Last week in human sexuality class, we had a discussion on homosexuality, particularly the parts concerning scripture’s treatment of it. I grew up in an incredibly conservative southern Baptist church background, and so homosexuality was always condemned as the worst of all possible sins and the thing on earth that God hates with the fieriest passion. While I did conclude in my paper, after looking at all of the evidence in scripture, that homosexuality is wrong and is not God's plan for His people, it was so interesting to me to see that the Bible is actually a little vague and unclear about this issue, when so many churches speak about it with such a confident fervor.
Even though I have read my Bible for myself, I was a still, upon really researching, a little surprised to find just how few verses there really are about homosexuality and how many different ways those verses can be and are taken by interpreters. Just from having had this issue preached SO strongly to me for so long and from so many different fronts, it felt a little like I should be finding verses left and right that denounce the complete sinfulness of homosexuality without any vagueness at all, but this was clearly not the case.
This sort of situation just makes me reflect on how much of what we unquestioningly assert as the unequivocal truth of scripture is actually our own passionate opinion that we back up with just a few verses. Maybe we’re right, but what about those times that we’re not? What about those times that we have an opinion that we force on others as the truth of God when really, we do not have the evidence to support such confidence and we have been forceful or uncaring or unsupportive of someone, and we did it in the name of the Lord? I do feel that homosexuality is wrong, and I do feel that the Bible teaches that, but I was humbled by how few instances there are where it is mentioned in scripture and how many different ways that even these mentionings are interpreted. Why are we SO impassioned about things that the Bible doesn't prioritize as a subject matter, while we ignore things that it is very clear and very vocal about?
By shear numbers, God gave by far the most space in His Word on the subject of fear. Why do we FREAK OUT about homosexuality - which is mentioned only a handful of times - but it is totally understandable to us that Christians live lives characterized by fear, when it would seem from Scripture that God is way more concerned (based on clarity and frequency) with the latter. If you took a poll of people in the world who had never read the Bible and asked them: base don what Christians talk about, care about, make a huge deal out of, teach the most, have the most passion for - what would you say the Bible talks about the most? Would they be able to tell? Would they have a good idea of the values and priorities of God based only upon the values and priorities of those who claim to bear family resemblance?
This week, I spent some time thinking about the fact that, maybe the real issue in the church is not homosexuality or any of its controversial compatriots at all – maybe the issue that should have so much of our attention is having a little more humility about our opinions on issues about which God is not completely clear. If He is not bold and clear and impassioned about His opinion on an issue, maybe we should be a little more humble and hesitant about being those things.
My Paper on this issue:
Gay. Well, in the Church, there’s not a much worse thing you could call someone than that, now is there? In my experience, porn addicts, drug abusers, and heretics have an easier time. Many Christians I know would much, much rather their sons be in prison or fathers at 16 than gay. If I didn’t read the Bible for myself and relied on church teaching for my idea of Scriptural priorities, I would be convinced that Scripture cared a little about love, a good bit about salvation, and far and away the most about pure and certainly heterosexual sexuality. It has been a deep and committed passion – one of the very deepest – of the churches in my experience that homosexuality is among the worst things anyone could ever do or be. While I do feel that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, one of my convictions is that we need to take an honest look at this subject and treat it with the same measures of patience, grace, hope, and community support that we would other sins. Sexuality is vitally wrapped up in what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God. However, any gift given to God can also be corrupted. It would seem that sexual sin – in the same manner as any other sin – is something beautiful that we have now corrupted and which must eventually be redeemed. It would seem that this, just like any other sin, should be treated with an interim ethic of grace, if the ground truly is level at the foot of the cross.
Psychology
There exists in the field a good deal of controversy surrounding the treatment of homosexuality, causing a spilt between those who believe that it is as natural and acceptable a personal difference as eye color and those who would hold that there are etiological factors, even unhealthy ones, that cause this assignment and allow room for healing and alternative choices. This split divides psychologists who run the gamut of believing that children should receive counseling to heal environmental wounds causing this orientation and to learn coping skills versus those who would encourage them to exhibit whatever behaviors feel fitting.
Through the late 19th and 20th centuries, it was the common psychological viewpoint that homosexuality was a pathology and a mental illness. While many in the field operated within this view, however, there was a lack of empirical or scientific research to support the classification of homosexuality as a disorder, and this stance therefore came under scrutiny. As research continued and findings accumulated, it became clear that medical and psychological professionals no longer found it accurate to view homosexuality as a disorder and viewed its DSM classification as founded on once-held societal norms and impressions from insufficient samples rather than reliably tested evidence (Mendelson, 2008). Since the 1970’s, clinical literature has in large part reflected that same-sex tendencies are normal variations on orientation and should be treated in a positive way (APA Task Force, 2009). In 1973 and 1975 respectively, the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association Council of Representatives removed homosexuality’s classification of disorder (Bayer, 1987). As the field shifted, much of the old research, even that held in high esteem, began to be corrected to accommodate this ever more popular holding that homosexuality is in no way a pathology or a problem. Christopher Shelley (1998), an Adlerian psychotherapist, made clear in a collection of writings from the 1990’s that affirmed positive movement in depth psychology, which Shelley used to support gay clients in their perfectly natural orientation. In this manner, Shelley worked to publically remove homosexuals from the contemporary Adlerian problematic discourse of the "failures of life."
Similarly, the Yogyakarta Principle 3 speaks to issues of sexual orientation and identity in light of international human rights laws, stating that individuals have the right to freedom of definition of so integral an aspect of their personhood, and that whatever they determine should have no bearing on any legal rights. Principle 18 goes on to assert that sexual orientation should not regarded as a condition and should not be suppressed or treated (International Commission of Jurists, 2007).
The field of psychology is, in many respects, so committed to the normality and acceptability of homosexuality that there are now forms of gay affirmative psychotherapy, endorsed by the American Psychological Association, for gay and lesbian clients, where they are encouraged to fully accept their natural orientation and are never encouraged to change their sexual orientation or to eliminate or diminish their same-sex desires, even to the point of asserting that a full acceptance of ones homosexual tendencies can act as a component in recovery from other mental illness, which was a frustrated expression of suppressing such a natural tendency (Guidelines, 2010).
It would seem that the psychological world is moving towards a complete freedom to define personal orientation and a normalizing of whatever choice is made. Much of the field of psychology views homosexuality as a normal variation of human behavior and something that should not be treated as a negative or abnormal tendency, largely because no etiology can be universally agreed upon, so it is seen largely as a natural variant (LeVay, 1996). There are, however, other viewpoints that suggest that homosexuality is consistently rooted in hurtful pasts, largely in a wounding home environment, and therefore can be treated with some movement towards healing. For example, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) suggests that parental influence in a child’s early stages can have a huge impact on the security the child feels with his or her own gender (Zucker & Bradley, 1995).
Additionally, Dr. Richard P. Fitzgibbons asserts that, in most cases, parents are able to create environments for their children that can deter or eliminate the onset of Gender Identity Disorder symptoms, including tendencies toward homosexuality. In the same way, they are also able to create environments that breed sexual insecurity and dissatisfaction in children. According to Fitzgibbons, men who exhibit homosexual or transsexual symptoms will, after psychological analysis, reveal a history of amalgamated dysfunctions, including some or all of the following: abuse (specifically sexual), rejection by peer group or bullying, the smothering of his mother figure, and the disinterest of his father figure (Fitzgibbons, 2001). He offers that children have an innate need for the acceptance of each parent, and in the majority of cases, if that is felt, they can feel secure in their identity as a boy or a girl, and then feel free to explore gender atypical activities that fit them. If boys or girls show effeminate or masculine traits, respectively, and are met with the subsequent ridicule or open disapproval of a parent, insecurities and fears are bred that can led the child to reject both their own sexuality and the more traditional orientation of it (Fitzgibbons, 2001). Fitzgibbons goes so far as to assert that if a male child has a mother who supports his masculinity, a close relationship with a loving father figure, and healthy same-sex friends, the chances are minimal that he will show homosexual or transsexual symptoms. Therapy should take place both for the child, to help him find contentment in the traditional orientation and expression of his gender, and for the family as a whole, to rebuild a supportive environment in which the child can feel free to explore possibly nonconformist activities while still maintaining a confidence that his family accepts him as a boy (Fitzgibbons, 2001).
Scripture
Stances like those discussed above create a very controversial dynamic surrounding sexual orientation issues, with religious groups in particular. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357 takes the unwavering stance that "homosexuals acts are intrinsically disordered... and under no circumstances can they be approved" (“Catechism of the Catholic Church,” 1994).
It seems, however, like there are as many views on and treatments of homosexuality as there are Christian denominations, which hold a variety of differing views, running the gamut from full condemnation to unequivocal acceptance. This can be largely attributed to the fact that direct, clear Biblical references to homosexuality are not abundant. While the Scriptural passages that address homosexuality are scarce, there are still some upon which Christian doctrine has been based. Historical Jewish and Christian traditions have commonly interpreted these passages as strict, all-inclusive moral imperatives against any form of homosexuality. However, some efforts in modern scholarship have attempted to soften the severity of that doctrine by trying to understand the passages more within the context of the societies out of which they were produced.
Leviticus 18 and 20
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are excerpts of the Holiness code and contain verses that assert that for a man to sleep with a man as he would with a woman is forbidden and an abomination, punishable by death (18:22) Historically, these two verses have been used by Christian traditions as full prohibitions against homosexual behavior. The argument from Leviticus 18:22 concerning homosexuality is that you would have rule against having sex during the woman’s menstrual cycle as well, since that appears in the same list of laws. Why would priority be given to this law while the others were dismissed as cultural? (Shepherd, 1998) On the other hand, in Leviticus 20, the punishments are included with the laws and homosexuality is included in those that are punishable by death while sex with a menstruating woman is simply responded to with temporary ostracism (Miller, 2004.)
Genesis 19
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis has been similarly interpreted as connoting that the rampant homosexual activity of the men displayed in the story is one of the many displeasing dynamics in those cities that merited punishment from God. It has come up as a point of contention among scholars that this passage is actually not referring to homosexuality as the act that displeased the Lord but rather the behaviors of either rape or inhospitality (Weyand, 2001.) There is some debate over both of these verses, and the Leviticus passages, as to whether or not female homosexuality is included by implication, with the verses indicting homosexual activity for all people, even though men are here used as the example (Brooten, 1996).
Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
The Gospel of John consistently refers to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20), which most generally take as a reference to John himself. Recently, several scholars, including Jennings (2003), have begun to use these verses to paint a homosexual relationship between Jesus and John, especially the scenes from the Last Supper where John is described (13:23) as "leaning on Jesus' bosom" (KJV). However, this reading has not been widely accepted by most scholars, and most maintain the most traditional reading that these verses portray a close personal friendship. For example, Gagnon (2001) rejects this idea in his study "The Bible and Homosexual Practice," stressing the point that the idea of love used here is agape (John 3:16; "for God so loved the world"), as opposed to sexual love, eros.
Romans 1
Romans 1:26–27 provides another indicting Biblical reference to the practice of homosexuality, providing a reference to female homosexuality on which the text was silent in other references. Some hold that Paul is only condemning certain types of homosexual acts, like temple prostitution and pagan rituals, while others maintain that what is wrong is not homosexual acts by homosexuals but rather homosexual acts by heterosexuals, with the focus being on what is natural and what is in a loving relationship (Boswell, 1980.) However, many scholars believe that these verses show God punishment being provoked by homosexual behaviors and assert that these all of these activities are confusion, defilation, even inhuman, especially highlighting the rejection of God’s natural, created order (Howard, 1996.)
1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1
In this text, Paul makes a list of wrongdoers and those who he says will not inherit the kingdom of God. This is another disputed passage, because one of the words included in the list is the Greek word arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης.) This term has been challenging for interpreters, and has been translated in various Biblical versions as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” “sodomites” or “men who practice homosexuality” (Martin, 1996.) The only other Biblical instance of this word is in 1 Timothy 1:9–10, where a similar list of sinful behavior is made. Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn means "male", and κοίτην [koitēn] "bed," with a sexual connotation, so some scholars take this word to mean male-with-male sexual wrongdoing, although others argue that there is not a strong enough reason to glean homosexuality from this term, as the Greek word androkoitēs is usually used for this idea. Some scholars use this discrepancy as evidence for the opinion that 1 Corinthians is not referring to homosexuality. On the other hand, others, such as Boswell (1980), argue that the word arsenokoitēs used here comes from the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Leviticus 20:13 (which is more clearly talking about homosexual behavior) where one can find both of the root forms (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] and κοίτην [koitēn]. Other scholars use this fact to support the belief that Paul used this word in 1 Corinthians to refer back to Leviticus 20 and support that same indictment (Martin, 1996).
Opinion
What I have gleaned from the discussions above is largely that there are many questions still left about the Bible’s treatment of homosexuality and its sinful nature. Even with the abundance of excellent scholarship available, there is still an abundance of insecurity and uncertainty surrounding this issue. In my response, I would like to respond more to my experience of the conservative Christian attitude and treatment of homosexuals more than to the issue of homosexuality itself. First let me assert, I do feel that, based on Biblical texts, homosexuality is a sin and it is not a lifestyle that brings the most glory to God or that is the best of what God has for His children. I believe that the Bible does not espouse a homosexual lifestyle, but rather includes it in behaviors that should be sacrificed and from which believers should refrain for the sake of holy living. That said, however, my personal experience has not been one with homosexuality but has rather been one with the Christian community and its dealings with this issue, and it is with this topic that I have spent the most time dealing and it is this area to which I would like to respond.
I feel that, at leats in my experience, the church's response to this issue is often pre-decided, dismissive, not terribly interested in talking too much about it. As a church, I feel that the response to homosexual individuals should be acceptance and grace. Walking into a church should not be an experience comparable to the opening of a dam sluice – a deluge of well-meaning directives about what is and isn’t appropriate. Bob Parkins, an LMFT at Sacramento Christian Counseling, asserts that counseling and a “supportive system establishment” are the best treatments for GID and homosexual orientation (Parkins, n.d.). What could qualify more as a supportive system than acceptance and love within a healthy body of believers? If we allow ourselves to be instruments of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, showing contentedness and acceptance for who people really are, these people may begin to feel, if not a full contentedness and acceptance for traditional orientation, at least a welcoming place to do the hard work of finding out what God’s will is for them. But this, sadly, is not always the case.
I feel that there is a very upsetting problem within the Church concerning its response toward those who struggle with homosexuality. From my experience, I am not certain that we live in a Church community that is able to view homosexuals simply as people who, like we, have fallen into sin and is able to embrace them the way Jesus embraced John 4’s Samaritan woman. As Christians, our calling is to preach the grace of God that is able to reclaim us out of the loneliness and confusion into which we are cast by sin, not to ignore, dismiss, or judge simply because sexuality embarrasses us. Christians, I feel, must live each day with the knowledge that the complete wholeness of God is not something that we should hope to fully gain in this life, but is rather a hope for which we continue to live. But it is into this dynamic that I feel homosexuals are so often not invited.
I am afraid that the sexual sins in our church communities are not looked upon with the same eye as other sins. Other sins are often viewed as reminders for us of the tension in which we all live – the tension between our current total depravity and the holiness to which we can now strive because of the cross, which will eventually be fulfilled in our final redemption. But I feel that somehow, sins of sexuality – addiction, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality – are all viewed as different and worse, a side category of black sheep sins, with homosexuality as its despicable cornerstone. We understand that, of course the church is full of sinners, and even we ourselves are sinners, but our sins are "normal" – lying, pride, selfishness, anger – all par for the Christian course, all things to be expected and dealt with in a small group. Some of our sins can even be borderline virtuous. If you admit to a problem with pride, everyone will acknowledge your desire for humility. It sounds almost like a righteous sin, and everyone can identify. But in my experience with churches, homosexuality is worse, different, and certainly more shameful than the rest. We blush at the mentioning of it and if we are honest, we are uncomfortable around those we know to struggle with it. Through these attitudes and behaviors, it seems to me that we have isolated these people into a place of loneliness and inability to seek help and healing within the Church body. And the proclamations of certain churches that “God Hates Fags” certainly don’t help.
In my church experience, homosexuality is not viewed like other sins, it is not one to be dealt with in a community of believers, but is rather more shameful and should be kept hidden. This problem, in my opinion, originates in large part because homosexuality is one of the only sins where, by committing it, it is made a part of your identity (Yarhouse et al., 2005). Many of us lie, but we would be shocked and offended to be labeled "liars." But should homosexuality be the sin with which you struggle, you are quick to be labeled as “gay” – that veritable Protestant kiss of death – and the case is closed, now that everyone knows “what you are.” In reality, our concepts of who we are should no longer be defined by sins, but rather by the acceptance and love of Christ. However, in my opinion, homosexuality is not seen as a sin, it is seen as an identity, and this mentality, I feel, is a large contributor to the intensity of the Christian struggle against it. Homosexuals are not told, as the rest of us are, that they have sin in their lives, but rather that that sin is a notable facet of their identity, and they are left with feelings of hopelessness. Basing one’s identity in anything but the love and acceptance of Christ will lead to nothing but shame, guilt, and embarrassment. People dealing with homosexuality are not encouraged to come into the Church body for help and healing within a community that supports them, but are rather backed into the corner of silence and superficiality, for surely it is better to hide a sin like that than to face the judgment that comes with honesty. I fear that people struggling with homosexuality do not see the Church as a place for self-revelation.
In my opinion, we as the Church need to begin to move into a greater understanding of sexual sin as just that – a sin – and not an inescapable identity, so that we can accept homosexuals into the body of believers the way we all so desperately need. Hereby, they can be healed through the love of Jesus found in the Church, which will never be able to take place should they continue to feel shut out and embarrassed. These sinners, along with every sinner, are in bondage to sin and decay and are groaning under the weight of our thwarted vocation as image-bearers. We are sinners, and each day we feel the terrible power of sin within a wicked world. However, we glorify God and help to make His power perfect when we are able to see through this fog of sin to the love of God in which we can still trust. It is our vocation as the Church of Christ to draw all people – even those struggling with homosexuality – into this mentality and not to ignore, dismiss, or judge simply because homosexuality embarrasses us. It seems to me that the most pressing problem is the relationship between the Church and the sinners who comprise her. We need to heal this relationship by treating one another with mutual respect and compassion as Christ does His bride before we begin to target individual sins.
I feel that changes within the Church as a whole must start with us, in our personal lives, and it seems that this could be quite contingent on the way we respond to the news of people’s struggles. We must develop an environment where people feel that they can be transparent about their problems in a place where people will not be shocked, disgusted, or embarrassed. In my counseling classes, I have learned that if people finally get the courage to disclose a problem, and it is a shocking and shaming experience, they will not likely do it again. We discussed this in the context of addictions, but I feel that the same principle applies to the confession of difficult sin. I fear that people struggling with homosexuality so not see the Church as a place for self-revelation. As a counselor and a Christian, I want to make myself a person to whom people feel like they can come to confess and discuss their sin without the fear of an extreme, evasive, or embarrassed reaction.
I feel that it would be the counselor’s responsibility to examine the etiology of these feelings for each particular client, because in some cases, pain caused by hurtful treatment or discouraging expectations has perpetuated feelings of dissatisfaction, insecurity, or confusion, and a therapist can provide help and support for the client as they try to heal from any contributing brokenness (Fitzgibbons, 2001). Beyond the discovery and healing of any past pain, the client may still have strong inclinations towards a homosexual lifestyle, and I feel it the responsibility of a Christian counselor to encourage the client to stay within the will of God. God’s design for us was to function with the greatest effectiveness, and so a Christian view of dysfunction includes any behavior that pulls an individual outside of God’s will for him (Yarhouse et al., 2005). Per the psalms, I believe that God chose our genders consciously and deliberately, and what is sin if not a dissatisfaction with the confusions or difficulties of the plans of God and a choice to step off of His path and into our own simpler, instantly gratifying selfishness? Like the longings of an addict who tries to shake off his unhealthy ways and return back to the health of God, desires and yearnings for sin may never fade completely, but that is true in some part for any sinner.
Each of us has pit falls, siren songs that call to us with particular strength, but an aspect of transformation into Christlikeness is learning to deny the sinful longings of what Paul calls “the flesh” and make a conscious, active, sacrificial choice to go the way of God. To long to walk ones own path, to feel pulled off of the way of God’s will, even by one’s own body, cannot be a sin – Jesus was just so tempted (Matthew 4:1-11). Temptation, discomfort, or even dissatisfaction in our sexuality is not wrong, but behavior, decision, active choice – these pull us into sin. I feel that this is one of the most common and most discouraging Christian misconceptions on the topic of homosexuality. In my experience, Christians tend to feel that any inclination or feeling of homosexuality is a sin, but I feel that the Bible never teaches temptation or inclination as sinful. It is always our wrong choices, our wrong movement, our wrong activity that is a sin. The activity is wrong, the temptation is just like any other sinful temptation – we all need to work to be better than our human tendencies. To live one’s life with a natural temptation towards homosexuality is certainly not a sin. To dismiss off God’s best plan for your sexuality and choose to act on homosexual urges is where sin lies, so it is, in my opinion, the job of the Christian counselor to encourage the client to stay within God’s design for his life and commit to the difficult therapeutic work of learning to function effectively within his given place.
As a potential counselor, I want to war against the temptation towards reductionism and allow people to be more than simply the sum of their sins. If people can be transformed by the knowledge and love of Christ, then that is first and foremost how they should be viewed. I want to approach sin-oriented conversations with the eyes of Christ, seeing others as equals and as whole and complete people, loved by God and therefore certainly not meriting my condescension. I feel that I often fall into the trap of thinking that people will be changed if they are shown the weight and severity of their sin. I take it upon myself to help people to understand just how wrong and how damaging their sin is. But I am quick to forget that in the face of this judgmental attitude, people do not usually grow and change, but rather shrink away and certainly never come back for more. In all this, let me be clear that I do not consider homosexuality to be an appropriate, healthy, or God-honoring lifestyle, which I believe Scripture makes clear. In being gracious, patient, and accepting to homosexuals, or any sinners, we should not allow kindness to make us insecure in our beliefs or permissive of things that do not please the Lord. It is important not to minimize sin or soften our words so much that we never actually speak the truth, but we must also not be crippled by the fear that if we ever give grace, we are becoming cultural accommodators. I hope and pray to become someone who knows what it means to speak the truth in love, and certainly not to see someone else’s sin as greater or more damning than my own. I pray to make my life – and ultimately the Church – a place of compassion and safety, for the ultimate antidote to sin and shame is grace. We certainly do have to keep each other accountable for our actions, but we must first remember that the greatest commandment is to love, not to correct, and that the ground has to be level at the foot of the cross.
References
APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report of the Task Force on
Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Therapeutic
Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Bayer, Ronald (1987). Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Boswell, John (1980). Christianity, social tolerance and homosexuality. University of Chicago Press.
Brooten, Bernadette (1998). Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. University of Chicago
Press.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). New York: Doubleday.
Fitzgibbons, R. (2001, June). Gender identity disorder in children. Catholic Magazine. Retrieved November 13, 2009,
from http://www.narth.com/docs/fitz.html
Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2001). The Bible and homosexual practice. Abingdon Press.
Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients (2010). In American Psychological Association.
Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx
Howard, Kevin L. Paul's View of Male Homosexuality: An Exegetical Study. M.A. thesis (unpublished). Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School. Deerfield, Illinois. June 1996.
International Commission of Jurists. (2007, March) Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the application of international human
rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Retrieved November 13, 2009, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48244e602.html
Jennings, Theodore (2003). "The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament". Pilgrim Press.
LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Martin, Dale (1996). Arsenokoites and malakos: Meanings and consequences. In Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Ed Robert
Brawley: Westminster Press.
Mendelson, L. (2008, May 5). In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999. In CourtInfo.CA.Gov. Retrieved November 1, 2010,
from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn
_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Miller, D. (2004). Homosexuality and female menses. In Apologetics Press. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2645
Parkins, B. (n.d.). Diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from
http://www.bobparkinslmft.com/info/genderid.html
Shelley, C. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on psychotherapy and homosexualities. London: Free Association Books.
Shepherd, A. (1998, December 11). The Bible and homosexuality. Retrieved November 4, 2010
Weyand, D. (Director). Geary, S., & Grahame-Smith, S. (Writer). (2001). History's mysteries: Sodom and
Gomorrah [Motion picture].
Yarhouse, M., Butman, R., & McRay, B. (2005). Modern Psychopathologies. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Zucker, K., & Bradley, S. (1995). Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents. New York:
Guilford Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment