Who knows? It’s quite the dilemma in my opinion. I feel strongly both ways.

2 Daniel F December 28, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Alas, we in the UK are way ahead of you guys on this one. A number of homosexual couples have already sued under equality legislation over here and won on exactly the same issue: the B&B owners refuse to let unmarried couples, gay or straight, share a room; and the B&B is also their private house.

Equalities legislation is used as a bludgeon to override sincere moral values. To quote one of the litigant parties in a case over here: “We’re not trying to stop anyone from observing their beliefs but to make it clear that their beliefs should not conflict with the discrimination laws in this country.”
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8283651/Second-BandB-owner-sued-for-turning-gay-couple-away.html)

I would do exactly the same as Ms Young. However, we must be ready to bear the costs for our stance.

3 Matt December 28, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Interesting question. My first question for Young would be if she allows unmarried heterosexual couples to use her B&B. The reason why is that many seem to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual sin. However, as I understand the teaching of Jesus on sexual matters (found in Matthew 19:1-7), sexual intimacy outside of one man and one women committed in a covenant of marriage is adultery – whether that inappropriate relationship outside of marriage is hetero or homosexual in nature.

To answer your question, though, I think that we must look at each option through the lens of what best represents the Gospel in action:
1. If I refuse to rent the room to them, the lesbian couple leaves status quo without any interaction with the Gospel.
2. If I rent the room to them, they will continue in their status quo of homosexuality (for my ability to allow or deny rent does not change this fact) but I will be afforded opportunity to present Christ to them.
3. If I rent the room and then immediately share the Gospel, I can seemingly state that I have done my part in sharing the good news of Christ. However, I often wonder if evangelism would be exponentially more effective scenarios if Christians invest in the lives of the lost while witnessing to them. As one who came to Christ in the middle of High School rather early childhood, I can certainly testimony that personal investment in the lost will prompt them to more readily listen to your witness.
4. If I tell them that I will rent the shed to them, from their perspective, I am accusing them of being animals that are not worthy to occupy the same housing space as myself.

Thus, I would choose option two with the caveat that I actively gain legitimacy from them while actively seeking to present the Gospel to them. After all, the issue of Christ has to be addressed before the issue of homosexuality can be tackled. If one attempts to tackle these issues in reverse, one must question how change will manifest. Unless one first receives the Holy Spirit through receiving Christ, that person is unable to permanently change.

For Young, her actions seemed to be based upon a fear that allowing the lesbian couple to rent a room would insinuate that she endorses homosexuality. However, I do not recall Jesus being ashamed to be in the presence of sinful people. For the Pharisees, his interaction with the gluttons and drunkards may have prompted the accusation that Jesus was one of them, but we know from the Gospels that those accusations were false. Besides, in the event of Jesus refusing to interact with sinners, He would have traveled alone and never interacted with anyone else. He knew the exact level of sinfulness possessed by each person on earth and yet He forgave the women caught in adultery – though we should not miss that He commanded her to cease from her sinfulness immediately after forgiving her.

Also, if the issue is keeping one’s home pure, then I must ask if the presence of sinful people staying in your home effects the Christian’s purity. In the Old Covenant, this would have been a legitimate concern because the place where God occupied was required to be kept clean for His presence to remain there (i.e. the Tabernacle and later the Temple). However, one of the results of New Covenant established by God is that His Spirit occupies us as Christians – we are the new Tabernacle in which the Holy Spirit dwells. Thus, the only scenarios in which I advise against allowing someone to live with them is when that scenario will effect the person’s obedience to God – i.e. couples living together before marriage.

4 MarieP December 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm

This isn’t an answer concerning what I’d do, but my first question is, if we would not rent a room to homosexuals, would consistency require that we don’t rent to non-married couples? Would we be as willing to share the Gospel with them and point out their sin too?

As a side note, the pastor who married my sister and brother-in-law had an interesting tidbit at the signing of the marriage certificate. It used to be that you had to show the certificate if you wanted to rent a room for the night. I can’t find much about it online, but it appears it’s mostly in Muslim lands today.

5 Stumpy December 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm

I like where Matt’s going in his response, but I think I’d go even further.

This doesn’t seem like a difficult issue to me: if I owned a B&B, I don’t think I’d want to require my prospective guests to fill out a questionnaire about their sex lives before renting them a room. These are human beings whom Jesus loves; I would rent the room to them joyfully, and hope that my treatment of them during their stay communicated the grace and love of God to them, and I would be prepared, if invited, to share my own testimony about Jesus. I would not push them away from Jesus by pointing out that their lives are sinful…as though my own life were somehow not sinful?

This raises the very important question, “Why does the church care so much more about sexual sins than other kinds of sins?” I’d go even further than that, though, and ask this question, too: “Why is so much of the church so insistent on defining sinfulness by making laundry lists of approved and disapproved behaviors, rather than thinking about sinfulness in terms of a person’s relationship with God?”

I know several gay or lesbian people through work, and they behave much more like Christians than many Christians I know. If the church can’t see past the behavior and all the way to the person, we’re going to drift quickly into irrelevance in a generation or two. The Pharisees resented Jesus for eating with tax collectors and prostitutes; I’d rather be resented for renting a room to a gay or lesbian couple than to lose sight of what it really means to live out the gospel.

6 Joseph December 28, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Difficult question. I do not know how I would react, as I do not own a B & B, and being in the moment while something like this happens can cause one to act in a way that one may or may not anticipate. I would only hope that I would react in a way that would allow me to share the gospel with them and hopefully cause them to come to the realization of their sins and turn and repent. I do believe that Christians everywhere must come to the realization that homosexuality is just as sinful as premarital sex, stealing, and bearing false witness. Remember, those who keep the whole law and yet stumble at just one point are guilty of breaking all of it. We need to overcome our homophobia and witness to them like we do any other sinner.

Your Brother in Christ,

Joe

7 Nick December 29, 2011 at 11:12 am

I rent to a homosexual couple and admit that my primary motivation is monetary and not ethical. They are fantastic tenants — much better than roommates I had while living there. To a large extent I reckoned that at the end of the day, there were not going to change just because they lived here or there. My only regret is that my attempts to witness to them have been half-hearted.

8 Zack December 29, 2011 at 2:04 pm

For those interested, Lambda Legal, (who is bringing the suit), has a copy of the Complaint which was filed in the case. http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/cervelli_hi_20111219_complaint.pdf

I understand that the ADF is defending the suit; although, I can’t seem to find if they’ve actually filed their Answer yet. If anybody else has a link to the Answer, I’d appreciate seeing it.

Finally, here’s a link to the specific Hawaii law which the B&B owner is alleged to have violated. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0489/HRS_0489-0003.htm You can clink on the “previous” and “next” buttons to review the other portions of the code section.

It should be an interesting suit.

9 Zack December 29, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Mark:

On a more general level, I would like to state how much I enjoy these Ethics posts. While I don’t often participate in the discussions, one of my primary hobbies is reading works in Christian ethics. Thus, I thoroughly enjoy these posts and the discussions which ensue. Keep up the great work.

10 Mark December 30, 2011 at 11:28 am

Zack, thanks for the encouragement neighbor.

Nick, that’s bold of you to share about your half-hearted witnessing attempt toward the homosexual couple. I think we all have friends and acquaintances who are unbelievers that we fail to witness to well.

Thanks for all of the comment everyone. It is an interesting situation, but i do wonder if these people would have been treated differently if they were heterosexual unbelievers who had another easily seen sinful element of their lifestyle.

11 Waldean January 1, 2012 at 6:45 pm

I hope I would rent the room to them and be Jesus to them. Live the gospel well and share Jesus with them in a compelling and winsome way. You know – love your neighbor. We have much in common – deep sin. What do you think Jesus would do in a situation like this?

12 LINDA SMITH January 2, 2012 at 9:50 am

THE “HOMOSEXUAL” MYTH
By Linda Smith
To respond and discuss the issue of “homosexuality” it must be considered from the two distinct justifications that tend to be most heralded by the proponents of those that believe that the gender which has come to be known as “homosexual” exists. These two justifications include:
1. The natural born gender with the opposite gender physical characteristics, i.e. a girl born with several male physical characteristics or the boy born with several female physical characteristics.
2. The attraction to the same sex (either by involuntary propensity or acquired preference)

1. The natural born gender with the opposite gender physical characteristics, i.e. a girl born with several male physical characteristics or the boy born with several female physical characteristics.

The qualifier that identifies an individual as being male or female is exclusively and specifically based on the genitalia with which he or she was born. This qualification does not include testosterone, progesterone or other hormone levels or production which might manifest developed feminine breasts and/or delicate skin and other features in men, or an Adam’s apple, or masculine bone and muscular structure in women. Nor does it consider the types of activities or material objects the individual is drawn to. Such as for example, the fact that a man loves show tunes, interior decorating, or that a woman loves working on cars or playing heavy contact sports, these genuine passions would play no role in the criteria that determines his or her gender, only the genitalia with which the individual is born. Neither do the qualifications that identify a man or a woman take into consideration automotive gestures that have traditionally been ascribed to men or to women exclusively. These automotive gestures could be exemplified in such as a heavy grip versus the gentle and graceful manipulation of objects with the hands. The qualifier of gender being exclusively centered on the type of genitalia with which the man or woman is born, expands the true range of what encompasses manhood or womanhood and leaves no room for what has been mistakenly identified as the “homosexual” gender.
Each individual includes some measure of masculine and feminine characteristics and gestures. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. This passage in the Bible presents an innate androgynous nature of men and women by deific design. It also presents the totality of genders created by God. God exclusively created two genders, male and female. He did not create a third or any other number of genders. This androgyny presents a wide spectrum within each individual whereby the calibrated male to female ratio characteristics are manifested in each gender. No matter how feminine the boy is or how masculine the girl, no matter where any of us fall in this trait scale, genitalia determines gender as male or female and nothing else. So it is impossible that anything but a male or female be born. The body manifests the gender. There is no mistake. Each human body is a valid encasement of the full range of feminine and masculine characteristics and gesture and there is no telling how these characteristics will manifest in any one of the sexes. But it doesn’t matter, because, genitalia that comes with birth determines the gender and nothing else. There is nothing and no one born that is subject to damnation based on his or her birth and body parts. There are no homosexuals born. Not one. There are only legitimate, bona fide, men and women born and they are identified exclusively by their genitalia.
God is passionate about His creation of men and women and declares it “very good” as seen in Genesis 1:31. God so very much and so very tenderly loves each and every one of His children. He thoughtfully and specifically packaged their unique blend of feminine and masculine traits into two distinct genders, identifiable by their genitalia. He calls one of the packaged blended characteristics, male and the other packaged blended characteristics he calls female. This divine packaging was not an oversight, or a bad joke, or punishment. It was purposeful, founded on deific principle, it was a loving and marvelous design.

So How Did This Mythical Gender Come To Be?

The Biblical moral guidelines that references inappropriate sexual activities only regards the activity itself. It does not circumscribe the physical characteristics and gestures of men and women nor imply that these could in any way forecast their propensities toward certain sinful temptations. Yet mainstream “Christian” society has imposed these propensities on men and women based on their extreme opposite gender characteristics and gestures and tragically exile them to the mythical gender of the “homosexual”. In addition, this wrongful exile includes an implied excommunication from Christianity and mainstream society as a whole. As a “homosexual” the exiled man or woman is often left with few options for salvation, they believe, so why bother with morality? Why try to seek out God’s plan for his/her blessed and perfect life here and eternally hereafter if born into this abominable and damned life of the “homosexual” so-called. The Bible does not identify a specific range of masculine or feminine features when qualifying a man as a man or a woman as a woman. The Bible does not condemn anyone on their features, characteristics, or the kinds of moral life activities they enjoy. The Bible does not condemn anyone for who they love. The Bible clearly and sternly presents its position and this position speaks only to sexual activity with the same sex. Even then, there is no assertion that a third gender is created when this law is transgressed.

Mainstream “Christian” Society’s Responsibility for The “Homosexual” Gender Belief Dilemma

Typically mainstream “Christian” society has limited the true and expansive range of what qualifies legitimate and bona fide men and women as men as women without Biblical authority. (Please be aware that it is acknowledged that Christians are not the only social and religious groups that impose these limitations on men and women). These unauthorized and imposed limitations on true manhood and womanhood have estranged many men and women who do not meet the median calibrated characteristics of their genders. In other words, mainstream “Christian” society tends to dictate that other than the man or woman’s genitalia, other factors such as hair growth, muscular and breast development, bone structure, tone and pitch of voice, as well as other features are integral in identifying who is a woman and who is a man. In still other words, mainstream “Christian” society dictates that those men and women that manifest what they (mainstream “Christian” society) consider as too many features of the opposite sex are not indeed bona fide men or women. By extending the qualifications to more than mere genitalia, these otherwise good Christians disparage God’s pure and perfect creation of only men and women.

Seeking Out Their Own For a Mate

Now, cast out of mainstream society, these abandoned men and women are forced to seek out their “own kind” for a mate. They do indeed have what is considered as their “own kind” but they, unfortunately, do not typically seek out a morally acceptable mate out of the pool of candidates who truly constitute their “true mate” among their “own kind”. For every extremely feminine male there is an extremely masculine female. This is true for not only the extreme calibrated characteristic manifestations but the subtle manifestations as well. There is member of the opposite sex that is perfect for every man and woman regardless to the way their female and male qualities are calibrated within their own skin.
All those people, “homosexual” and “heterosexual” who believe in this pseudo gender “homosexuality” typically consider the “homosexual’s” own to be a member of their same sex. As a true man or woman (as they truly are) their own includes both men and women. “Their own” is being identified as a pool of legitimate men and women who manifest characteristics and/or gestures of the opposite sex in a measure outside which is generally manifested and historically, socially accepted. Now restored as legitimate men and women these individuals can rightfully connect to the proper pool of mate candidates, whereby moral and satisfactory relationships can be established. So the man who desires the more masculine qualities is able to find the woman that possesses such, and the woman that prefers the more feminine qualities is able to find the man that possesses such.
This article is presented for the purpose to reinforce the truth that these men and women who have previously been exiled, are indeed real men and women and to foster and environment for them whereby they can seek out and access larger pool of mate candidates to which they are divinely entitled. This divinely entitled expansive mate candidate pool offers each man and woman a satisfying mate and one that will allow them to comply with the Biblical moral codes. This compliance enhances their immediate life fulfillment here and eternally hereafter (for those who assign their faith in the more arcane concerns).

Once Born a Man or Woman, Always a Man or Woman

Again, a man or a woman is exclusively and specifically identified by their genitalia. This correct identification expands the range of expression and characteristics that a man or a woman possesses or demonstrates. This expanded range forever establishes their qualification as bona fide, potent, genuine and worthy men and women no matter what the characteristics or expressions are that surround their genitals.
As such, no one is born homosexual, no one can become homosexual. The only gender anyone can ever be is that which they were born regardless to future augmentation. The only genders available to distinguish accurately between the sexes is male and female. There is no “homosexual” gender.
Thereby, any suggestion that would assert that a person was born a homosexual and is in jeopardy of damnation due to Biblical moral codes is absolutely not true, is not founded in reality, is not grounded in anything Biblical, nor is it the product of any intelligent scientific deductions.
There are no men born in women’s bodies and no women born in men’s bodies whereby these hostage individuals must be liberated via surgery and/or popular acceptance to establish that they indeed qualify as members of the opposite gender. These individuals are also now and forever, regardless to their assumed and incorrect assessment of their bodily betrayals, genuine men and women and never homosexual. The “born homosexual” is a myth and does not exist. Therefore there is nothing in the physical birth of any individual that relegates him/her to the damnation that Biblical moral guidelines might impose on what has become inaccurately identified as “homosexual”.
2. The attraction to the same sex (either by involuntary propensity or acquired preference)

What is Attraction?

Attraction is a property of decisive thought processing and not of an independent material body function. The material elements that would serve decisive thought processing in its determination that there is attraction or not, such as physical appearance, smells, attitude, etc. are tributary to decisive thought processing. Decisive thought processing is also known as a person’s deliberations about the thoughts he or she considers. Decisive thought processing dictates what the physical appearance, smells, attitudes, etc. means to him or her and then attraction is ignited or not by the magnification or disposal of the data presented about the material features. There is no involuntary attraction, even though it may seem to be so.

No One Is a Hostage to His or Her Thoughts

Men and women are not imprisoned, helpless, victims that are subject to the random thought data that seeks to be entertained in their minds. At every decision point each of us is tasked with processing whatever thought data presents itself to us. The Biblical moral guidelines regards only how this thought data that entreats us for decisive thought processing (for our deliberations) are managed. The Biblical moral guidelines advise us on how to manage these kinds of thoughts (temptations). The Biblical moral guidelines issue stern warnings against acting upon certain temptations such as sexual activity with the same sex. It does not issue damnation about the man or woman who is approached by the tempting thought, or the man or woman that considers the tempting thought. It is clear about its rebuke regarding the man or woman taking action on the thought. The Biblical moral guidelines also do not establish those transgressors as members of some new gender outside of the two (male and female) that God already established. The fact that suggestions about same sex activity approach the mind of a man or a woman does not establish him or her as a member of this pseudo, imposed, unreal and mythical gender called “homosexual”. The fact that suggestions about same sex are entertained and embraced does not relegate the man or woman to the pseudo, imposed, unreal and mythical gender called “homosexual” either.
What are These Temptations and Suggestive Thoughts?
Temptations are thoughts. The mere temptation has no power whatsoever. It simply presents itself for our consideration and it is up to man (generic term including men and women) to productively process the thought. That process would be to either:
1. Cast out the tempting thought immediately
2. Entertain the tempting thought and then cast it out
3. Entertain the tempting thought and store it for future consideration
4. Entertain and embrace the tempting thought
5. Entertain the tempting thought and act on it
Casting out an immoral thought immediately is the best and safest management of the immoral suggestion. But while the entertainment and the embrace of an immoral temptation does not ascribe guilt to the thinker, it weakens the man or woman’s resistance of the temptation. Actual guilt occurs when the man or woman acts on the immoral temptation. It is indeed the act that transgresses the Biblical moral codes and not the thought.
Being approached by thoughts that suggest one engage in sexual activity with the same sex does not establish the man or woman as a “homosexual”. Being approached by these suggestions do not reveal latent or overt tendencies either. As said above the prolonged entertainment and the embrace of a suggestion tends to weaken the man or woman’s resistance to the temptation. But at no point is a person defenseless against the suggestions that would initiate attraction. There is no mentally helpless condition a man or a woman could find themselves in whereby their only choice was to engage in same sex sexual activities, thereby rendering them entitled to membership in a pseudo gender outside of the true, Biblically authorized and legitimate genders of either man or woman.

When Is A Man or Woman Held Accountable for His Thoughts?

It is when action is taken on an immoral thought that the moral law is transgressed. The action a person takes on any immoral thought does not identify them personally or establish them in some category or group. The man or woman that took action on the immoral thought is in jeopardy at the precise moment the act is committed and he or she remains such until a personal and devoted commitment is engaged to make improved moral choices regarding the transgression and cease engaging it the immoral activity. This personal and devoted commitment is more often referred to as repentance.
Often men and women believe that if a particular thought entreats them (manifests in their consciousness) that this is indicative of their identity. It is sometimes believed that if a woman or a man is approached by a thought or a temptation of some kind, that this very temptation is proof he or she must be indeed guilty of the sin. They think that if he/she was not already guilty the thought would never have found its way to his or her mind in the first place. In other words, it is thought that if a man has thoughts that present themselves to him that another man is sexually desirable, that this is an indication that this man is “homosexual”. This is not true. In fact it is a big lie. All kinds of thoughts, temptations, suggestions and ideas are known to randomly manifest in the minds of men and women. That is what thoughts do. But simply because they show up on our mind’s doorstep, does not authorize them to dictate our identity, our propensities, our limitations etc. These thoughts simply beg our consideration. They ask, “What if…?”, “How about…?”, “Wouldn’t it be satisfying to…?”. They also assert, “I am…”, “I feel…”, “I can’t…”, “I can…” These random thoughts pose as our own thinking, yet they are indeed not of our own mental inventory. They are not our own until we embrace the thought by choice as our own. And again the suggestive, entertained or embraced thought itself does not establish a transgression of a Biblically moral code. It is the act itself and alone that convicts the man or woman. So again, there is no thought that can establish a “homosexual” and present him/her for condemnation.

What Difference Does it Make Who is Having Sex with Who?

There are an infinite number of negative consequences that occur and on so many levels when Biblical moral codes are transgressed. As the negative consequences are infinite in number, it impossible to state every reason and the few that there are time to discuss may not be enough to convince one that transgression of Biblical codes is not a good idea to do. But this lack of adequate explanation does not in any way diminish the veritable and devastating effects of these transgressions. These negative consequences occur on the transgressor, his/her partner, his/her family, his/her neighbors, his/her community, his/her country, world, and universe. These consequences occur on an immediate and personal level that impacts emotions, health, security, and the environment. These negative consequences not only impact the transgressor immediately but eternally. If the transgressor does not believe in an eternal existence, there is still abundant incentive for him or her to heed these Biblically moral codes on the more mundane and practical basis.

Respect for the Writers of the Biblical Moral Code

For the more spiritually and universally aware, no activity occurring in our universe is an isolated event that does not impact every other person and every other thing in our existence. Through years and generations of trial and error the ancients have logged, charted and scientifically evaluated those activities that tend to promote personal and universal wellbeing and those that tend to generate a downward spiral. As we are all engaged in this cooperative effort to maintain existence for ourselves and our fellows now and forever, it is responsible and considerate to observe and abide by the guidelines that have been lovingly established for all of us to sustain our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those that shall come after us.

Nobody Gets A Pass On Immorality

The responsibility to manage immoral suggestions and temptations does not only rest with those who engage in sexual activity with the same sex. Men and women are also called upon by these Biblically moral codes to not engage in sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage. As well, men and women are called upon by these same moral codes to not steal, murder, bear false witness, commit adultery, etc. Men and women are tempted readily with suggestions that would lure them into the trap of moral transgression. The Bible says in Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; Many are compensated with death immediately and some in the long run. Many are compensated with emotional havoc, devastated relationships and finances. Some are compensated with incarceration and other horrific negative consequences. We are all in this together as each one of our actions impacts our fellows. We cannot control others, but we can control our thoughts. Just as immoral actions set in motion negative consequences, moral acts are positively generative and regenerative.
Does it make sense to establish a legitimate class of “thieves” because they are unable to control the temptations to steal? Then should we rally society and legislation to support this disadvantaged group? Should we promote societal acceptance of “thieves” and teach our children about this alternative lifestyle and deem it as “normal”. What about “murderers”? Are there some that were born that way and as such society should embrace their differences and accommodate their natural lack of resistance to the thoughts that call them to murder?
Redemption
The man or woman who has transgressed the Biblical moral code and engaged in sexual activity with the same sex is also not a “homosexual” either. These transgressors are legitimate, bona fide, men and women who much like many people have stumbled when “whatever” temptation bade them. A trap door did not slam behind them when they engaged in this activity, ensnaring them forever in the pseudo, imposed, unreal and mythical gender called “homosexual”. At any moment these legitimate , bona fide men and women are faced with decision points and at any one of these points they have the inalienable right and opportunity to make the better choice. They are divinely authorized to see that they were always men and women highly esteemed and created by God and always will be and that this order is wonderfully good, perfect and satisfying. They can seek out their true mate among the countless members of the opposite sex that were designed by God especially for their ultimate satisfaction, joy and to maximize their earthly as well as their eternal walk.

Working Out Our Own Eternal Salvation

We are all working out our own salvation for here and hereafter. It is not expected that anyone is going to immediately cease their immoral activity all at once, cold turkey. Mary Baker Eddy, in her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures on page 451:15 Man walks in the direction towards which he looks, and where his treasure is, there will his heart be also. So it is hoped that the ideas presented in this article inspires thought and that these truths will set free those that have been constricted by the many inaccuracies that surround this “homosexual” gender myth and men and women will begin to mentally walk in the direction that reveals their true and upright identities as legitimate and bona fide men and women of God’s creating. It is hoped that the psychological profession will put their school of thought on the right track as well and counsel their clients based on the truth of their being. It is hoped that our legislators will also take heed to these truths so that they do not enable immorality to flourish through the sanctioning of same sex marriage. It is hoped the mainstream “Christian” society will remove the limits they place on what qualifies true manhood and womanhood and will embrace the differences of its entire male and female population in their moral expression of their sexual identity.

.

Previous post:

Next post: