Homosexuality and Underage Sexuality are the scourage of our nation!
June 1998
Dear Friends:
Several weeks ago, I was approached by a congenial man in his early 20s who told of his
journey into the world of homosexuality. In desperation and at his father's suggestion, he
attended a conference sponsored by Exodus International, an organization that ministers to
gays and lesbians. While there, he dedicated himself, heart and soul, to Jesus Christ and
was delivered from the homosexual lifestyle. It was an inspirational testimony.
As we stood and chatted, this young man described for me the deep anger and hurt that is
widely felt by those in the homosexual community. Many blame Christian organizations such
as Focus on the Family for wounding them, believing sincerely that they and their friends
are the targets of hate. Of course that is not true. Never in the history of this ministry
have we insulted or ridiculed homosexuals or anyone else for that matter — including
those with whom we disagree. We believe every human being is precious to God and is
entitled to acceptance and respect. There is great suffering among homosexuals, and it is
our desire to show compassion and concern for those caught in that lifestyle.
There are, however, two great barriers to our efforts to build bridges of understanding
with gays and lesbians. First, we have no authority to sanction or approve behavior that
Scripture clearly defines as sinful. The Bible's attitude toward sexuality can be traced
back to the creation of the very first man and woman in the Garden of Eden. Two parallel
passages in Genesis provide the basis on which all specific prohibitions toward
homosexuality (and any other sexual behavior beyond that which exists within the context
of heterosexual marriage) are to be understood:
1. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and
female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase
in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:27-28,
NIV).
2. The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper
suitable for him." . . . So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep;
and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with
flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He
brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a
man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become
one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame (Genesis 2:18,
21-25, NIV).
These passages provide the eternal standard for human sexuality. Try as we might, we
cannot make any other behaviors — premarital intercourse, adultery, prostitution,
male and female homosexuality — conform with what God has decreed from the beginning.
The book of Leviticus issues this decree about homosexual behavior: "Thou shalt not
lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination" (18:22, KJV). Why is that
wording so emphatic? Theologians tell us it is because sexual deviancy distorts God's
original intention and corrupts the relationship between men, women and their Creator.
When God looked at His arrangement in the Garden, he called it "good." There is
nothing in Scripture that provides a basis for making this pronouncement on any other form
of sexual expression.
This is why the practice of homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexual
promiscuity in the biblical text. Nothing can change the fact that God abhors any form of
sexual sin. Paul explained it to the church at Rome in this way:
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for
the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is forever
praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed
indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion (Romans 1:24-27, NIV).
These and other scriptures clearly reveal that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to
God's plan for the human family. And if homosexual behavior is condemned, then so too are
heterosexual promiscuity, bestiality, pedophilia and any other behavior defined in
Scripture as sinful. We must begin with the presupposition that the universe has a Boss,
and He has defined the dimensions of right and wrong in immutable terms.
Nevertheless, we as believers are commanded in numerous biblical passages to care for and
love all men and women, regardless of their sin. Each of us has sinned and fallen short of
the glory of God, and there is no justification for self- righteousness or disdain among
those who have been forgiven. Our mission is to proclaim the good news of Christ Jesus to
a suffering and dying world.
The second difficulty for Christians hoping to build bridges to homosexuals involves our
necessary opposition to the radical social agenda advanced by gay activists. We believe
their ideas are dangerous to society at large and to the family in particular.
Nevertheless, their advocates seem to be everywhere at once. The gay lifestyle is
aggressively promoted throughout culture, especially in television sitcoms, Hollywood
movies and on university campuses. Yet there is scarcely a politician or a national leader
anywhere who has the courage to oppose it publicly. I suspect that many pastors and
priests also avoid the subject because of the intimidation factor that has become so
pervasive in recent years. It is one subject most influential people are afraid to
address, unless, of course, they are echoing pro-homosexual rhetoric.
A case in point: On November 8, 1997, President Clinton spoke at a fund-raising dinner on
behalf of a homosexual activist organization dedicated to the radical gay and lesbian
agenda. It was the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president had given the
status and authority of his office to a group defined by their sexual behavior. That alone
should have created a political backlash, but nary a peep was heard from the conservative
community. During his speech, Mr. Clinton referred to the writings of Thomas Jefferson and
said, "We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals [of the Founding
Fathers] that have guided us from the beginning."1
How does one go about redefining immutable (that is, unchangeable) ideals? It was an
outrageous moment in a presidency marked by outrageous moments! Without the consent of the
governed or their elected representatives, Mr. Clinton was telling the American people
that he had reinterpreted our most cherished principles to make them suit his post-modern
presuppositions. "What audacity!" I thought. "Surely, someone will rise to
challenge the president." But silence prevailed in the nation's capital.
Two days later, the White House and the president hosted a "hate crimes"
conference at George Washington University, during which Mr. Clinton told participants
that public schools across the nation should institute pro-homosexual diversity programs.
They should be designed, in his words, "to teach [children] a different way."2
Here we find the president of the United States telling the nation's parents that their
children should be taught ideas and concepts most of them find offensive. Nevertheless,
there was not the slightest suggestion of protest or disagreement from leaders of either
political party or anyone with visibility and influence. Only one national figure, Dr.
Bill Bennett, weighed in on the other side of the issue.3 I have searched the Internet and
media reports from that period, and can find no other statement in opposition to the
president's widely publicized words.
How do we explain the lack of moral outrage — or courage — from anyone in
Washington, D.C., or on the local level? The answer can be found in the unparalleled
political clout of homosexual activists. In the course of two decades, they have succeeded
in intimidating Washington, D.C., and most of the rest of the nation. Few dare step in
front of the gay and lesbian juggernaut for fear of being labeled "homophobic,"
"hateful" or "politically incorrect."
Indeed, the Senate in 1996 came within a single vote of passing the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, which would have wreaked havoc on American culture.4 This
legislation would have made sexual orientation a protected class equivalent to racial
minorities under federal civil rights laws. On my recent visit to Capitol Hill, I was
warned that this measure will almost certainly resurface soon in the Senate. The question
is, how many senators will cave in to pressure from homosexual activists?
Another illustration of the awesome political power of radical homosexuals can be seen in
the support provided by the federal government for AIDS research and related programs
advocated by that community. Returning to the president's speech on November 8, he
confidently bragged to the partisan audience that his administration had allocated more
money for AIDS research than to breast or prostate cancer combined.5 How do you think that
comment made victims of those other diseases feel? Unfortunately, cancer patients and
those with other diseases lack the political muscle of gay activists.
More to the point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released figures in 1996
to show how much federal money was spent per death (in fiscal year 1994) on each of the
five deadliest diseases. The findings are striking:
AIDS/HIV:
$39,172
Diabetes:
$5,449
Cancer:
$3,776
Heart Disease:
$1,056
Stroke:
$765 6
Why are we so concerned about the bias toward the homosexual agenda in the United States?
Because it has profound implications for the well-being of our society. Any change in the
traditional understanding of the family will undermine its legal foundation and render it
meaningless. If, for example, marriage can occur between two men or two women, why not
three men or four women? What about between siblings, or between parents and children? How
about one man and six women, which reopens the polygamy debate of 116 years ago? To change
the definition of marriage from the exclusive union between one man and one woman is to
destroy the family as it has been known for 5,000 years.
To see where activists want to take us here in this country, we need to examine what is
happening in other parts of the world. There is a highly coordinated international effort
to redefine marriage, lower the age of sexual consent for minors, secure the rights to
adoption by gays and lesbians, teach pro-homosexual concepts to elementary school
children, gain control of high school and college curricula, achieve special rights
regarding hiring and firing, guarantee taxpayer-funded marriage benefits for homosexuals,
eliminate restrictions on military service, and pass laws that penalize and silence
citizens who are morally opposed to the gay lifestyle. Most importantly, activists want
homosexuality to be seen and sanctioned as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. This
is the common agenda pursued by its proponents throughout the industrialized world.
Nowhere is the homosexual agenda more successful than in Canada, where, unbelievably, it
is becoming illegal to oppose or even criticize the movement. Several Canadian provinces
have enacted human rights legislation that prohibits the publication of any statements
deemed as "discriminatory" toward homosexuality.7 Additionally, the Canadian
Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission, equivalent to our Federal
Communications Commission, now monitors programming that portrays homosexuality in a
negative light.8 Even Focus on the Family Canada is muzzled on this topic. So much for
free speech north of the border.
Just last year, the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) refused to accredit a
teacher education program offered by Trinity Western University (TWU) — a Christian
school. The reason? TWU requires its students to sign a code of conduct that prohibits
homosexual behavior among other things. According to a BCCT lawyer, students "need to
be exposed to other lifestyles."9
Likewise, King's College in Edmonton — another Christian institution — fired a
lab instructor because of his openly homosexual conduct. The individual filed suit against
the province of Alberta, charging that it refused to extend human rights protection to
homosexuality. In April, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that legal protection
(preference) must be extended immediately to Alberta's homosexual community and that
sexual orientation must be part of the province's Human Rights Code. One Supreme Court
justice said, " . . . I believe that judicial intervention is warranted to correct a
democratic process that has acted improperly."10 Get it? The people of Canada can't
be trusted to make their own decisions.
Dr. Ted Morton, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, had this to
say about the two cases mentioned above: "There will be strong pressures to define
and isolate any private —especially religion-based — educational institutions
that do not embrace 'gay positive' policies. The argument has already been made before the
courts in Canada that 'equality rights' are more important than freedom of religion and
freedom of association."11
Meanwhile in Ontario, the highest court in the province recently ruled that the
traditional definition of "spouse" is unconstitutional and demanded that the
federal Income Tax Act be rewritten to include same-sex partners.12 And on it goes —
even very young children are not safe from the repercussions of Canada's sexual
permissiveness. The age of consent in that nation is 14, which places very immature boys
and girls at the mercy of adults who would exploit them for sexual purposes.13 Some
provinces want to raise that age limit to 16 for girls, but haven't been successful.
And the problem certainly isn't confined to the North American continent. In the
Netherlands, where prostitution, pornography and pedophilia are already rampant — and
in many cases, legal — the Dutch government recently allowed homosexual couples to
form legal unions, with the same inheritance and tax rights as heterosexual married
couples.14 Homosexual couples have now gained the right to adopt children and share
parental authority.15 Though not widely publicized, there are also efforts in the
Netherlands to lower the legal age of consent from 14 to 12 years of age!16
Truly, the homosexual movement has become a steamroller in nations around the world. Just
last week, I received a letter from my friend Lyndon Bowring, who heads the Care for the
Family ministry in the United Kingdom. He wrote, "We are up to our eyes here in
London with the rampant advances of the militant gay lobby. Our Parliament is planning to
reduce the age of consent for homosexual intercourse between 'adult' males from 18 to 16.
Apart from a sovereign miracle of grace, we will not succeed in persuading them not to do
so. We are doing everything in our power to prevent it and calling on His divine power to
intervene on behalf of our young boys."17
There is hardly a place on the globe where similar struggles are not occurring, except
where no fight remains in discouraged or outnumbered Christians.
But what about here in the United States? How is the movement doing locally? Like
everywhere else, the battle to legalize same-sex marriage is raging in every state in the
nation — the only question being which state will be the first to buckle. You've
probably heard about the situation in Hawaii. This November, citizens of that state will
put the question to a vote. It is expected to be a very close contest, and the outcome is
still very much in doubt. In addition, Vermont's very liberal Supreme Court18 will hear
arguments this summer in favor of same-sex marriage.19 A strong possibility exists that
these judges — many of them hostile to the traditional family — may end up
legalizing it, thereby creating an explosion of moral and legal chaos that will
reverberate from coast to coast.
Now the battle has moved to California, where homosexual activists are vigorously seeking
to implement their agenda. Once again, their ultimate goal is "gay marriage." If
it becomes legal in California, gay activists will have achieved most of their objectives
in one fell swoop. And as our most populous state goes, so goes the nation.
California is especially vulnerable, because a 126-year-old law mandates that it recognize
and validate all out-of-state marriages.20 This means that as soon as another state
validates homosexual "marriage," those relationships automatically will be legal
in the Golden State.
That's why California's homosexual community is working feverishly to change public
opinion regarding their issues. In February, right before Valentine's Day, gay activists
across the state celebrated "Freedom to Marry Day." In Sacramento, lesbian
activist Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), chair of the powerful Assembly Appropriations
Committee, aggressively asserted that proponents of gay marriage will "press onward
despite any obstacle,"21 and fellow lesbian Sheila James Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), the
Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore, characterized anyone who opposes same- sex marriage as being
"hysterical."22 At the same time, a billboard advocating homosexual
"marriage" hung above a busy intersection in West Hollywood (the display brashly
showcased two lesbians on a motorcycle with a "Just Married" sign).23
These are sobering examples, but is the situation hopeless? No. The tide can be turned if
Christians will commit to taking a stand on these issues which are so critical to the
preservation of the traditional family. I understand that each of you is extremely busy
with commitments to your church, your job and your own familly. Still, I implore you to
consider the importance of making your voice heard. It is not enough to be a regular
churchgoer. It is not enough to read the Bible or to nod in agreement with this letter and
this ministry. While we need and appreciate your support, that alone will not turn the
advancing tide of the homosexual movement, especially with regard to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Your concern and convictions must be translated into action.
Here are a few suggestions for accomplishing that objective. First, become informed about
the status of same-sex marriage in your state. It is important that your state do two
things: legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman; and specifically
clarify that it will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states and jurisdictions.
Here is a list of the states that have various "defense of marriage acts" which
meet both of these necessary criteria:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Virginia, Utah and Washington.
If your state is not listed above, then it is among the most vulnerable to pro-homosexual
forces. But you can do something about it. You can contact your state representatives and
senators, and urge them to protect the well-being of the family by passing a law that will
properly define marriage and block the recognition of same-sex marriages. Many attempts
are being made to pass appropriate legislation in some states, but most have yet to
succeed. Below is a list of states in which such legislation is either pending, under
court challenge or has been defeated.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
If there is legislation pending in your state, do all that you can to support its passage:
contact your representatives; talk to your friends; ask your pastor to speak out on the
issue; get the word out. If such legislation has already failed, contact the sponsoring
representatives and senators to find out why it was defeated, and what can be done to
reintroduce it again — this time successfully. It may be that you cannot find
legislators who care enough about this issue to do something about it. In that case, you
may want to consider starting a ballot initiative to bring the matter before the voters of
your state. This will involve time, money and a deep commitment. But it is worth the
effort.
Before closing, I want to re-emphasize a point I touched on earlier. We must always
remember that regardless of the gravity of the issues at hand, we are commanded to
demonstrate Christlike love to those with whom we disagree. I began this letter by
introducing you to a man who had been delivered from homosexuality through an Exodus
International conference. His decision to commit his life to Christ was not motivated out
of the fact that a particular piece of pro- homosexual legislation passed or failed; it
was the result of the love that was shown him by concerned and compassionate Christians on
an interactive, personal level.
At the same time, the issues at stake are of the utmost importance to our children and to
the future of our country. Any nation that mocks the laws of God will ultimately fail. It
is inevitable. And each of us is either part of the problem or a part of the solution.
Edmund Burke, the English parliamentarian, summed it up this way: "All that is
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."24
May the Lord bless you as you seek to both share His love with those around you and take a
stand for those principles of righteousness He has established from the beginning of time.
My prayers are with you! We would also appreciate your prayers for Focus on the Family.
These are challenging days for all of us here at the ministry. God's blessings to you and
yours.
Sincerely,
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
President
Send this page to a friend!
Endnotes:
1 President Clinton remarks at Human Rights Campaign Dinner, Grand Hyatt Hotel,
Washington, D.C., November 8, 1997
2 Paul Bedard, "Clinton Urges School Diversity Training," The Washington Times,
November 11, 1997, p. A1
3 William Bennett, "Clinton, Gays and the Truth," The Weekly Standard, November
24, 1997, p. 13
4 Jon Frandsen and Fredreka Schouten, "Senate Votes Against Same-Sex Marriage,
Rejects Anti-Gay Discrimination Bill," Gannett News Service, September 10, 1996
5 Clinton, op. cit.
6 Research Funding Dollars Spent per Death, Department of Health and Human Services,
FY1994
7 Norm Ovenden, "Supreme Court Blasts Alberta Over Gay Rights; Sexual Orientation Not
Protected Under Provincial Law," Ottawa Citizen, November 5, 1997, p. A5
8 Religion Roundup, Ottawa Citizen, November 5, 1997, p. I7
9 Sandra Thomas, "Christian University Sues B.C. Teachers' College," The
Vancouver Sun, May 8, 1997
10 Norm Ovenden, "Provinces Must Protect Gays Against Bias," Ottawa Citizen,
April 3, 1998, p. A3
11 Dr. Ted Morton, "Decision Opens the Door for More Challenges," Calgary
Herald, April 4, 1998, p. I5
12 "Ontario Court Advances Recognition of Same-Sex Couples," Associated Press,
April 24, 1998
13 "Age of Consent Comparatively Low," Ottawa Citizen, December 10, 1997, p. A19
14 Deb Price, "Roads to Equality; Gay Rights in Europe; Danes . . .," Detroit
News, October 29, 1997, p. E1
15 "Dutch Homosexual Couples Given Adoption Rights," Agence France Presse,
February 6, 1998
16 Interview with Robert Hondsmerk, Director of Sterling Chris, a ministry to youth based
in the Netherlands, April 27, 1998
17 Personal correspondence between Lyndon Bowring and James C. Dobson, Ph.D. Used with
permission.
18 E.J. Graff, "In and Out in Vermont: The Traditionally Liberal Atmosphere in
Vermont Almost Assures That a Same-Sex Marriage Bill Will Pass . . .," The Nation,
October 20, 1997, p. 19
19 Cheryl Wetzstein, "11 States Back Vermont's 'Same Sex' Ban," The Washington
Times, May 1, 1998, p. A11
20 California Family Code, Section 308: "A marriage contracted outside of this state
that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted
is valid in this state."
21 "National Freedom to Marry Day" News Conference, hosted by LIFE: California's
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and HIV/AIDS Lobby, Sacramento, CA, February 12, 1998
22 Ibid.
23 Press release, "Freedom to Marry Gay Billboard Unveiled," December 1, 1997
24 Letter from Edmund Burke to William Smith, January 9, 1775
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for non-commercial and
non-political purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family.
Copyright © 1998 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
Source: http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0001935.html