The Consequences Of The Sexual Revolution

By the middle of the twentieth century, Americans adopted a liberal attitude towards sex. There were two famous books that perhaps marked the turning point: “Sexual Behavior and the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual Behavior and the Human Female” (1953) authored by Alfred Kinsey. This was the beginning of what is called “the sexual revolution.” 

The sexual revolution was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the United States and the developed world from the 1960s to the 1970s. Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional natural heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage). The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed. Also, it was marked by more talk of sex and more education for young people, so they would not grow up with sexual “neuroses” like their parents.  

Now, western societies that had adopted such liberal attitude towards out of order sexual behaviors are suffering the consequences of their choices. The consequences are rampant adultery and divorce, increasing child molestation and organized pedophilia, widespread prostitution and pornography, militant homosexuality, more than 25 sexually transmitted diseases, millions of unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion, and the increasing disintegration of the family unit and with it the disintegration of society in general. Since the beginning of HIV, 79.3 million [55.9–110 million] people have been infected and 36.3 million [27.2–47.8 million] people have died of HIV. Globally, 37.7 million [30.2–45.1 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2020. An estimated 0.7% [0.6-0.9%] of adults aged 15–49 years worldwide are still living with HIV.

Does The Bible Say That Practicing Homosexuality Is Sinful?

The Bible totally and uncompromisingly rejects the act of homosexuality and same-sex marriage from cover to cover, just like it condemns adultery, fornication, and even unchaste thoughts. 

The first indication of this can be found in the creation story, which occurs in the first book of the Bible, Genesis: 

“So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27) 

It can be clearly seen that God created man male and female. He did not create two men or two women. And He commanded them to multiply. (Genesis 1:28) 

So, God’s plan for man has been that two people of the opposite sex, as male and female only, marry and multiply, that is, procreate. There was no intention of homosexuality, for He did not create other men or women for Adam and Eve to marry. Another confirmation of this arrangement is found in the following verse: 

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). 

Here it is said a man and his wife and not his husband, and wife is understood to be a female, since Adam only had Eve as his companion. 

And, in marriage, God says that these two form one flesh, that is, one unit. So the idea of polygamy is also against the arrangement of God as described in this verse. 

The following Bible passages clearly establish that God rejected homosexuality (the act, the idea, etc…) and even punished the people who practiced it. 

a.   The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the rescue of Lot from the coming judgment in Genesis 19:1-13. 

Not only did God destroy the people of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexual practice, but He also burned their cities outright. A judgment from God! 

b.       The laws that God gave to the Jewish people in the book of Leviticus: 

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22; KJV) 

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13) 

The New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament in condemning homosexual practice. In the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul states: 

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:25-27) 

Since God does not change, homosexuality is still a sin and therefore against God’s will to this day. 

c.   The Bible teaches that such have no part in eternal life 

Don’t you know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) 

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” (1 Timothy 1:9-11) 

The Bible teaches here in several places not only that homosexuals but also child molesters and those who disregard and do not obey the law (outlaws) including homosexuals. For the commandment is unequivocally clear that homosexuality is against God’s will and purpose for man. 

d.       Homosexuality and gay marriage are against God’s will and intention 

“And He answered and said to them, Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” (Matthew 19:4) 

From the above Bible verse it can be shown very well that Jesus (God as man) clearly states that the intention of man’s marriage and procreation was intended to be between a man and a woman. 

e.       Homosexual behaviour (clothing, etc…) 

The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abominations unto the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5) 

Even homosexual behaviour, such as dressing like the opposite sex, is an abomination and forbidden in God’s eyes. 

Does Homosexuality in Animals Mean That It Is Morally Ok?

Regardless of one’s view about the origin of humans, whether intelligently designed or blindly evolved, one can easily notice that humans are intellectually superior to other creatures (animals). It can happen that some animals are stronger, faster, and bigger than humans. But of all creatures, humans are the most intelligent. It is humans who founded civilizations, write poetry, build rockets, and save lives through medical operations. 

Now, can animals be our moral reference when it comes to sexual behaviour?  

Not really! As the National Geographic has once stated: “we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what’s acceptable in human society For instance, infanticide as practiced by lions and many other animals isn’t something people gay or straight generally approve of in humans.” There are many other behaviors that animals practice that we don’t accept as morally correct. We, therefore, don’t take animals as our moral compass. 

The Bible teaches that nature, including animals, became corrupt after Adam and Eve had sinned. It is natural that humans and animals have sexual desire. Yet, not only is practicing homosexuality sinful, but even unchaste thoughts by a heterosexual are sinful. It is only in the Bible where we can find the moral compass that directs us to purity and the saintly life that God intended for us to live, as creatures in His image and likeness.  

Are Homosexuals “Born That Way” – Bailey and Pillard’s Study On Identical Twins

The second scientific study the media have used to propagate the idea that homosexuality is genetically determined is the finding of a prevalence of homosexuality among twin and adopted brothers by homosexual psychiatrist Richard Pillard and psychologist/gay rights activist Michael Bailey.  

The two researchers recruited the subjects for their study through homosexual publications that cater exclusively to the homosexual population. Thus, their study did not represent a randomized, non-biased selection. Nevertheless, they found that, of the brothers who responded, 52 percent of identical twins, 22 percent of fraternal twins, 11 percent of adoptive brothers, and 9 percent of non-twin brothers were homosexual. Bailey and Pillard theorized that the reason there was such a high percentage of homosexuality among identical twins was because of their identical genetic makeup. But here we also encounter problems.  

Half of the identical twins were not homosexual; they were clearly heterosexual. How could this be, if they shared the same genes that supposedly predetermine homosexuality? In Perpetuating Homosexual Myths, Richard A. Cohen noted, “If a homosexual orientation is genetic, then 100 percent of all identical twin brothers should have been homosexual, but only half were. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that environmental factors, not genes, cause homosexuality.” Even Dr. Simon LeVay admitted that neither Bailey and Pillard’s study on twins nor his own brain research has proven that homosexuality is genetically determined. “At the moment it’s still a very big mystery. Not even my work nor any other work that’s been done so far really totally clarifies the situation of what makes people gay or straight….In fact, the twin studies, for example, suggest that it’s not totally inborn, because even identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation.

Are Homosexuals “Born That Way”?

Gay activists frequently claim that homosexuals are born that way. For them, their sexual orientation is akin to something like eye color, inevitable and unchangeable, and therefore society must accept homosexuality as normal. Afterall, it is unfair to expect people to change their biologically influenced behavior.  

However, research attempting to show biological or genetic cause-and-effect for homosexuality dates back almost a century, and over the years, no research has ever proven a physical basis for homosexuality. The attempts were so persistent that homosexual activist Dennis Altman eventually admitted: “They are impressed with the considerable efforts of biologists, endocrinologists, and physiologists to prove this foundation; I am more impressed by the inability of many years of research to amount to no more than ‘suggestions'”. 

When neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay was at the Salk Institute, he studied a certain group of neurons in the hypothalamus structure of the brain (called INAH3 or interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus). He examined 41 cadavers, 19 of which were allegedly homosexual men, 16 of which were assumed to be heterosexual men, and six of which were assumed to be heterosexual women. Dr. LeVay found that some of the neurons in the hypothalamus region of the brain of heterosexual men were larger than those he found in homosexual men. He theorized that if homosexual men had smaller neurons, then possibly these smaller neurons were responsible for causing these men to be homosexual. Likewise, if heterosexual men had larger neurons, then possibly these larger neurons caused them to be heterosexual. LeVay assumed that if the size difference in neurons could be shown to be true 100 percent of the time, this would be evidence that homosexuality is biologically based.  

However, at least seven scientific reasons were put forth by critics who rejected his theory 

1. Dr. LeVay’s own chart, published in Science magazine, revealed there were flaws in his hypothesis. It even contradicts his theory. John Ankerberg had the privilege of interviewing Dr. LeVay at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, so we have his recorded comments on tape concerning this. Dr. Ankerberg said, “Look, you have three of the nuclei of the homosexual men which are actually larger than those of the heterosexual men. If your theory is valid, this should not be. Second, you have three of the heterosexual men with smaller nuclei than those of the homosexual men.” Ankerberg then asked, “Is that true?” And LeVay said, “Yes, that’s true.” So Dr. Ankerberg asked, “How could it be then, that the Associated Press reported that you ‘had always found that the nuclei were larger in the heterosexual men and smaller in homosexual men?’” Dr. LeVay admitted this was false. 

2. No scientist has ever proven that the particular region of the hypothalamus under discussion causes sexual orientation. Consider the comments of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who specializes in working with male homosexuals. His books “Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy” and “Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality” gained him worldwide respect as an authority in same-sex attractions. Dr. Nicolosi emphasizes, “We’re talking about a general area of the brain that has to do with emotions, including sexuality; but in this particular nucleus, we have no clear understanding of what function it serves at this point.” So it would seem that 1) whether the neurons are large or small is not a firm indicator; and 2) no one really knows if they are even related to sexual orientation. 

3. Even if the anterior hypothalamus area of the brain could be shown to relate to sexual behavior, it still would not answer the question of cause and effect. In other words, what if homosexual behavior itself causes minute organic alterations in the body, which are only a posteriori assumed to be a contributing cause to homosexuality? Scientific studies have indicated that behavior itself might cause the size of the neurons to fluctuate, rather than the neurons causing specific homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Dr. Kenneth Klivington, former assistant to the president of the Salk Institute where Dr. LeVay did his study, pointed to “a body of evidence that shows the brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences.” So the relationship between cause and effect—what affects what—is not clear. Therefore, the difference in homosexual brain structure—assuming further studies confirm LeVay’s “finding”—may be a result of certain behavior and/or environmental conditions. 

4. The sexual orientation of the people that Dr. LeVay studied could not be verified. When Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. LeVay discussed the fact that three heterosexual men had smaller nuclei than the homosexual men, LeVay said, “Well, maybe some of those individuals were bisexual.” Ankerberg responded, “But if it’s ‘maybe,’ then you don’t really know,” and indeed, Dr. LeVay confessed he really didn’t know. Some may even have been homosexuals “in the closet” who passed themselves off as heterosexuals. Because all the individuals studied were dead, we simply don’t know. 

5. The next problem with Dr. LeVay’s study involves the possibility of researcher bias. Dr. LeVay is openly gay and has publicly acknowledged this. He is also on record as stating that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his homosexual lover had died of AIDS. He was even quoted in an issue of Newsweek as asserting that if he did not find the genetic cause for homosexuality he sought, he would abandon science altogether. Newsweek further quoted him as saying he is seeking to “… [promote] the idea that homosexuality is a matter of destiny, not choice” because “it’s important to educate society” along the lines of biological influence. In fact, LeVay opened his own school for homosexuals and lesbians in Los Angeles to help get the message out. (Due to declining enrollment, LeVay’s Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education was closed in 1996.) In all fairness, isn’t it at least possible that a scientist with such a personal agenda might subject himself to researcher bias? 

6. The interpretation of data and methodology used by LeVay are also questionable. Other scientists have pointed out that the measurement Dr. LeVay used is suspect. Should the alleged influence of the nuclei be evaluated only by size—or, instead, by volume, actual cell count, density, or some other (or all three) criteria? Further, what do scientists do with each of these criteria? What does the data mean? The truth is that no one knows.  

7. LeVay’s study faces the problem of almost all research attempting to prove biological determinism: lack of replication. This seems to be the Achilles’ heel of all such endeavors, for it appears that almost invariably other scientists discover they are unable to replicate the findings of the initial study, which means that the initial study has proven nothing at all. No matter how widely the results are heralded as “scientific evidence,” the “evidence” is either found to be elusive or, if replicated, subject to other interpretations that undercut a biological theory. Concerning Dr. LeVay’s work, there is no replication of his findings in any other scientific study. In fact, at least one study by Dr. Schwab in The Netherlands flatly contradicts it.