You do not have a "right" to have sex. At the very least, you must have the consent of the other person (otherwise it is rape!) Even consensual sex is not a "right." Sex is by nature a public act; one, because it involves more than one person, and two, because of its procreative nature. And when a child is conceived, the child will have at least some burdensome impact upon people other than his or her parents. When this happens outside of a publicly acknoledged relationship (marriage) you are being unfair to yourself, to your child, and to anyone else burdened by the responsibility of caring for that child. This is because those that could provide support will not be prepared to give it, your burden of responsibility for caring for that child is thus increased, and the child suffers for the lack of support.

The marriage ceremony provides the opportunity for the public to consent or object to your sexual relationship and any children that may result.

To the top of this page

1.Sex has the power to destroy careers
2.Sex has the power to kill (spread deadly or uncurable diseases)
3.Sex has the power to demonstrate true love
4.Sex has the power to create human life
5.Sex has the power to make someone feel really good
6.Sex has the power to make two people feel really good
7.Sex has the power to make someone feel really bad
8.Sex has the power to control other people

When sex is kept pure to the marriage bed:
The power of sex in numbers 1,2,7, and 8 is greatly reduced.
The power of sex in number 3,5, and 6 is greatly enhanced.

When sex is not kept pure to the marriage bed:
The power of sex in number 3 is greatly diminished.
Sex can provide significant quantities of 5, and 6, but outside of marriage, the feelings are much more temporary, and when they end, the "letdown" is much greater.

Any sex, inside marriage or not:
the power of sex in number 4 is roughly the same, but a married couple committed to each other can provide for a child or deal with any other consequences of sex much better than an unmarried couple.

With Contraceptives, whether married or not:
The power of sex in number 2 and 4 can be diminished but not completely eliminated.
The design of the contraceptive might have an effect on numbers 5,6, and 7
The power of number 3 can also be diminished if one of the couple choose to use or not use them without the other's knowledge.
There is little or no change to the level of power in numbers 1 and 8.

If you disagree with any of this, just look at our society:
Destroy careers? Look at the politicians, the sex scandals, etc.
Kill? Have you heard of AIDS? Probably. But there is a whole host of other sexually transmitted diseases, many of which while they may not kill you, will make your life pretty miserable, and there's often no cure. And don't think AIDS will be the last widespread deadly and incurable STD. The lure of sex can and is also used as a trap by people intent on killing their victim.
Demonstrate true love? Our society has all but lost this, but when sex is kept pure to the marriage bed, the sharing of such an intimate experience exclusively with the one you love is a powerful way to demonstrate to them that you truly love them more than anyone else. See section below for a more in-depth description.
Create Human Life? DUH!
Make someone feel really good? If it didn't feel good, why is sex so prevalent?
Make two people feel really good? See above statement.
Make someone feel really bad? Ever heard of rape?
Power to control? "Honey, if you don't take out the garbage tonight, then there's no sex for you!" Also, ever heard of "Sexual Favors" in the workplace?

Conclusion:
I am not naieve, and I know many people of all ages scoff at these ideas, saying they are religious or outdated. But none of the above stuff is either religious or outdated. Those who ignore these ideas do so at their own risk, and many suffer the consequences. This is sad because it is easily avoidable. In today's society, it's a better idea than ever to respect your sexuality and save sex for marriage.

To the top of this page

When our kids get to be 9, 10, 11, and 12 years old, they begin to "discover" and become interested in the opposite sex.
And we teach them all about what sex is, how to do it, and that it feels good, but no advice as to how to control their behavior.

As they grow older, they begin to pair up in boyfriend/girlfriend pairs.
And we encourage it with dances, parties, proms, etc.

They begin to get physically involved with their partner.
And we tell the boys, "Use a Condom," because, afterall, boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway.

They have sex.
And we ignore it because we don't believe our precious child would do that.

Then they get pregant.
We wonder why. We get angry at them. And that only if we're aware of it.

Then they give birth, get an abortion without our permission or even knowledge, or murder their child before anyone can find out what's going on.
And suddenly we wonder, "What went wrong?! How could this have happened?!"

Isn't it about time to re-evaluate how we are raising our children?

To the top of this page

I understand how difficult it is to intruduce the subject of sex to a young child, especially someone who hasn't been bombarded with such issues already. However, I also believe that it is critical for kids to hear the Christian perspective on such issues lest they fall into the enticing trap that the world's discussion of such matters presents. I think the most appropriate time to begin discussing things of this nature is when the child first begins to discover or hear about these things on their own. Thus parents must be very alert to what their child knows.

I think a good place to start, even before talking about anything sexual, is with the issue of respect for others, respect for certain private areas of their body, and to be cautious of people who only want certain things. You don't have to mention sex to explain these things, but when the sex issue comes up, you can then easily show how it applies in the same way.

To the top of this page

Sex is not love. It is a demonstration of love. If you think sex is love, then what is rape?

Sex is argueably the strongest expression of love that a man and a woman can demonstrate to each other. What is sex to you? Sex can be treated as nothing more than just a few brief moments of extacy, but this cheapens sex, because sex can be BOTH a wonderful physical experience AND a powerful expression of love.

Once you have cheapened sex, it is very difficult to convince a future partner that it means more than what you have cheapened it to. If you have already demonstrated that sex to you means merely the physical experience, why should any future partner believe you when you tell you them you love them and want to demonstrate it by having sex with them? However, if you save sex for the person you love the most, you then can say I love you more than anyone else, and I demonstrate my love by sharing the intimate sexual experience exclusively with you.

The problem becomes worse if you and your sexual partner's view of sex differs. If your view of sex includes its use as a demonstration of love between you and your partner more than your love toward others, and your partner's view is that sex is just an enjoyable physical act, and you and such a partner have sex, you will be greatly disappointed when you see your partner going on to have sex with others without a concern for the meaning you placed on the sex you had with them.

The good news, however, is that if both you and your partner give sex the highest possible meaning, including a true love for each other, then you have complete freedom to throw off all sexual hinderances between the two of you, and enjoy sex to the fullest, without the slightest fear of the act resulting in misunderstandings, hurt feelings, or anything that the two of you can't handle.

To the top of this page

If this is your position, then you are making sex to be a primary basis for your relationship. My challenge to you is this: What will you do when sex fails to satisfy? Also, has it occured to you that you might not be compatible in other areas?

To put this very bluntly, you're far less likely to get along with someone's personality than with their genitals.

To the top of this page

No birth control is 100% effective. Only Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually related diseases. Abstinence is not birth control, for birth control hinders pregnancy and implies sexual activity. Abstinence does not hinder pregnancy, it utterly prevents pregnancy. Abstinence is not birth control, abstinence is a matter of self-control!

To the top of this page

A friend forwarded me the following e-mail from someone obviously quite upset at pro-life people, if not the pro-life movement in general. They were responding to a very pro-life poem.

Date: Sat, Oct 25, 1997 11:46 PM EST
From: GypsKid
Subj: Re: read this

I read the poem, and I like it. But that does not change my mind on being pro-choice. Being pro-choice does not mean I am pro-abortion. Pro-choice means I respect another woman's decision on what she chooses to do with her body. Now, I cannot tell you if I would be pro-abortion, because I have never been pregnant and I hope I never have to face abortion. WHat most of you pro-lifers dont realize is that abortion is a moral/religious/ethical issue that can only be decided by the woman herself. It is not for you to decide for her. I have known girls who have gone through abortion and it has been hell for them. Nobody seems to care about the woman or what personal guilt she goes through. Abortion is a very sensitive issue. Just because we are pro-choice does not mean we hate unborn fetuses. This is a typical remark of a fanatic. I love kids personally, but what a woman does with that fetus is none of my business, or yours. You guys can bitch and whine all you want. If you are so worried about other kids then why don't you help kids? Help the ones who are abused, neglected, on drugs, in gangs, raped, molested. But NOOO, no pro-lifer have ever been able to answer that one, because most pro-lifers do not give a shit about other kids, they don't give a crap about all those little unborn fetuses that they will never know, let alone the mother. All you pro-lifers care about is forcing your beliefs on everyone else. It's all a self-righteous issue, whether you want to admit it or not, and don't go off and say I am a child killer or a pro-abortionist, because that fanatical excuse it getting old. If you are pro-life and you think abortion is wrong, fine, That is your choice, but you cannot dictate to other women what is morally right concerning abortion, whether you like it or not. Put you medical book down, put you Bible down, put you poems down, it won't change my mind. I am a liberal, yes. I believe everyone has the right to choose the way the live, and this includes abortion. It is very simple TV, wear a condom, then you wont have to worry about abortion yourself. If you don't like it, tough. I am curious, if your sister/aunt/mother/cousin/daughter or whatever had an abortion, would you degrade her and condemn her and insult her? ANswer that one for me if you can, and answer it honestly. While you are at it, tell me why it is any of your personal business if a girl you don't know out there chooses to have an abortion? Is it really going to make a difference in your life whether a millions girls out there have one or not? No it won't. So worry about your own life. If you cannot answer these questions like a true debater then don't bother e mailing me back, because I am sick of the typical pro-life BS. Peace to you

My response

This person is obviously venting. This usually means they aren't interested in an honest answer, or any answer at all for that matter. She seems to be reacting to the typical debate about this issue that never gets resolved. In fact, the e-mail address of this person became inactive before I got a chance to send them a response.

For those who believe life begins at birth, it is easy to see why they would find no problem with abortion and be totally comfortable leaving the "choice" up to the woman. For those who believe life begins at conception, thus believing abortion to be murder, it is easy to see why they are so concerned about abortion. In a murder case, justice needs to be served. In the same way, they would view abortion as deserving of the same justice without concern for the mother or anyone else involved. They picket abortion clinics or do other things that do nothing for the woman. If this is the only aspect of the pro-life movement that you have experienced, this is sad. I for one have consistently stayed away from these kinds of activities.

You spend the bulk of your e-mail complaining that no Pro-Lifer cares about anything other than pushing their beliefs on others. This is a rather general statement that is simply not true. There are many peaceful demonstrations that pro-lifers take each year. While this doesn't specifically help women in a crisis pregnancy, it does use our freedom of speech to get the message out that abortion is both wrong and risky to women. But this is not all. Many Pro-Lifers are working to prevent abortions in the first place by helping young girls stay away from the types of situations where they can wind up getting pregnant, and also providing homes for them to live in when they do get pregnant where they can get help raising their child. Some of this activity is through the numerous Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the nation. These centers are essentially the pro-life counterpart to Planned Parenthood clinics. They provide the Pro-Life side of the choice in the abortion decision.

You mention that the simple answer is wearing a condom. This is only a partial solution, as condoms are not 100% effective. See my section on the Power of Sex for a description of what condoms are ineffective against.

Now you ask a few questions about me personally. You ask, "I am curious, if your sister/aunt/mother/cousin/daughter or whatever had an abortion, would you degrade her and condemn her and insult her?" While I have not been that close to someone who has had an abortion, I can say that I treat people, no matter what they have done, as people. People make mistakes and must suffer the consequences of those mistakes and the punishment of law if appropriate. This does not warrant condemnation, ridicule, insult, degradation, etc., for their mistake. Instead, as gently as possible, I strive to help them understand their mistake and give them encouragement not to repeat it. I have treated people like this in the past that have done things that I consider wrong. I am not perfect at doing these things, and when I screw up, then it is my turn to face the consequences and just punishment for my mistake. And when that is done, then I am ready for forgiveness.

To the top of this page

Here I am now, Come and help me
I'm your child. Don't abort me!

My opposition to abortion is based on the fact that a unique living human is formed at conception. It is unique based on a combination of half its genes from each parent, it is human in that it is the result of a biological act of two humans using the only means given by nature to produce viable offspring, and it is living, for if it weren't living, then what is a miscarrage?

It is not a parasite. A parasite is not an entity of the same species, much less an offspring of an adult of the same species. It cannot be compared to cancer cells, an organ, an adult cell, or a sperm or unfertilzied egg cell. Our bodies are not designed to support the growth of any of these into a new human being, nor are they programmed to become a new human being. These things suggests that the fetus is in some way alive. Saying that it is a "potential" human denies its humaness. It is just as much an entity of the human species as an acorn is an entity of the oak tree species or a caterpillar is a member of the same species as the adult butterfly. And if the unborn child is a boy, how can it be said that it is merely a part of the woman's body? It isn't even the same sex! Some might claim that rights can be denied for a fetus because it is totally dependent on the mother for survival, but this would suggest that any living human that is totally dependent on another person can be denied their rights if nobody is willing to take care of them, including infants and young children unable to feed themselves. If the fetus is merely a part of the mother's body, then an abortion is merely the forceful removal of a body part. It could thus be equated to the forceful removal of any other body part. How can one do either of these things and not expect to do any damage to the living part that remains? While there are many non-essential body parts, our bodies are not specifically designed to let them be forcibly removed. If the abortion is done for other than purely life or physical health reasons, how can one expect that an abortion would improve the mother's physical health in any way?

I have shown here that none of the typical pro-abortion suggestions are reasonable, but it is also interesting to note that many of them are mutually exclusive. How often do you hear pro-abortion folk arguing over which of these things the fetus is? After all, they don't need to argue this point, since all of these suggestions are used to reach the same conclusion that the fetus can be treated just as you would treat any one of these suggestions. Thus, it appears that the Pro-Abortion community is merely fumbling around trying to find an analogy for the fetus that would justify aborting it rather than objectively trying to determine what it is.

To the top of this page

In staying consistent with the conclusion reached above, I defend the right to life for the conceived but unborn in all cases, including rape, incest, and even so called "life of the mother" situations. A conceived but unborn child has no control over his circumstances, and many Pro-Life people realize this and follow it to this same logical conclusion. But what about a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother? If we are to maintain our view that life begins at conception, we can't compromise on life-of-the-mother cases either. The mother certainly has a right to her own life, so what are we to do? The true pro-life response then is to make every effort to preserve both lives. Neither life should be killed to save the other. If a viable unborn child must be removed because that is the only thing we know to do in a particular case (as in a ectopic (Ňout of placeÓ) pregnancy), the fetus will certainly die, but this should not be because it is killed, but because we don't know how to preserve its life at this point.

If a child is desired, then everything possible is done to protect the mother during pregnancy to ensure a healthy baby. However, when a child is not wanted, a mother may try to end the pregnancy through abortion or other means. If the baby survives this as a few (very few) do, it is often deformed or sattled with a disability of some kind. Do we have the right to deny them a healthy life just because we didn't want them when they were still inside mom? I think not!

To the top of this page

The news media often labels all Pro Life and anti-abortion people as anti-abortion, lumping the peaceful opposition with those who are violent, thus setting a negative stereotype for those opposed to abortion. It is important to recognize that the terms are different, and should be used appropriately. Those who are Pro-Life uphold the right to life for all, both born and unborn, and are very much against the use of violence of any kind to get their message out. Those who use violence are appropriately called anti-abortion, since they are opposed to abortion, but Pro-Life they certainly are not.

"Pro-Choice"
I am Pro-Choice. Very pro choice! I mean, if someone can't choose what they're going to eat and drink, then we have clearly lost the idea of freedom. I also favor school vouchers, giving parents the choice of where to send their kids to school, as well as what car you drive, what computer you have, or even what church you go to (including no church). If you say you are pro choice, I hope this is what you mean. Of course, I realize most people are referring to abortion if they say they are pro choice, and that's what most people think of when they hear that soomeone is pro choice. The problem is, this interpretation is so pervasive that those who oppose free access to abortion are said to be anti choice! Over one issue!

To the top of this page

Pro abortion people often forget about the father when discussing the abortion issue. Due to the physical circumstances of the situation, the woman has the priviledge of making the ultimate abortion decision in virtually all cases. It doesn't matter what the father wants, or what the law says, or what a million pro-lifers think, if a woman wants to get an abortion, our current society makes it quite easy for her to do so, provided she isn't physically prevented from getting it. This essentially frees men from sexual responsibility. Some men could very easily develop the attitude that it doesn't matter what the consequences of his sexual actions are, because in all cases, it is the woman who ends up getting pregnant and having to deal with it, and the guy can then just dump her and move on if he wants to. Now, to be fair, many guys aren't like this, but if you open yourself up to having sex in a relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship, you are also opening yourself up to be taken advantage of in this way.

To the top of this page

Some of my friends went to the popular restaurant Hooters, a restaurant where the waitresses flaunt their good looks in a way that is revealing as possible without being "over the line." I was invited to join them. I responded that I wouldn't go. While this idea may sound like I'm being too strict with myself, let me explain. As you probably know, the Bible says adultry is sin, and even goes so far as to say that if you lust after a woman, you have essentially committed adultry in your mind. If Hooters just served great chicken wings and other good food, it would be fine. But Hooters is a place designed to let men lust after women in a way that is "socially acceptable." It isn't blatantly a topless or other kind of sex oriented bar, as they do provide a legitimate service, and the women are clothed... just barely enough to be considered decent. But it is still a place that is oriented to let people lust over the girls. Now, as for me, I could go to Hooters and not really be affected by it, and to be honest, I would enjoy it. But there are still two problems. First, it is a matter of principle. By going there, I am supporting something which I just built up a Biblically based case against and thus at best not helping to spread the message of the Bible, and secondly, while it may not be much, it is a way for Satan to "get his foot in the door." As you know, the devil works like that. Attack full force, and you see him coming. Snip a little here and there, and it's like a frog in a pot of water with slowly rising temperature, till the water is boiling and the frog is dead.

To the top of this page

I am not homophobic. I believe that gays and lesbians are not to be made fun of, hated, persecuted, etc., and that doing so is contrary to biblical teaching.

Whether or not someone _is_ a homosexual or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they do homosexual acts.

There are many Homosexuals who believe that their lifestyle is compatible with Christianity. However, I do not believe this to be the case. Here's what the Bible says and doesn't say:

The Bible does not, anywhere, affirm that a gay or lesbian act is good.

Biblical references to homosexual behavior put it in at best, a neutral, but usually a negative light, and even if not sinful, certainly (according to some Christians) "socially unacceptable." Now "socially unacceptable" implies that if society changes to accept such acts, the Bible would have to go along with society on that particular issue. However, there is nothing particularly positive about homosexual acts, and indeed, such acts are usually self destructive. The Bible does not endorse behavior that is self or otherwise destructive. Why should anyone (much less society in general) endorse acts that are known to be destructive in any way?

The only type of sexual relationship that God specifically ordains is within the marriage between one man and one woman, as found in Genesis 2:20-24. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I have not found a satisfactory explanation of the validity of any other marriage relationship anywhere, much less am I aware of one in the Bible. So if homosexual acts are unacceptable outside of a marriage relationship, and with a strong endorsement of male-female marriages but no provisions for homosexual marriages, it would seem that homosexual acts are not acceptable behavior for a child of God under any circumstances.

God commanded us to "multiply and fill the earth." Not everyone is physically capable of fulfilling this command, and it isn't necessarily sinful not to procreate, but in any case, it is impossible to do so in a gay or lesbian relationship, and more importantly, such behavior can actually destroy the ability for someone to procreate.

A relevant passage on sexual immorality is I Corinthians 6:12-20.

Homosexual marriage?
Marriage is not solely about procreation, however, the procreative nature of homosexual vs heterosexual unions is so overwhelmingly cut and dried, that this will be my primary focus.

Children: Homosexual activity can never produce children naturally. Therefore, we need not concern ourselves with homosexual relationships when it comes being prepared for the possibility of children, whether children are desired or not. Only when homosexuals want to adopt or have children by artificial means do they need to commit to the responsibility of caring for them. In such cases, consent is by necessity granted "on paper" or verbally. On the other hand, only heterosexual activity can possibly produce children naturally. In such cases, it doesn't matter how much one or both parents may not want a child; their consent to care for a child is granted implicitly by their sexual activity. Children deserve no less than such a commitment. These facts are so overwhelmingly universal that it is only appropriate that we publicly recognize heterosexual relationships before they begin. It is also appropriate that we have a name for this type of publicly recognized relationship. In fact, we do have such a name. It is... drum roll please... marriage!

The rare cases: If a man turns out to be capable of birthing a child, then let him marry another man. If a woman turns out to be capable of impregnating another woman, then let her marry a woman. But these cases are so rare that they can be dealt with on a one-by-one basis. Might we make a mistake? This possibility exists, but is so remote that it would be better to marry the gays or deny a heterosexual marriage than to have children brought to bear upon society out of a relationship that has not made the commitment to care for their offspring. And as far as the state is concerned, there is no need to investigate the fertility of any particular couple applying for a marriage license. Simply knowing they are male and female is enough to assume fertility, and knowing they are both the same sex is enough to assume infertility. If a couple states that they are male and female in their marriage application, even if they are lying, (shame on them for lying) but let the state marry them.

Adoption etc. of children by gay couples: I have nothing against gay couples (or individuals) adopting children, so long as the same precautions are taken to ensure a healthy environment for the child as would be taken for any other potential adapter (actually I think most state oversight on this is much too lenient). However, this is still not natural reproduction, and so there is still no need to recognize a gay couple as potential parents before they begin their relationship with each other.

Definition of Marriage: Whatever definitions may have been applied to marriage in the past, as suggested above, no society has ever survived even one generation without at least some recognition of male-female sexual relation. In our day, my dictionary defines marriage as "the mutual relation between husband and wife", and in all related words mentioned in the definitions, there is hardly a hint that human marriage might be between anything other than a male and a female. Moreover, there is good reason to recognize male-female unions distinctly from any other kind (see above), and so it is appropriate to have a special name for this kind of union. In fact, as I said before, we do have such a name. It is ... marriage!

The "Right" to gay marriage: Denying the right of a man to marry another man DOES NOT deny him the right to marry, and it does not deny him any right granted to any other man. Likewise, all women have the right to get married... to a man. Thus the gay man or woman has the same rights as all other men or women. I recognize that this is not a good argument why we shouldn't change the law so that any person has the right to marry any other person, indeed, this would be much less discriminatory, but until then, denying gay marriage is not a matter of denial of rights.

Privileges of marriage denied to gay couples?: I am not arguing here what rights should only be granted to legally recognized heterosexual marriages and thus not available to gay couples. But the recognition that ONLY heterosexual couples can possibly produce their own children naturally (something homosexuals are utterly incapable of) , and thus accept the responsibility of caring for their children strongly suggests that special recognition and certain benefits should be available only for heterosexual couples.

Discrimination: There are reasons why we don't allow someone to marry just anyone. If we change the law so men can marry men and women can marry women on the basis of not discriminating, then we should also allow any other kind of "marriage" anyone might desire: adults with children, siblings with siblings, more than 2 people at once, people and animals, etc. The fact is, we discriminate all the time. Discrimination is not a bad thing unless it denies someone their unalienable rights.

Will homosexual marriage "destroy" traditional marriage?: If the homosexuals want to elevate their unions to the same thing as heterosexual marriages, or if they want to take away from heterosexual unions the special blessing of marriage, then yes, they have destroyed traditional marriage; that is, they will have rendered meaningless the distinction I have been outlining above, that only heterosexual unions can have children naturally and thus form a family whether they want to or not.

Homosexual unions increase social stability: Marriage increases social stability by allowing two people to commit to caring for each other as well as to the children of their union, thus reducing the numbers that might otherwise be dependent on the state for their support. Homosexual unions can, in theory, achieve the same results. If this was the only thing marriage did, then there would be no reason to oppose homosexual marriage. But since homosexual unions never produce children naturally, there is no reason to commit to a relationship in the same way as heterosexual marriage does (or at least should).

Homosexual "rights"?
Homosexuals do not have a right to block James Dobson, or anyone else for that matter, from talking about homosexuality. They do not have a right to force the Boy Scouts (or any other private organization) to accept homosexuals as leaders or members. The do not have a right to force anyone to accept them or their lifestyle. Why? Because nobody else, either as an individual or a group, has these rights either. Homosexuals do not have and should not have any more rights than anyone else.

Homosexuality is what God wants?
Some homosexuals claim that they were born that way and therefore this must be what God wants. But this denies the power of God to change an individual. Moreover, God obviously didn't want it for his people in Old Testament times, even if it was just a social taboo. And nowhere does the New Testament suggest anything different.

Is homosexuality genetic?
If we have free will, homosexual behaviour can not be genetic, because genetics does not determine behavior. Genetics determine physical characteristics, and to some degree their likes, dislikes, and tendencies. However, genetics does not make one a homosexual any more than genetics makes one an alcoholic, because both lifestyles are based on a person's actions, not their genetics.

If genetics determines behavior, then a homosexual who is "born that way" would be unable to not do homosexual acts, and therefore would be a very dangerous individual to people who do not want to participate in homosexual acts. This would justify homophobia. But I reject that homosexual behavior is genetic and therefore I am not homophobic.

People are typically born such that they will develop sexual desires at some point in their life. They may even find certain aspects of the same sex to be sexually attractive. But how they choose to express those desires is not at all genetic.

So, is it possible to be a Christian and be gay?
Certainly. But my conclusion at this point has to be that one is mistaken if they are think they are a Christian and believe that homosexual acts are ok, and if one is a practicing homosexual, they must seriously question whether they are a true Christian.

To the top of this page