Madam, – I write as an evangelical pastor. May I point out what I think are three inaccuracies in the correspondence thus far: 1. That there is a consensus among peer-reviewed scientific papers confirming a “gay gene”. As far as I am aware, this is far from the truth. If I am wrong, please cite the evidence. It is not enough simply to assert “scientific consensus” (Mark McCarron, May 6th). To class “homosexuality” as a characteristic identical with “race” or “gender” has been part of the gay lobby’s propaganda for decades.
2. That the Bible is not clear that homosexual practice is wrong (Eimhin Walsh, May 7th; William Norris, May 10th). In fact, the New Testament has several Greek words which refer to homosexual practice. First, the general word “porneia”, which covers all sexual activity outside of marriage, including homosexual practice, and is listed by Jesus alongside other things like greed, slander and arrogance which make people unacceptable to God (Mark 7:20-23). Then there are two words used in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth, part of a list describing those excluded from God’s kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9), but for whom forgiveness is wonderfully available through the Lord Jesus Christ (v11), including thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers (v10). The first word, malakoi (meaning “soft ones”) probably refers to the passive homosexual; the second, arsenokoitai (meaning “man-bedder”), probably refers to the active homosexual. While the first one is often translated “male prostitute”, the second one is not necessarily limited to prostitution and has a dictionary definition of “a male who practises homosexuality” (in the standard Greek lexicon, Arndt Gingrich, 2nd edition). The Bible has no word for homosexual orientation since the issue is not orientation but practice. It is homosexual practice that the New Testament prohibits. It is clear enough. Whether you accept its authority is quite another matter.
3. That Christians have no right to impose their views on others (Kevin Hargaden, May 7th). This sounds reasonable at first, but fails to recognise that the gay lobby is seeking to impose its minority views on the rest of us. If the Bible really is God’s word, as I believe it is, then its teaching on matters such as marriage is in fact best for all of mankind, not just a minority.
Christians should use their democratic freedom to seek to persuade their fellow-citizens of the benefits of following the maker’s instructions.
The reality is that the proposed civil partnership legislation seeks in effect to reshape the definition of marriage. This is a damaging path for society in the long-term. Injustices against any section of society, including gays, should of course be addressed and rectified. But not this way. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Both Luison Lassala and James Scott (May 10th) ignore the central thesis of my previous letter when they both choose to refer to sexuality, including homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice”.
To reiterate my point which does not just reflect my personal “belief”, sexuality is an inherent and unchangeable characteristic that cannot be turned on or off at will. The significant scientific support for this view was eloquently outlined by Dr Alan Dibble (Opinion, May 7th). Thus, if we are to accept this emerging scientific reality, there must be social policy consequences as a result. This would include preventing people from legally discriminating against gay people because of their religious choices. – Yours, etc,