A Look To The Future

On an apologetics website I frequent, a member posed these thoughts for consideration.  I post my response below:

Reflections on Islam (watch the video, read the text)

Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

Consider the following:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a contextual tapestry for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient numbers of Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to reasoned Muslim requests for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book, 2007):

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%


At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%


From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: we know however that this isnt true is it...?

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other over racial and theological differences.

Loosely edited from Dr. Peter Hammond’s Slavery, Terrorism and Islam

What leaps out at business people—people who are fluently versed at reading trends from numbers no matter how unsettling—is the trend the statistics present. That said, if Islam’s goal is world domination and in the eyes of Moslem theology non-Moslems are infidels and because of the underlying determinist view of Moslem theology, might can and does make right, what should a reasoned response be and what would be the conditions to trigger such a response? Moreover, if Sharia Law conflicts with our Constitutional Law, what trumps what and when? I have some thoughts toward answering my questions but I’d enjoy hearing your thoughts as well.

My Response:

First thing I think we should all consider is the possiblity of coincidence. It strikes me that the more industrialized and wealthy a nation is, the more immune its citizens are to Muslim conversion. Most of the Muslim world was once pagans without any religion, without any hope. Islam gave them the only hope they had ever known and since man innately knows he needs a relationship with His Creator, many convert simply for that aspect of life alone....to give our lives meaning.

It is also no coincidence that the countries with the strongest Christian populations are also the wealthiest in the world. A stronge uptick in Christian evangelism would be a great place to start. Christians could easily be called to a world revival like we have never seen before, and begin extracting as many proseltyes to Christianity as possible (but that does NOT mean necessarily bringing them to America). I would think that Christian sects birthed of the Muslim world would send a message to Islam and Muslims that people need more hope than what Islam can give them, and more freedom than what Sharia Law provides them.

Aside from that, the thing we should NOT do is to demonize Islam or to stir up a lot of fear and hatred and anger with no action plan in place. Christ called us to preach the Good News of the Gospel...not the Good Noose. We need to preach that Christianity is a religion founded on love and power, and not anger and fear. By way of example, that's what the Tea Party has done with high taxes and immigration, but nobody in the Tea Party is actually presenting any solutions....they're just cheerleading opposition for the sake of opposition with no alternative solution. It will take more than that to convert Muslims to Christianity. We must do it by the Book...the Good Book....the Word of God.

Anyway, Eric, I haven't really had many interactions with you in my time here, but I want to say that I REALLY like that you ask the questions you did and the way you did.

1. What should a reasoned response be?

My answer:
Get the UN invovled.
Get NATO involved.
Get our allies abroad the strenghth they need to resist Sharia Law and curb terrorism (in all its motivations) in their own countries.
Get the facts out to the public with proof that the facts have been properly vetted, but don't let it become another "Damn Commies" campaign like America had against Russia during the Cold War. It would only bankrupt our finances trying to build more and more weapons for an attack that may never come.
Get the US Department of Homeland Security to become more vocal about American preparedness to respond.

In short, don't leave it up to a few trigger happy folks who like to get angry at anything and everything, and don't use this issue just to coalesce an uncoalesceable political group (like the Tea Party, for example). Making this issue a political football would be a mistake because it would negate the comments against Islam calling it a political system, cultural system, etc. In short, making this political would be to lower American Law to Sharia Law's level, and delete our own "might makes right" stance of (as George W. Bush says: Fine, change the eagle so it looks towards the olive branch (and peace) instead of the arrows (and war), but still make certain there are enough arrows in its talons to ensure peace. Worse yet, to make this issue political would be to lower Christianity's faith to Islam's level.

2. If Sharia Law conflicts with Constitutional Law, what trumps and when?

My Answer: The Constitution will trump Sharia law first, last, and always. Sharia law is a religious based legal system (if one can call it legal), and cannot interfere, compete or override the laws of the United States without risk of charges of treason and the National Guard being called out to quell rebellions.

Don't Panic, for God is with us. Pray for the Muslim world....they may be our brothers and sisters in Christ sooner rather than later.

***********************

Having said all that, I'll go out on a limb here. I know a lot of folks are not comfortable with the idea, but hear me out.

Let the gays into the military. Many of us were expelled from the military, and oddly enough, the ones let go of in the most numbers were ARABIC TRANSLATORS....how dumb is that? Who better to speak with Muslims than someone who at least knows how to speak their language? It would also strengthen the number of new recruits into the army by 10% if gays really are 10% of the population. That would be a boon to our military might.

Further, begin encouraging Christians to continue to embrace gays into the Christian faith. Most of us in America come from Christian backgrounds, and most of us resist Christianity because of the attitudes toward us, not because of the teachings itself. This would be a boon not only to Christianity here at home, but as the gay marriage issue winds down and countries all over the world continue to embrace them, it will send a message to 10% of the Muslim world as well to convert to Christianity. Why?

Well, because the neat thing about the gay community is that our numbers as far as percentages of populations is relatively the same, regardless of geopolitical boundaries. If 10% of the world's population is indeed gay, that means 10% of all Iranians, Iraquis, Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghanistanis, and not just 10% of Americans.

The other neat thing is that means we are also 10% of every religion.

Can anyone here imagine if gays were to begin actually discerning the love and acceptance from Christians that God commands (hard as it may be for some to do so), but can you imagine what that would mean to proselytizing gays into Christianity not just from the Muslim faith, but Hindus, Budhists, Taosist, and even Atheists.

In short, gays make up one of the largest worldwide demographics on the planet. At 6 billion people, if 10% of the world's populaton is gay, that 650 million people worldwide.

If Islam is currently at 1 billion strong, a concerted, loving, kind and warm outreach to gays from the worldwide Christian community would mean a nearly instantaneous reduction of Muslim by 100 million proselytes.

What better way to win a religious war than to add as many members to the Christian faith as soon as possible and as quickly as possible and over as large a geographic area as possible?

What better way to strengthen our military presence by 10% around the world as soon as possible and as quickly as possible?

What better way to save 650 million souls for Christ than for Christians to begin showing the love of God abroad in our hearts.....


.....just like Jesus said to.


Anyway, ya'll think about it. Then think about the timing of the worldwide acceptance of gays in the secular world in regards to human, marriage, and equal rights.....at the same time that most of the world holds its breath trying to see what shoe drops next from the Muslim world.

I have been to LOTS of church services that says, "God is raising up an army."

Could it be they are right? And could it be that He is recruiting from the lost sheep of the fold, and calling them home to prepare for the battle and tribulation and persecution of Christians to come?

Well, I wouldn't be surprised.....Ya'll know how our Father in Heaven is......

And how timing is everything to Him.

....just sayin'......

Introduction (FINAL)

This Scriptural study and commentary features many different Scriptural passages, and helps us begin to see that there is a long history of Eunuchs in Scriptures that most people have never heard of, because the Church has traditionally not taught on them. Many times, they have been purposely avoided altogether, because they debunk so many of the traditional teachings on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people that say we cannot be gay and also be Christian. In fact, most traditional teaching the Church has shared has stated that Jesus makes absolutely no references in Scripture to gay people at all, except to condemn us. When we look deeper though, we find much support for our faith and belief that Christ died for all people--including those of us who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender--whether the Church will ever say so or not.

One of my favorite movie lines of all times is:

Logic is the beginning of wisdom. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. --Mr. Spock--Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country--

To me, it is impossible to believe that God hates those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. Scriptures show us that Jesus died for all our sins, and that God loved the whole world. (John 3:16).

This tells me that God loves ALL His children. I believe Scripture also shows us His great purpose for the role of gay Christians as part of His divinely created order, as we examine the historical accounts of eunuchs contained in His Word. Over the past 40 years of my life, I have seen many people come to believe that the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) has become a religion based on the bigoted treatment of others. Over and over in Scripture, we see that the ancient Jewish religion also often operated in much the same way as we see in the modern Christian Church today. In the ancient world, and on up into our modern society, we see women treated as property, children disregarded and unprotected, the practice of slavery justified, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people treated as second class citizens. Sadly, many of these practices were justified based on what some people “said” the Bible said. This book is an attempt to shine a more accurate and Scriptural light on our understanding of LGBT people by examining God’s Word more closely, especially as it relates to Eunuchs.

As we progress through this study I believe we’ll see how Scripture reveals the same promises of God to modern day gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as He does for our heterosexual brothers and sisters. I pray you’ll be blessed by these findings, and that God will open our eyes and ears to understand what His Holy Spirit is revealing to us at this point in human (and Church) history. As gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people continue to make progress toward a more inclusive society, it is also necessary to help people understand the need of a more inclusive Church. I believe that just as God prophesied in Isaiah 56:1-8, His House of Prayer will finally become a House of Prayer for ALL people, including gay people, whom God refers to as eunuchs. Jesus also calls us eunuchs, and in Matthew 19:11-12 we read:

Why this book was written:

As a gay man, I know firsthand just how detrimental traditional Christian teachings can be to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, by those who would use Scriptures to condemn us, berate us, dehumanize us, vilify us, and even kill us, in the Name of God.

I also know firsthand how this can have a detrimental effect on one’s personal relationship with God, and how many Christians tend to push people away from God, rather than drawing people nearer to Him, simply because they don't know that the Scriptures actually speak loudly against such practices.

By sharing these truths, it is my hope that Christians will take another look at Scriptures they are familiar with, as well as to introduce them to Scriptures they likely don’t even know exist, because the Church has largely not taught on them.

It is not my goal to change anyone’s mind or beliefs. It is only my intent to share my own understanding of Scriptures as they pertain to eunuchs and modern day gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals who are often told they cannot be both Christian and gay.

As a gay Christian myself, what I hope to expose are the myths and selective teachings of the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) regarding gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people of the Christian faith.

In the process of this work, I discovered many Scriptures that (once restored to their literary context) reveal gay marriage being ordained by the Apostle Paul, and even Jesus Christ Himself. I share how I discovered the long history of eunuchs within the pages of Scriptures, including the prophecies of God Himself that are not only dependent upon eunuchs for final fulfillment, but that also prevent the return Jesus until it is fulfilled, by making God’s House a House of Prayer for ALL People. Far more than a case for Biblical Gay Marriage, this book looks to the most significant advent of Christianity, and reveals roadblocks to Christ's return to the earth; roadblocks put in place by the Church itself, whether intentionally, or unintentionally.

It is also my intent to share with the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, the facts about Scriptures that we have not heard of, and to shine another light on interpreting the Scriptures we have heard of. And it is my hope to bring people back into the Christian fold who have rejected their pursuit of a God they barely knew, because of the hurtful, demeaning, demoralizing and ignorance filled words from so many Christians that we've all known too well.

Finally, it is my highest hope and prayer that the revelations shared herein will encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to return to the fold, empowered and emboldened to take their rightful and God-ordained place in His House of Prayer for ALL people.



If their rejection and exclusion from the benefits of salvation were [overruled] for the reconciliation of a world to God, what will their acceptance and admission mean? [It will be nothing short of] life from the dead!

Love, compassion, and encouragement will do wonders when empowered by God through the power of His Holy Spirit and the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. In an attempt to equip church ministry with a firm understanding of how best to approach the subject, I think that refuting traditional teaching that goes against the Word of God is the first place to start.

This book is an attempt to speak to the hearts and minds of believers everywhere in an effort to challenge them to set aside religious tradition, and embrace relationship, including a relationship with those of us who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and for one reason only: for the increasing of the Kingdom of Heaven! God promises great rewards to those who preach the good news of the Gospel, and has given us the Great Commission to preach it to every living creature....not just those who think and act like we do.

It is my hope that this writing empowers people everywhere to press in to what Scriptures really have to say regarding those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, as well as our families. It is my fervent desire that the fruit of this information is one of a greater understanding that regardless of what Christianity has traditionally taught regarding being gay and Christian, that indeed there is a place for us at the King’s Table, and that the return of Jesus Christ is Scripturally dependent upon us being there!

So let’s get started! But all things are from God, Who through Jesus Christ reconciled us to Himself [received us into favor, brought us into harmony with Himself] and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation [that by word and deed we might aim to bring others into harmony with Him].

And then Romans 11:15 asks us to consider:Religion vs. Forgiveness

This book is also an effort to make sure that people who find themselves being persecuted by Church Shepherds for being gay will have a resource to study it out for themselves, based on God’s Word, instead of relying only on religious traditions of men. Who knows how many teenagers will read this book and have the strength and courage to ask for help upon realizing they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, instead of committing suicide as so many do. What if we could help people understand who they are in Christ, before they grew hostile toward God or His Word, or before they left their church, their families, or even their very lives in some cases?

I deeply believe this book will help them as well as those who love and minister to them, if accompanied with godly, loving and understanding Biblical counsel. Condemnation, rebukes, and ill-informed messages of damnation will not help. As we have seen over the past 50 years, it simply drives people further away from each other, rather than bringing them together. In 2 Corinthians 5:18, Jesus gave each one of us the ministry of reconciliation:“Jesus said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given. For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.”

I recall the day I read these Scriptures more than 30 years ago during a Sunday School class, and realized only recently how much they were actually great news for me, and to millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people all over the world. In this study, I hope to illustrate why I believe they will also become great news for the entire Body of Christ. Realizing that “born eunuchs” and GLBT people are one and the same took a greater understanding of the Scriptures than I realized, because the church and its theologians have been selective in their definitions of the word "eunuch." I believe the reason for this is to keep the true meaning of the term "born eunuch" hidden away, in order to comply with the disdain most heterosexual people have held toward gay people throughout history.

But within the historical accounts of eunuchs throughout Scripture, we see a subtle yet unmistakable similarity between us. The purpose of this book is to share those discoveries that began to reveal a message of hope for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people that has heretofore been purposely hidden over the centuries, by the Church itself.

It is not my goal to “convince” anyone of anything. Instead, I intend only to share what I believe is Good News from the Word of God with those who have an ear to hear, and a heart to receive, what I believe is a new and profound light on the subject of LGBT people being accepted as full participants in the Kingdom of Heaven. I also hope to encourage and empower those of us who have been excluded from God’s promises for centuries to lay hold of all that His Word promises us, as we begin to understand and fulfill our Scriptural and prophetic purposes in God’s Kingdom.

For the Church, accepting this means that we can finally put aside our religious traditions and begin to truly reach out and embrace all of God’s people, including those of us who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. For LGBT Believers, this means a new call from the Good Shepherd’s own voice as He beckons us into God’s Kingdom with the very Word of God that so many have used to condemn us, and finding instead that it promises more than we could dare hope, think or dream.

As a gay man ostracized by the Church and society, many times I felt condemned to a life of hopelessness. I had no hope of knowing God, no hope of a marriage, no hope of children, no hope of serving in ministry, and no hope of ever having free access to the same faith and hope in Christ that He died to give you and me. Discovering these Scriptural truths regarding eunuchs meant that perhaps there was something the Church was not telling us.

This led me to more thoroughly study the Scriptures for myself, and in doing so, I found that God actually has a very special purpose in His Kingdom for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. In fact, as we'll explore later on, the very return of Jesus Christ is dependent upon the church's inclusion of gay people, and our full participation in all the privileges and sacraments afforded to all other Christian believers. The only problem was, I didn't really know what a eunuch was, aside from being a castrated man, a person who had chosen celibacy, or someone who served in a king's palace. I share now how I came to the conclusion that the "born eunuchs" Jesus discussed in Matthew 19:11-12 are the same as modern day gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, as well as what all that means to those of us who profess our faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Through sharing the discoveries I have made regarding eunuchs in Scripture, I discovered Biblical support for gays, lesbian, bisexual and transgender believers to at long last be afforded the same promises that God grants to all other believers. This would include the ability to marry the person God has chosen for us, adopt the children God has assigned to us, find a supportive church family that God has prepared for us, and to become ordained clergy in God’s House of Prayer for ALL people, so we can faithfully, joyfully, and Scripturally begin building strong families, regardless of our sexuality.

I hope by revealing these truths that Church Shepherds of all denominations will soon begin to bring more souls into the Kingdom of Heaven than any other generation has ever seen, as GLBT Believers and their families begin returning to Church. I look forward to the day that all believers will be free of the shame and stigma that was once associated with being a parent or friend or relative of someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

Born This Way

NOTE: This blog is the 1st draft only. The final draft is expected to be available on Kindle and Nook in Summer 2011. Please email thebedkeeper@gmail.com with any corrections, typos, or comments you'd care to share. All emails will be considered confidential and not shared with any third party for any reason, provided they do not violate United States and/or International laws regarding stalking or threats of violence and/or death, etc.

Feel free to share this with your friends, family, or pastor! You can also follow me on Twitter @thebedkeeper. Thanks so much for your time and prayerful consideration of this message!

Sincerely,
Brian Anthony Bowen, Author

************************************************************************************

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people = Born Eunuchs Let's start with some of the "official" definitions of eunuchs, as published by authoritative Christian sources, and we’ll begin to see the inadequacy of these definitions when compared to what we know of eunuchs as defined by both God in Isaiah 56, and by Jesus in Matthew 19:

Strong's Concordance: 2134 εὐνουχίζω [eunouchizo /yoo•noo•khid•zo/] v. From 2135; TDNT 2:765; TDNTA 277; GK 2335; Two occurrences; AV translates as “make eunuchs” twice. 1 to castrate, to neuter a man. 2 metaph. to make one’s self a eunuch i.e. by abstaining (like a eunuch from marriage).

The above definition covers the traditional (but limited) definitions most church clergy will offer when asked what a eunuch is. But these definitions only cover two types of eunuchs; those castrated, and those who choose to abstain from marriage and remain celibate. But Jesus mentions 3 types of eunuchs, saying: For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it. Matthew 19:12 Just prior to this passage of Scripture, Jesus reaffirming heterosexual marriage as being between one man and one woman and then says, "BUT" But He said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given. So these eunuchs who are "born eunuchs" could not have been heterosexual, or Jesus would not have exempted from the heterosexual marriage model. The "born eunuchs" could not have been castrated, because nobody is "born" castrated. Castration is a procedure, not a birth condition. The "born eunuchs" could not have been celibate, because nobody is "born" celibate. Celibacy is a choice, not a birth condition. So if the "born eunuchs" are not heterosexual, are not castrated, and are not celibate, that only leaves gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as the only people group in the world for which this definition of "born" eunuchs fits.

Strong’s Concordance (cont's): 2135 εὐνοῦχος [eunouchos /yoo•noo•khos/] n m. From eune (a bed) and 2192; TDNT 2:765; TDNTA 277; GK 2336; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “eunuch” eight times. 1 a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain. 1a in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives the superintendent of the women’s apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs. 1b an emasculated man, a eunuch. 1b1 eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39. 1c one naturally incapacitated. 1c1 for marriage. 1c2 begetting children. 1d one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.

Let’s take a closer look at 1c and 1c1 above. What does "one naturally incapacitated for marriage" mean if not a reference to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender people? Even physically injured people can marry. Even those who do not procreate and have children can marry. So what does "one naturally incapacitated for marriage" mean, if it does *not* refer to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people?

Easton’s Bible Dictionary Easton, M. (1996, c1897) Oak Harbor, WA Logos Research Systems, Inc. Eunuch — literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (2 Kings 9:32; Esther 2:3). The law of Moses excluded them from the congregation (Deut. 23:1). They were common also among the Greeks and Romans. It is said that even to-day there are some in Rome who are employed in singing soprano in the Sistine Chapel. Three classes of eunuchs are mentioned in Matt. 19:12.

So even though it distinctly states here that there are three classes of eunuchs mentioned in Matthew 19:12, it fails to define what those three classes are. It also omits any reference to the eunuchs God prophecied about in Isaiah 56 in reference to overturning the ban Moses had put in place.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological dictionary of the New Testament Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament(277) Grand Rapids, Mich. W.B. Eerdmans 1. Outside the NT eunoúchos is used not only for men but also for castrated animals and for fruits or plants with no seed or kernel. 2. Castration is alien to the Greeks but is found in the Near East. Eunuchs here are overseers of women and confidants of rulers, often in places of power. Eunuch priests play a role in many cults; perhaps the idea is that of assimilation and dedication to the deity. 3. The OT forbids the castration of men or animals as contrary to the Creator’s will (cf. Dt. 17:16ff.; 23:2ff.). The desire for a healthy cultic order may play some part in the prohibition Yet the prophets insist that God’s boundless love covers eunuchs too (Is. 56:3ff.). The OT term sārîs denotes a military or political official as well as a eunuch (cf. 2 Kgs. 25:19). The LXX rendering eunoúchos may imply emasculation but does not have to do so. By the time of Jesus Hellenistic influences strengthen a more lenient attitude toward eunuchs in some circles, e.g., in Herod’s court, where Josephus tells us the three chamberlains were eunuchs. 4. Rabbinic Judaism, however, insists on the duty of marrying and having children. In view of this Jeremiah believes that Paul must have been a widower (though cf. 1 Cor. 7:7). 5. Jesus transcends the rabbinic view by differentiating three groups of eunuchs (Mt. 19:12): those who are so from birth, those who are castrated, and those who emasculate themselves for the kingdom’s sake. In the latter case the sense is obviously figurative; the reference is to those who renounce sex in order to focus on the higher goal of the kingdom, as Jesus himself does. The gospel affirms the natural order but may require its denial for the sake of the new and higher order. 6. In Acts 8:27ff. Is. 56:3-4 comes to fulfillment as the eunuch of Queen Candace comes to faith and is baptized. 7. The early church mostly takes Mt. 19:12 figuratively (though cf. the young Origen) and excludes from the ministry any who are castrated except through no fault of their own (cf. canons 21ff. of the Apostolic Constitutions).Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985).

Once again, even through this lengthy explanation that clearly states that Jesus recognized 3 different types of eunuchs, it fails to provide 3 different explanations. So while I appreciate the "official definitions" of eunuchs, even these continue to support the existence of "born eunuchs" as those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. In the Middle Eastern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, those who are members of the GLBT community are still referred to as eunuchs, and have recently been recognized as an independent people group. There, the Supreme Court has decriminalized consenting sexual expressions between two adults of the same gender, have granted voting rights, and have instituted laws that provide improved medical, social and educational benefits specifically for eunuchs, whom are considered largely to be transgender individuals known as the hijrah, but also include gay and lesbian people as well. It seems to me that because in the West we refer to GLBT people as homosexual, or gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender and not eunuchs, that we have lost the meaning that the Scriptures (which were also written in Eastern languages in an Eastern culture) were trying to convey.

NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures used in this book are from the Amplified Translation of the Scriptures. It translates the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages in which the Scriptures were written, by using a system of brackets and parantheses to include additional English words necessary to accurately convey the entire meaning of the original words used. In translations such as the King James Version, Scriptures were translated by choosing the best singular English word to convey the meaning of the original manuscripts, and provides a word for word translation. By comparison, the Amplified Translation adds as many English words as are necessary in order to convey the entire meaning of the original manuscript, and provides a "complete thought" for "complete thought" translation as you read along, so you don't have to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to comprehend the original words used.

Now let’s turn to the Scriptures and we’ll find that the first time the word “eunuch” is used in Deuteronomy 23:1, where we learn that Moses banned eunuchs from the congregation of the Lord:

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (King James Version)

It's important to note that it is the only time in Scriptures that the word "eunuch" is clarified as meaning, "He who is wounded in the testicles, or has his privy part cut off." This means that the only people Moses really "banned" from church were those not physically intact and able to produce children, hence making them ill suited to growing the new Jewish faith. In true exclusionary fashion, people began to assume that every time the word “eunuch” appeared in Scripture, it was referring to a castrated male. If we look closer at God’s prophecy in Isaiah 56:1-8 regarding eunuchs, we’ll see that eunuchs can also be female:

1 Thus says the Lord: Keep justice, do and use righteousness (conformity to the will of God which brings salvation), for My salvation is soon to come and My righteousness My rightness and justice) to be revealed. 2 Blessed, happy, and fortunate is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold of it and binds himself fast to it, who keeps sacred the Sabbath so as not to profane it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. 3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, The Lord will surely separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose the things which please Me and hold firmly My covenant-- 5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better [and more enduring] than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. 6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord to minister to Him and to love the name of the Lord and to be His servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it and who holds fast My covenant [by conscientious obedience] 7 All these I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 8 Thus says the Lord God, Who gathers the outcasts of Israel: I will gather yet others to [Israel] besides those already gathered.

Discovering these Scriptures was a shocking revelation as I realized that by God referring to eunuchs as “sons and daughters” that some eunuchs are indeed female. That tells me that even though most Church Shepherds define the word “eunuch” as a “castrated male” we see that could not possibly apply to “all” eunuchs. Some must have been female, or God would not have referred to some as "daughters." But there’s something even more important than that. These passages of Scripture truly have a profound meaning to the entire Body of Christ as it pertains to the return of Jesus Christ Himself. If we look just three verses prior to this, we see God preface His eunuch prophecy with Isaiah 55:11, saying:

So shall My word be that goes forth out of My mouth: it shall not return to Me void [without producing any effect, useless], but it shall accomplish that which I please and purpose, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Friends, these passages warm my heart and encourage my spirit! We see the Lord telling us through Isaiah that no eunuch should say “I am a dry tree” because to those who keep His Sabbaths and choose the things which please God and hold firmly to His covenant He will give eunuchs a memorial in His House, and within His walls. He will give us a name better and more enduring than sons and daughters. He will give us an everlasting name that will be not cut off. I believe He gives us the name of Jesus as we obey Christ’s commandments. But where is this memorial? I believe it is a reference to Holy Communion. As we see, when Jesus passed the wine and bread to His disciples, He admonished them saying, "This do in remembrance of Me." I believe very strongly that the "memorial" God is promising to give eunuchs in His House of Prayer is Holy Communion, to be received with the rest of the congregation in His House, and within His walls. In verse 7, the Lord goes on to say that those of us who join ourselves to the Lord to minister to Him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be His servants, He brings to His holy mountain and makes us joyful in His house of prayer! He will accept our offerings and sacrifices on His altar! His House will be called a House of Prayer for ALL people...including eunuchs, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals!! So it would stand to reason that Holy Communion would be a part of this promise, and it would stand to reason that those who indeed "chose the things that please God, kept his hand from doing any evil, and who chose to take firm hold of His Covenant", that eunuchs would also be entitled to the same Sacraments God offers, including marriage. The part of this passage of Scripture that really caught my eye was verse 7 where God says His House will be called a House of Prayer for ALL people. Realizing that hasn’t happened yet provides another clue into who the eunuchs are that Scriptures refer to, because the only people the Church excludes today are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. As I began putting these clues together and connecting the dots, I realized that God is insisting that we be part of His House of Prayer. Further, by prefacing His prophecy regarding eunuchs by insisting that His Word will accomplish that which He purposes, He gives me great hope as a gay man, that one day I too would be included in His House. But that’s not what traditional Church teachings had taught me. They said I would be excluded, so somebody was lying, and I know it wasn’t God. Then I caught another revelation: If God’s Word is true (which I believe it is), this meant that Christ could not return to the earth until God’s House of Prayer included everyone, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. This meant that by the Church refusing us full inclusion in houses of worship for all these centuries, they were going against God Himself. That also means that the profound implications of this prophecy will be the centerpiece not only of this book, but as we’ll see in many Scriptures throughout this study, this prophecy itself is a centerpiece of God’s Word, and is referred to throughout the Scriptures over and over again. We see Jesus quote it when He says, “My House shall be called a house of prayer, but you have turned it into a den of thieves,” when He cleared the temple in Matthew 21:13 and Mark 11:17. We also see it referred to in Jeremiah 7:9-11: 9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, 10 And [then dare to] come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My Name, and say, [By the discharge of this religious formality] we are set free!--only to go on with this wickedness and these abominations? 11 Has this house, which is called by My Name, become a den of robbers in your eyes [a place of retreat for you between acts of violence]? Behold, I Myself have seen it, says the Lord. So all this tells me that eunuchs are important in God’s House of Prayer, and that eunuchs are much more than just castrated men, as Scripture clearly shows that some eunuchs are male and some are female (sons and daughters, i.e. gays and lesbians). Most importantly, upon making God's House of Prayer a House of Prayer for ALL people, the prophecy in Isaiah 56:1-8 can be finally be fulfilled, and the Church becomes one step closer to Our Lord’s return to the Earth. Even more dramatically, as this message becomes more widely available to the masses, I believe the Isaiah prophecy also points to the eventual rise of many great Christian leaders--both Catholics and Protestants--who will help shepherd GLBT people into God’s House of Prayer. Additionally, as the largest body of Christian believers in the world, I also believe this prophecy points to the rise of a Pope who will eventually revise and extend the lessons about eunuchs currently contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (the official Catholic doctrines and teachings). Currently, the only information the CCC contains is this regarding eunuchs:

1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model: "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

I hope the Catholic Church will soon revise and extend the remarks contained within the CCC so that it includes "naturally born eunuchs" as part of God's Creative Order. And I pray we will soon see that their official definition of eunuchs begin to become expressed through experience with the Church as we become integrated into congregations all over the world. I see those eventualities within the eunuch prophecy in Isaiah 56:2 that reads: "Blessed, happy, and fortunate is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold of it and binds himself fast to it, who keeps sacred the Sabbath so as not to profane it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” I believe "the man who does this" refers to eunuchs, and the "son of man" is anyone in Church leadership (i.e. pastor, bishop, deacon, priest or lay person) who helps God's house become a House of Prayer for All People)--and one of those will happen to be a Pope. As wonderful as this news from Isaiah 56:1-8 is, just two verses later, God also gives us another revelation concerning this prophecy, saying basically that it will take time to open Church leaders' eyes to these truths about GLBT Believers, and explains why: [Israel’s] watchmen are blind, they are all without knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; dreaming, lying down, they love to slumber. Yes, the dogs are greedy; they never have enough. And such are the shepherds who cannot understand; they have all turned to their own way, each one to his own gain, from every quarter [one and all]. Come, say they, We will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink! And tomorrow shall be as this day, a day great beyond measure. Isaiah 56:10-12 While this verse seems to describe the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, it also accurately portrays the modern Christian Church's attempts to keep these prophecies (as well as the eunuch teachings of Jesus Christ) concealed from the general public. It accurately describes the lavish lifestyles many Christian leaders lead, and accurately portrays their refusal to include gays to (perhaps intentionally) prevent the return of Christ, so they can continue to maintain their earthly power. To give the benefit of the doubt, I try to see them simply as the shepherds who cannot understand. I do not believe most of them are bad people, but rather they seem simply "unable to understand" that by including eunuchs in Scriptures, God is instructing His shepherds to include eunuchs, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people in His House of Prayer for ALL people. But after hundreds of discussions with pastors on this issue, the thing I realize that they truly don't understand is how they go about including us without their parishioners thinking that the shepherds were going against Scripture. It is after all, difficult to explain all this in a 45 minute sermon. However, I am confident this book will give the entire Body of Christ a look into the importance of including gays in church, and will realize that the return of Christ is dependent upon our inclusion. Once more folks see what I've been sharing from Scriptures, the easier it will be for parishioners and shepherds alike to begin taking steps to include us in their own church. So in determining "what a eunuch is," it is as easy as answering the question "what is the church not?" It is *not* a House of Prayer for all people--at least not yet. The only group of people the Church excludes nowadays is GLBT people. If we look at whom the Church was excluding back in Deuteronomy 23:1 (eunuchs), and who the Church is excluding in modern days (GLBT Believers), we begin to see really clearly that God is talking about one and the same as He overturns Moses' ban in Isaiah 55:11-56:8. While this book is an attempt to help Church Shepherds understand that eunuchs and GLBT believers are the same excluded group today as we were in Jesus’ day, I also hope to illustrate that Jesus goes on to explain that it’s because of the priests who reject knowledge. Scripture describes the effects on God's people for the lack of His knowledge in Hosea 4:6, saying,

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you [the priestly nation] have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you that you shall be no priest to Me; seeing you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.”

One last point to make in understanding that eunuchs and GLBT people are one and the same can only be made by putting Jesus’ words in context of the message He was giving at the time, so let’s back up to the words He spoke just prior to saying what He did regarding eunuchs, beginning in Matthew 19 verse 1, and continuing through to verse 12: 1 Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, He left Galilee and went into the part of Judea that is beyond the Jordan; 2 And great throngs accompanied Him, and He cured them there. 3 And Pharisees came to Him and put Him to the test by asking, Is it lawful and right to dismiss and repudiate and divorce one's wife for any and every cause? 4 He replied, Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparably) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (separate). 7 They said to Him, Why then did Moses command [us] to give a certificate of divorce and thus to dismiss and repudiate a wife? 8 He said to them, Because of the hardness (stubbornness and perversity) of your hearts Moses permitted you to dismiss and repudiate and divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been so [ordained]. 9 I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for unchastity, and marries commits adultery, and he who marries divorced woman commits adultery. 10 The disciples said to Him, If the case of a man with his wife is like this, it is neither profitable nor advisable to marry. 11 But He said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it. These are the same passages of Scripture that most well meaning supporters of one man/one woman marriage often quote, but they always leave off the exception Jesus made regarding eunuchs. Of the four gospels, Matthew is the only disciple that records Jesus’ teachings about eunuchs, so it can be somewhat understandable that many people have not heard about them. Aside from listening to the “shepherds who cannot understand,” this singular mention in Scriptures can lead people to think they are complete and correct in their assertions that Jesus ordained one man/one woman marriage only. But as we have more closely examined God’s Word, we have already seen that is clearly not the case for every person, because there are those who are born eunuchs from their mothers' wombs, and clearly Jesus exempted them from the heterosexual marriage model. But He never bans us from the same gender marriage model. Obviously, if Jesus upheld heterosexual marriage being between a man and woman, then by default He is pointing to "heterosexual" marriage when making the exception for eunuchs. That would make the most accurate definition of "eunuch" as someone who was “born incapable of heterosexual marriage.” It fits Scripture and it fits any of the definitions provided by authoritative Christian sources at the beginning of this chapter, especially "one naturally incapaciated for (heterosexual) marriage." Suddenly this makes sense on many levels, as we see clearly that Jesus was saying His teaching about heterosexual marriage did not apply to all people, further indicating that Jesus knew all people were not heterosexual, saying again, "not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom the capacity to receive it has been given." That means that Jesus chose to use the word "eunuch" to also include "all who are not heterosexual." This is the strongest proof yet that Jesus indeed was aware that some people in God's Divinely Created order were what we today refer to as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and the only proof a Christian needs to accept that gays are indeed born this way! Many Church Shepherds would respond by saying some people are “born with deformed genitalia” or are “hermaphroditic,” or are “intersexed,” meaning they had characteristics of both male and female reproductive organs. But regardless of the typical definition they could use, it would still not render eunuchs as being “incapable of marriage.” Even injured people can marry. Even celibate people can marry. Jesus refers to involuntary conditions that by birth, renders a person incapable of heterosexual marriage. For the purpose of this study, let’s just say that born eunuchs at least can include those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and can do so honestly. To be clear, when used in Scripture, the term “eunuch” does not always mean “gay,” but I also believe that this book will bear out the support that those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can be encouraged in the hope that “all” means “all”, and that we are included in the promises of God, including being made joyful in His house of prayer for “all” people. While there are still many churches who do not see eunuchs as portrayed in this book (or even in light of Scriptures), there are still many others who diligently strive to learn how to better minister to GLBT Believers in their congregations. I believe this book will help. For now, I say we should keep the faith, Brothers and Sisters! As this message from God’s Word gains more exposure, I believe it will eventually begin to soften hearts, open eyes, and begin to open more widely, the Door to His House. I predict the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) will begin to usher in this new move of God as their eyes are opened to their own responsibility for the knowledge of God that is contained in His Word, and begin to realize the benefits of what God seems to be showing us in this hour, which I believe is a new and enlarged view of His Divinely Created Order, that includes eunuchs born so from their mothers' wombs…for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven!

Frequently Offered Explanations: In double checking my interpretations of these Scriptures, I have participated in various focus groups, some made of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and some that were comprised entirely of heterosexual, fundamental, and Evangelical Christians who vehemently oppose the eunuch Scriptures as foundational truths from the Bible. Listed here are the most commonly offered explanations as to who the born eunuchs in Scriptures were, and follow up responses that I have found continue to either be ignored or otherwise go unanswered. I hope it helps to prepare those who are gay Christians to understand what they will come up against when explaining these passages to fellow (and often times hostilely opposed) fundamental and/or evangelical Christians, and be prepared to respond from a Scripturally accurate viewpoint: FOUNDATIONAL SCRIPTURE: Matthew 19:12 In Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus exempts 3 types of eunuchs from the male/female marriage paradigm, saying: "Not all men can accept this saying (about male/female marriages), but it is only for those who have the capacity to receive it, for there are eunuchs who are born incapable of marriage, those who are made so by other men, and those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God." We all agree that those choosing to be eunuchs are celibate. We all agree that those made eunuchs were castrated. But what of those who are born eunuchs? A logical deduction concludes that they were not celibate, because nobody is "born celibate." They are not castrated, because nobody is "born castrated". They are not heterosexual or Jesus would not have exempted them from the male/female marriage paradigm. This leads me to conclude they are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. “Born eunuchs are born with birth defects regarding their genitalia" RESPONSE: If this was the case, what then would prevent them from marriage? In other words, why would Jesus exempt those with birth defects regarding their genitalia from male/female marriages? “Born eunuchs were castrated or the born eunuchs were celibate” RESPONSE: Jesus already covered these two types of eunuchs, by including those made eunuchs (castrated) and those who choose to be eunuchs (celibate). But He mentions also a third type of eunuch, those BORN eunuchs. “Born eunuchs are heterosexual, because all people are born heterosexual.” RESPONSE: If this was true, then why did Jesus say in the King James Version of Matthew 19:12 they are "born so from their mother's wombs”? Also, why would He exempt them from the male/female marriage paradigm? Finally, this would indicate that God created Adam and Eve with the DNA programming necessary to give birth to eunuchs through their descendants, or NO people would be "born" eunuchs. “Born eunuchs cannot marry, therefore they must remain celibate.” RESPONSE: Not according to the Apostle Paul. Compton's lists 1 Corinthians 7:8 as a reference to eunuchs when Paul refers to them as "unmarried people and widows", which hearkens back to God's prophecy regarding eunuchs and widows in Isaiah 54 and 56. Let's look at what Paul says then regarding eunuchs: But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do. But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire]. “We cannot lump together three entirely different classes of eunuchs. Homosexuals (be they male or female) are quite different from either bisexuals or transgender, who, in turn are quite different from each other. People who are capable of normal sexual intercourse (male to female), such as bisexuals cannot be "born eunuchs"; the same goes for transgendered persons who are capable of normal intercourse.” RESPONSE: Actually in relation to bisexuals, I usually have nothing to say except they should marry one person and live a faithful and monogamous marriage relationship, as all Christians. If they choose to marry a person of the opposite gender, I think it correct to say, they would not be considered a eunuch, provided that this choice includes a natural sexual desire for the person they marry. However, if they choose to marry a person of the same gender, then I believe it would be Scripturally accurate to say they would still be considered a eunuch. As for the transgendered, I cannot think of a group of people who fit the "Born Eunuch" definition better, except perhaps the intersexed, so again, I would continue to believe it to be Scripturally accurate to consider them as "born eunuchs". “Born eunuchs have no capability of reproduction, no sex drive, and no desire for women, and therefore have no faculty for engaging in sexual relations.” RESPONSE: This is partially true, but only applies to having sexual relations with the opposite gender. It does not preclude the sex drive or desire for people of the same gender. “Born eunuchs were born into slavery.” RESPONSE: That is an inaccurate definition of born eunuch, and slaves were never barred from marriage. The Torah explains that slaves under Hebraic Law had to be freed after six years: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment (Ex. 21:2). If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed (Deut. 15:12-13). In light of these Scriptures, even if a person was born a slave, this would not make him necessarily also a born eunuch and therefore incapable of marriage, and if it did, it would only be for a period of six years, after which time the slave must be freed. Further, the Torah recounts examples of married slaves, which would contradict the term eunuch as being incapable of marriage: If the man was married when he came, his wife was to go with him (Ex. 21:3). If born eunuchs who were born "incapable of marriage" were slaves, then why would Exodus 21:3 (only three verses into the whole of Jewish Law) show that a married slave's wife must depart with him upon his release after six years? So suppose they were born into Roman slavery? Roman Law at the time actually permitted eunuchs to marry women, so Jesus could not have been discussing them, because He said that the Born Eunuchs He spoke of were incapable of heterosexual marriage and exempted them from the male/female marriage paradigm. So suppose they were born into African slavery? Many American owners of slaves of African descent actually made their slaves marry and have children to produce more slaves, and after 15 births, a woman was entitled to become a free woman afterwards. So in no case do we see any connection to Born Eunuchs Jesus refers to (who were born incapable of marriage) and slaves who were permitted and often encouraged to marry undder Hebraic and Roman Law, as well as under American and English ownership. Further, it's equally important to ask the clergy these questions: If the born eunuchs of the Bible that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 19:11-12 are *not* the same as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people today, then who are they, and how do we get them to church in order to make God's House a House of Prayer for ALL People? (Isaiah 56:1-8) Why is the church not actively seeking out the offerings and sacrifices that God promises to accept on His altar from eunuchs (Isaiah 56:6) Why is the church not a House of Prayer for all people already? (Isaiah 56:7) Why is the ban against eunuchs in the congregation put in place by Moses (Deut. 23:1) and then overturned by God (Isaiah 56:1-8) and Jesus (Matthew 19:11-12), with proof of the ban being overturned with the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch? (Acts 8:29-40) Why does the Body of Christ not teach on eunuchs when they are so vitally important to fulfilling a prophecy from God Himself (Isaiah 56:1-8) Why did Jesus even bother mentioning eunuchs in Matthew 19:11-12? Who are the people Paul laments to Timothy would be "forbid to marry" in the last days if he is not referring to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people in 1 Timothy 4:1-5? Who are the "unmarried people and widows" Paul says should get married in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 even after he re-affirmed heterosexual marriage, if they are not the same as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people of today?

In order for an answer to remain Scripturally accurate, these eunuchs must have been born incapable of heterosexual marriage, and they must have been excluded from the congregation of the Lord at some point between the time Moses wrote Deuteronomy 23:1 where he bans eunuchs in the congregation, and 700-750 BC when God prophecies through Isaiah that the eunuch ban would be overturned. The only people group in the world that fits this definition of "born eunuchs" are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender individuals. While I remain open to other interpretations, none have come forth in more than 30 years of study that would encompass all that we already know from Scripture about eunuchs, and without contradicting these definitions, or other passages of eunuch Scriptures. The bottom line I have found from every clergy and lay person I have ever spoken to about this over the years is the same: they have no alternate explanation of what a born eunuch is, because there is none. Often they realize this is true, yet are unable to risk their ministry positions and actually admit it. The Christian Church has thus far been staunchly opposed to revealing this information to the masses, and we'll explore why in the next chapters. And it's far more than simply human men being unable or unwilling to see or accept this message. There is also a strong spiritual force at work; a spiritual force that is determined to prevent the return of Christ through a church unaware of the meaning of born eunuch. And born eunuchs have a vital prophetic role to play in breaking that spiritual stronghold of darkness over the church once and for all. It's nothing to be frightened of, but it is something we must be aware of in order to stand against it. In the next chapters, we'll begin to find find out how!

Anti-Gay Theologian Confirms Born Eunuchs Include Gays

NOTE: This blog is the 1st draft only. The final draft is expected to be available on Kindle and Nook in Summer 2011. Please email thebedkeeper@gmail.com with any corrections, typos, or comments you'd care to share. All emails will be considered confidential and not shared with any third party for any reason, provided they do not violate United States and/or International laws regarding stalking or threats of violence and/or death, etc.

Feel free to share this with your friends, family, or pastor! You can also follow me on Twitter @thebedkeeper. Thanks so much for your time and prayerful consideration of this message!

Sincerely,
Brian Anthony Bowen, Author

************************************************************************************

Dr. Robert Gagnon is a prolific Christian teacher and professor who has developed many arguments against gay marriage. While I respect his ability to defend his position in a non-threatening manner, and in a way that I believe would please God, I do disagree with him a number of points. However, I was encouraged to learn that even on his own website, Dr. Gagnon concludes that those whom Jesus says were "born eunuchs" would include gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender persons:

From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:28 AM
To: J.
Subject: RE: Princeton University Scholar Maliks Faris Scholarship on Eunuchs and Homosexuals

J.,

Probably "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions...

...Jesus' comparison of men who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven with "born eunuchs" shows that Jesus categorized "born eunuchs" as persons not having any sex (Matt 19), for certainly Jesus was not giving the disciples permission to have sex outside of marriage and thereby avoid his newly enunciated standard for marriage. So, from that standpoint, any argument that is made about "born eunuchs" including homosexual persons (with which I would agree) leads to the view that Jesus did not give homosexually oriented persons the option of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Blessings,
Rob Gagnon

Brian Anthony Bowen: While I obviously disagree with Dr. Gagnon's opinion that Jesus was saying the "born eunuchs" must never have sexual relations (at least "from that standpoint"), I certainly I agree that (at least from that standpoint) Jesus did not give homosexually oriented persons the option of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, but I do *not* believe that automatically precludes Jesus' alluding to the option of marriage between persons of the same gender, with all the privileges, rights (and responsibilities) pertaining thereto, and that those rights and responsibilities would be no different for gay people than they are for straight people, including sexual relations with their marriage mate exclusively, faithfully, and monogamously, for life.

As a Christian, I also believe that Jesus indicates that "those who are made eunuchs by other men" could include men who pass laws banning same gender marriage, and that "born eunuchs" would marry each other, if only the laws of the land permitted. Paul even alludes to this and gives it his permission in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, saying "to the unmarried people and to the widows, I say they SHOULD marry", immediately following his own reaffirmation of heterosexual marriage, and including the word "but.......prior to his declaration upon "unmarried people" (which could include eunuchs whom the Amplified Bible translates as "incapable of marriage).

So going back to my earlier post's point, where laws are designed to strictly forbid gay marriage, again, I would say 1 Timothy 4:1-4 should encourage Christians to reconsider their position.

Dr. Gagnon is known as having no gay supporters ever even challenge him in the debate on gay marriage, so I hope to share (later) some of my own thoughts on some of his arguments and how I believe they fall short of convincing, regardless of how well delivered and thought out they are. I respect Dr. Gagnon, and his efforts to do what he believes God has called him to do, and would encourage all Christians (especially those who oppose gay marriage) to give a listen to him sometime, read his articles sometime, and even send him an email now and then to encourage him, knowing that even some homosexual people have a great deal of respect for him and his method for discussing this issue while still proclaiming Jesus as the Savior, even if we tend to continue to disagree on certain points he makes. He stands (in my opinion) as a sterling example of how Christians should discuss their thoughts with homosexual people, if they truly intend to encourage homosexual people to come to the Lord and not simply be driven further away.

Dr. Gagnon: Eunuchs

Claim: The positive treatment that “eunuchs” receive in some biblical texts (Isaiah 56:3‐5; Matt 19:12; Acts 8:27‐39) provides grounds for supporting homosexual unions, as does Jesus’ attitude toward the woman caught in adultery and toward other outcasts.

What the evidence really shows:
The references to eunuchs in Isa 56:3‐5 and Acts 8:27‐39 refer to persons who were physically castrated against their will, not to persons who willingly removed their marks of masculinity, much less actively engaged in sexual relations forbidden by Scripture. Jesus’ saying about eunuchs in Matt 19:12 presupposes that eunuchs are not having sexual intercourse at all, let alone having forbidden sexual intercourse.

Brian Anthony Bowen: This presupposes that the ONLY types of eunuchs ever mentioned in Scripture were those who were castrated. But in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus explicitly defines 3 types of eunuchs:

those born eunuchs, (which Dr. Gagnon has already stated includes those homosexually inclined) those made eunuchs (which includes those Dr. Gagnon speaks to as being castrated) and those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (celibate people).

To assume that all 3 of these types of eunuchs are NOT included in God's prophecies to eunuchs in Isaiah 56 is to assume that the only eunuchs God prophecies toward are those who are castrated. If this was true, Jesus would not mention 3 types of eunuchs, but only one type (those castrated).

As it is though, even Dr. Gagnon agrees that the "born eunuchs" were not only homosexually inclined, but in no way excluded from the prophecy in Isaiah 56. This means Dr. Gagnon has no basis upon which to state that the only eunuchs included in God's prophecy to eunuchs were only those who were castrated, or otherwise unable to perform sexually.

But just because a "born eunuch" can include gay people in no way ascertains that gay people were incapable of sexual relations.

Dr. Gagnon: Both Jesus’ response to the woman caught in adultery and his outreach to sexual sinners was aimed at achieving their repentance so that they might inherit the kingdom of God that he proclaimed.

Brian Anthony Bowen: AGREED! And just for the record, I am unaware of any pro homosexuals who believe that the woman caught in adultery has anything at all to do with supporting same gender marriages.

Dr. Gagnon: Isaiah 39:7 makes clear that the eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah 56:4-5 were Israelites who, against their will, were taken to “the palace of the king of Babylon” and made eunuchs, but had now returned to Israel.

Brian Anthony Bowen: This is not entirely true. When we look at the context of Isaiah 39:5-7, we see a specific situation directed toward a specific man, Hezekiah, and there is nothing in all of Scripture that indicates the eunuchs God prophecies about in Isaiah 56:4-5 were strictly direct toward these same eunuchs only, but rather ALL eunuchs, with God even saying in Isaiah 56:4-5, that the eunuchs would be given a name better and more enduring than sons AND daughters, which would eliminate the possibility that God was confining his prophecy to only the 7 male eunuchs that would come from Hezekiah, but indicates some eunuchs were indeed female as well. And if we look at the Isaiah 56 prophecy in its fullness, we see God's prophecy about them being included in His House of Prayer for all People even included foreigners as well as eunuchs, and not just Israelites:

1 THUS SAYS the Lord: Keep justice, do and use righteousness (conformity to the will of God which brings salvation), for My salvation is soon to come and My righteousness (My rightness and justice) to be revealed.

2 Blessed, happy, and fortunate is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold of it and binds himself fast to it, who keeps sacred the Sabbath so as not to profane it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.

3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, The Lord will surely separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4 For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose the things which please Me and hold firmly My covenant--

5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better [and more enduring] than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord to minister to Him and to love the name of the Lord and to be His servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it and who holds fast My covenant [by conscientious obedience]

7 All these I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples.

8 Thus says the Lord God, Who gathers the outcasts of Israel: I will gather yet others to [Israel] besides those already gathered.

The whole purpose of God prophesying about eunuchs being included in His House of Prayer after the advent of Christ (those who take hold of His Covenant) is predicated on the fact that Moses had banned eunuchs from the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:1:

He who is wounded in the testicles, or has been made a eunuch, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

We can clearly see God was not prophesying regarding only to Hezekiah's sons who would become eunuchs as Dr. Gagnon assumes, because God's promise to (all) eunuchs would not even be possible until Christ was born, those eunuchs that Dr. Gagnon refers to would not even live long enough to "hold fast to His Covenant" (Jesus Christ). The book of Isaiah was written 750 years before Christ was born, so there is no way the eunuchs that were once Hezekiah's sons would even live long enough for Christ to be born. Not only that, but then we see in verse 8 of God's prophecy to (all) eunuchs that the whole purpose of Him overturning the ban was:

Thus says the Lord God, Who gathers the outcasts of Israel: I will gather yet others to [Israel] besides those already gathered. Isaiah 56:8

But don't just take my word for it! Compare for yourself the prophesy God gave regarding eunuchs in general, and the specific eunuchs included in Isaiah 39:7.

Here is the context of Isaiah 39:7 where Isaiah prophecies to Hezekiah regarding only his own sons:

5 Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts:

6 Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and that which your predecessors have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord.

7 And some of your own sons who are born to you shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon

Dr. Gagnon: According to Isa 56:4-5, God will not cut them off from his people so long as they “choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant.”

Brian Anthony Bowen: True, but again, we cannot confine this prophecy to only those who were sons of Hezekiah, but rather must include ALL eunuchs, as explained.

Dr. Gagnon: There is no way that the author would have regarded someone engaged in same-sex intercourse as still pleasing God and holding fast to the covenant.

Brian Anthony Bowen: This is where even the gay Christian community is divided. Some believe in gay marriage, but believe that no sexual component should be expressed within the marriage. Some believe that only acts that do not resemble sodomy can be included, as there are no specific Scriptural prohibitions against them. And then still others believe that as Paul said "unmarried people and widows" ( another reference to eunuchs and widows) from Isaiah 54 and Isaiah 56, that any sexual component that would be permissible in a heterosexual relationship would likewise be permissible in a homosexual relationship.

However, we must remember that when Paul references the "unmarried people and widows", he clearly says, they SHOULD marry, and should do so because "it is better to marry than to burn in our lusts." So Paul clearly relates sexual morality to these eunuch marriages and indicates not only that the eunuchs were "capable" of sexual relations, but would be engaging in a moral manner as well, provided they were married.

To be certain Paul was including eunuchs in his term "unmarried people" aside from the fact that he references the Isaiah 54 and 56 prophecies, we also see Compton listing 1Corinthians 7:8-9 as instances of eunuchs in the Scriptures. When we see what Paul actually said regarding eunuchs in that passage in its entirety, we see:

8 But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do.

9 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire].

Dr. Gagnon: These are persons that had a portion of their masculinity taken away from them against their will. Why should they now be penalized if they do not support erasure of their own masculinity and have no intent to violate any of God’s commands regarding sexual behavior? A first-century Jewish text, The Wisdom of Solomon, both extols a eunuch who does not violate God’s commands and condemns homosexual practice (Wisd 3:14; 14:26). Another Jewish work presumes that eunuchs are not having any sexual intercourse (Sirach 20:4; 30:20).

Brian Anthony Bowen: But there is a difference between "Jewish works" and the Holy Scriptures. We cannot accept a "presumption" that eunuchs are not having any sexual intercourse as an overarching prohibition against such for ALL eunuchs, especially given the fact there are 3 types of eunuchs Jesus mentions. It is very possible that both the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach both presume the eunuchs being addressed were only those who were the second and third types of eunuchs Jesus mentions (those castrated, and those choosing celibacy for Kingdom Work), while not specifically addressing the first type of eunuch Jesus mentions (the born eunuchs), whom again, Dr. Gagnon and I both conclude included people of homosexual natures.

Dr. Gagnon: This is exactly what Jesus presumes when he compares “eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God”—that is, Christians who opt out of marriage and choose a celibate life in order to have more time and freedom of movement and action to proclaim the gospel—with “born eunuch” and “made eunuchs.”

Brian Anthony Bowen: Here, Dr. Gagnon stretches his definition of those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of God to apply the proscription of celibacy to all 3 types of eunuchs, when in fact, Jesus nor Paul makes any such blurring of the distinctions that Dr. Gagnon must do in order to make his supposition intentionally oppose gay marriage, even though Scripture never does.

Dr. Gagnon: The analogy only works on the assumption that eunuchs do not have sexual relations.

Brian Anthony Bowen: EXACTLY!

Dr. Gagnon: So if “born eunuchs” included for Jesus not only asexual men but also men who had sexual desire only for other males then Jesus rejected for them all sexual relations outside the covenant bond of marriage between a man and a woman.

Brian Anthony Bowen: AGREED! But it appears He did not necessarily exclude them from marriage between two eunuchs, and neither did Paul.

Dr. Gagnon: In fact, the whole context for the eunuch saying in Matt 19:10-12 is Jesus’ argument that the twoness of the sexes in complementary sexual pairing, “male and female,” is the basis for rejecting sexual relationships involving three or more persons.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Agreed, but while at the same time indicating that eunuchs were excluded from heterosexual marriages, but not necessarily homosexual marriages, which would render the need for the twoness of sexes in complementary sexual pairing a non sequitor, because it is not the twoness of the sexes that makes for sexual pairing, but the twoness of the people. But yes, I agree that Jesus and Paul both make it clear that ALL marriages are to be confined to only 2 people, and monogamous, and for life, except in the cases of adultery, whether gay or straight.

Dr. Gagnon: He can hardly be dismissing the importance of a male-female requirement for sexual relations immediately after establishing the foundational character of such a requirement—

Brian Anthony Bowen: Yet He does, when He Himself says, "not all men can accept this saying, for there are eunuchs."

Jesus was not exempting eunuchs from having monogamous marriages, but only heterosexual marriages.

Dr. Gagnon: certainly not in Matthew’s view of the matter.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Matthew had no view on the matter. He simply records Jesus' view in his Gospel.



Also available on Dr. Gagnon's website are some of his thoughts regarding how Homosexuality should be compared to incest, and polyamory rather than race or gender, which I’d like to address here as a two way dialogue, as if we were actually holding the conversation in person.

Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender

A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 1: The Initial Case
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 18, 2009

On Apr. 29 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which places "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," "real or perceived," alongside of "race," "national origin," "gender," and "disability" as benign conditions for which society should provide special protections in federal law. Those who oppose homosexual practice are, by analogy, implicitly identified in law as discriminatory bigots, akin to racists and misogynists.

The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well. Race and gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Homosexuality and transsexuality are none of these things. While there probably are some biological risk factors for some homosexual development and even transgenderism, science has failed to establish that homosexuality and transsexuality develop deterministically like race and gender. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that at least one shift in the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 is the norm over the course of life for those who identity as homosexual (75%). Most importantly, unlike race and gender, homosexuality and transsexuality are in the first instance impulses to engage in behavior that is structurally discordant with embodied existence (as male and female). They are therefore not intrinsically benign conditions.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Be that as it may, the fact remains that homosexual and transgendered people are a recognizably targeted minority for which protection under law does not even offer protection per se', but rather more severe punishments for crimes against such persons. It should be noted that we do not pass hate crimes legislation in this country to benefit a recognized cross section of American citizens, but rather to identify the criminals perpetrating violent actions against them, and do so in order to provide a deterrent from such crimes against people who are traditionally targeted. It is equally important to note that just as race, nation origin, gender, and disability are identified as those being targeted, alongside all these defining factors or protected target groups is "religious affiliation." Religious affiliation is no more a 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life than is sexual orientation or gender identity, yet is included in the language of the Hate Crimes legislation as well, and is not new, but an originally protected class. It's interesting that Dr. Gagnon omits this fact, although not so unexpected, as it would render the remaining comparisons he makes to other protected classes moot, at least on the bases he puts forth.

It's also important to note that Hate Crimes legislation does nothing to actually protect any of these cross sections of our populace from those with intent to inflict harm, injury or death, but rather enhance penalties for perpetrators who target individuals for such purposes, all of which not only constitute a violation to a person's well being and safety, but concurrently violates the personal liberties and freedoms of such targeted victims which are also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. Gagnon: I contend that a better analogy (i.e., with more points of substantive correspondence) can be made between homosexuality and transsexuality on the one hand and polysexuality (an orientation toward multiple sexual partners) and incest (here I am thinking of an adult-committed sort) on the other hand. The latter are, after all, two other sexual behaviors that are incongruent with embodied existence that, despite such incongruence, can still be conducted as committed, caring relationships between adults. Polyamory has the added similarity of being connected to a sexual orientation (polysexuality, from polu meaning "much," pl. "many," here an innate orientation to multiple concurrent sexual partners). If incest and polyamory are indeed better analogues to homosexuality and transgenderism, then it is clear that placing the latter alongside race and gender as conditions worthy of special protections and benefits becomes, well, misplaced.

Brian Anthony Bowen: But that is to assume then that somehow Hate Crimes legislation should further enhance penalties against people who are involved in polysexual and incestuous relationships. However, under the hate crimes legislation heading of "sexual orientation", being a target of criminal intent based on even these relationships is already covered in the new language.

As an aside, I am not certain why Dr. Gagnon relates to "adult committed incestuous" relationships, other than to deflect from the absurdity of comparing homosexual committed relationships to those of adult incest. The fact is that most of the opponents who refer to this as a counter argument indeed do NOT have "adult" committed incestuous relationships in mind when making this comparison, but rather are attempting to compare homosexuality with pedophilia, wherein incestuous relationships most often abide. There is no widespread social issue of crimes of incest involving committed adults involved in such a relationship, but there is a widespread social issue of crimes of incest being perpetrated between one adult and one or more minor children, for which no comparison can be made to homosexual relationships comprised of two consenting adults. It is simply a fear tactic that should be disregarded and removed from any intellectual discussion on the issue of homosexuality altogether.

Further, it is important to note that incestuous relationships involving minors are NOT covered by the hate crimes enhancements, but rather continue to be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law.

Dr. Gagnon: In making these remarks, I trust that people of faith know that it is just as wrong to hate and commit violence against persons who engage in adult-consensual relationships with close kin or with multiple partners as it is to hate persons who engage in same-sex intercourse or who otherwise attempt to override their sex or gender given at birth. It is not right to hate anyone or commit violence against anyone.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Agreed!

Dr. Gagnon: As regards a logical connection to polyamory, the limitation of the number of persons in a valid sexual union to two persons at any one time is predicated on the natural "twoness" of the sexes, "male and female" or "man and woman."

Brian Anthony Bowen: Actually, adult polyamory is not a relationship that can become a validly recognized marriage due to the Morril Anti-Bigamy Law that was signed by President Lincoln in 1872. The issue of polygamous marriages in the United States is one that is not only settled at the national level but also was done so nearly 150 years ago. The fear mongers would have us believe that if homosexual marriages were recognized by the state that polygamous marriages would be the next logical development in the conversation, but in the sheer absence of evidence. There are no major moves to gain marriage equality for polygamous relationships at this time in the marriage debate, and no such move in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, with the precedence set out by Congress which has survived for these more than 100 years proves that comparing homosexual unions to polygamous unions is another apples to oranges comparison that should be removed from intelligent conversations regarding same gender marriages.

Dr. Gagnon: This was certainly Jesus’ view in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, where he cited "God made them male and female" (Genesis 1:27) and "For this reason a man … sticks to his woman and the two become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24) as the reasons for overthrowing concurrent and serial polygamy.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Actually, Jesus was overruling Moses' no fault divorce decrees, and declaring the practice of a man trading his wife in on "a newer model" every few years was an act of adultery, and as such, a violation of the Ten Commandments. Also, it is important to note that in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus also glaringly exempts 3 types of people (whom He refers to as eunuchs) from the male/female marriage paradigm by saying, "Not all men can accept this saying, but it is only for those to whom it is given, for there are eunuchs born from their mothers' wombs (which Dr. Gagnon recognizes would include those persons homosexually inclined), eunuchs made so by other men (which would included those persons who had been castrated (figuratively and literally), as well as eunuchs who chose to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven who remain unmarried and celibate. To ignore aspect of Jesus' teaching on the matter is to miss a wider message regarding inclusivity of the Church, as prophesied by God would become the case for eunuchs in Isaiah 56:1-8, effectively overruling Moses' ban on eunuchs from entering the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:1.

Dr. Gagnon: (Note that the Jewish community at Qumran made a similar point about how "male and female" in Genesis 1:27 implicitly ruled out polygamy.)

Brian Anthony Bowen: AGREED! Not only that, but Jesus, nor Paul ever endorsed any marriage relationship that comprised of more than two people.

Dr. Gagnon: Polyamorous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate the natural pair constituted by the existence of two primary, complementary sexes, even when they are conducted in the context of consensual, adult-committed relationships.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Actually that is not entirely accurate. While polyamorous relationships indeed violate the natural pair, it is not necessary to further define a "pair" as the existence of two primary, complementary sexes, but rather, simply two primary, complementary people, in which case, homosexuality does NOT violate the "natural pair", in that same gender marriages continue to be defined as only two people, both by law, and marriage equality proponents alike. Nobody in the marriage equality for homosexual people debate has ever suggested that marriage equality include anything except two people, regardless of gender.

Dr. Gagnon: The very sex act itself, which accommodates only one act of penetration at a time, illustrates the essential sexual twoness of a sexual bond predicated on two (and only two) complementary sexes.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Irrelevant to the discussion. Whether gay or straight, the very sex act itself continues to accommodate only one act of penetration at a time, if at all. It is not however predicated on two (and only two) complementary sexes, but on basic human anatomy that prohibits the ability to accomplish mutual and simultaneous penetration at any time. If moral sexuality is based on this factor alone, then there is no concern over whether the sex act be straight or gay in nature, and therefore renders this particular observation as a non sequitor.

Dr. Gagnon: As regards a logical connection to incest, incestuous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate a requisite principle of embodied otherness within embodied sameness, even when such sexual behaviors are conducted consensually between committed adults. Incest is sex between persons who are too much structurally or formally alike as regards kinship. The high risk of birth defects that attend incestuous births is merely the symptom of the root problem: too much identity on the level of kinship between the sexual partners. That is why society rejects incestuous sexual relationships even when it occurs between consenting adults who either cannot procreate (whether because one partner is infertile or because both partners are of the same sex) or take active birth-control precautions. The structural impossibility of births arising from homosexual intercourse is likewise not so much the problem as the symptom of the root problem: namely, too much formal or structural identity between the participants and not enough complementary otherness, here as regards sex or gender.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Another non sequitor. Homosexual expressions are not negated on the basis of "too much sameness and a lack of complementary "otherness"". The only "otherness" necessary for homosexual expressions is the presence of "another" human being. The basis of being complementary is not necessary in order to justify it as moral or immoral, but rather is another non sequitor designed to promote a fallacious argument predicated on a predetermined opinion regarding what defines "complementary otherness." Whether gay or straight, the only "otherness" required for defining the participants as "complementary" is a mutual attraction, consent and presence of another adult, consenting human being

This is unlike incestuous relationships which more often than not involve minors who have not yet reached the age of consent. The reason society does not grant marriage licenses to people involved in these cases has more do with the inability for both parties to consent, aside from the illegality of the adult perpetrator in those instances. In the case of two-adult incestuous relationships, marriage is not granted because of the rarity in which this is the case. While the remote possibility exists for a person to be attracted to a member of his own family, it is rarer still to find another adult person in the same family who consents to such a relationship.

Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender

A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 2: What Disproportionately High Rates of Harm Mean

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 19, 2009

At the very end of Part 1 I noted that homosexual intercourse, like incest, is problematic because of the excessive embodied (formal, structural) sameness of the participants; moreover, that problems with procreation for both incest and homosexual behavior are merely symptoms of this root problem of excessive structural identity.

Brian Anthony Bowen: I continue to disagree with the notion that there is insufficient "otherness" in a homosexual relationship, and that it differs so glaringly from incestuous relationships (which are by far heterosexual in nature) as to render this a moot point.

Dr. Gagnon: We need to go further; for problems with homosexual activity are not limited to a structural inability to procreate.

Brian Anthony Bowen: But the inability to procreate is not necessarily a "problem" even for heterosexual couples who experience sterility or infertility. The inability to procreate does not render their relationship "invalid" solely on this basis, either Scripturally or morally, and therefore should not be a determining factor for deciding whether or not a homosexual relationship is Scripturally or morally "problematic." The only determining factor should be what is related within the pages of Scriptures. Although Dr. Gagnon presents a "secular argument" for this it is rendered even more irrelevant in light of the millions of heterosexual couples who cannot biologically reproduce, and often adopt children instead. In neither case is the sexuality of the partners a stumbling block to raising children in a solid familial structure comprise led by two adults.

Dr. Gagnon: Homosexual relationships also exhibit a disproportionately high rate of scientifically measurable harms. These measurable harms cannot be explained away as merely a product of societal "homophobia" but are instead largely attributable to the lack of true sexual compatibility (or complementary symmetry) between persons of the same sex.

Brian Anthony Bowen: While I agree that homosexual people do have their own set of medical issues, I contend they are not related to the incompatibility of the partners involved, but rather in the inability for many homosexual people to opt in to a solid, monogamous marriage relationship that would provide the same financial incentives for such as is provided to heterosexual couples, which often leads to promiscuity. The thinking is often that if I can't get married, then I might as well enjoy the single life. However, it is important to note that this is not ALWAYS the case. Many homosexual people continue to enter into monogamous and faithful and long term relationships with one partner, whether the state recognizes their unions or not, just as many heterosexual people engage in extra marital sexual relations even though the state DOES recognize their unions. While this observation does not negate Dr. Gagnon's, it would render both as equally valid, or equally moot in an overall discussion, secular or otherwise, related to gay marriage.

Dr. Gagnon: If the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm manifested by homosexual relationships were attributable exclusively or even primarily to societal "homophobia," then we would expect male-homosexual relationships and female-homosexual relationships to exhibit the same high rates for the same types of measurable harm. However, this is exactly what we do not find.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Agreed.

Dr. Gagnon: Homosexual males experience disproportionately high numbers of sex partners over the course of life and of sexually transmitted infections, not only in relation to heterosexual males but also in relation to homosexual females. The reason for this is not difficult to imagine. On average men have 7 to 8 times the main sex hormone, testosterone, than do women. That has an obvious impact on male sexuality, relative to female sexuality, such that bringing together two men in a sexual union is not exactly a recipe for monogamy. Incidentally, the polysexual character of male sexuality has been shown scientifically to be not only a cross-cultural phenomenon but also, to a large extent, a cross-species phenomenon.

As regards lesbian relationships, the limited studies that we have to date suggest that homosexual females experience on average disproportionately high rates of measurable harm as regards shorter-term sexual relationships and higher instances of mental health problems, relative not only to heterosexual females but even to homosexual males.

The issues around lesbian mental health are not surprising in view of the fact that on average women have, relative to men, higher rates of mental health issues and higher expectations of sexual relationships for meeting needs of self-esteem and intimacy. Simply put, failed sexual relationships place greater stress on women’s mental health than on men’s. I trust that most people recognize that women on average have much higher intimacy expectations for sexual relationships than do men. This is why, almost invariably, in a marriage between a man and a woman it is the wife who complains that her spouse doesn’t share his innermost feelings often enough. "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus," as one marital counselor has famously put it.

The matter of shorter-term unions on average at first seems counterintuitive since women generally do better in being monogamous than do men (this is true also of lesbian women in relation to homosexual men). However, the fact that women have higher expectations for sexual relationships as regards meeting personal needs for security, affirmation, and intimacy places greater stresses on such relationships. When two women are put together in a sexual union, each making great demands of the other, stress is heightened and the likelihood of relational failure increases.

In short, the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm attending homosexual relationships strike homosexual males and homosexual females differently and do so in ways that correspond to basic sexual differences between men and women. When two persons of the same sex are brought together in a sexual union, the extremes of a given sex are not moderated and the gaps in a given sex are not filled. On the level of anatomy, physiology, and psychology a man’s appropriate sexual complement is a woman and a woman’s true sexual complement is a man

Like homosexual practice, both incest and polyamory exhibit disproportionately high rates of scientifically measurable harm, not intrinsic, measurable harm. Because of close family structures incest often occurs between an adult and child, though it does not always, and need not, manifest itself in this form. In addition, if procreation arises from an incestuous bond, there is the additional problem of a higher risk of birth defects. Neither problem constitutes an intrinsic harm stemming from incestuous bonds but each involves increased risks attending societal affirmation of close-kin sexual relationships.

Polyamory increases the risks of promiscuity (if by promiscuity one means something like "one-night stands" rather than long-term relationships), domestic jealousy and discord owing to multiple spouses, and (in traditional polygamous relationships where only the man is allowed multiple spouses) overbearing patriarchy. As with incest, we are dealing with increased risks, not inherent harms. There undoubtedly are some polygamous relationships that "work" better than some monogamous relationships. As with homosexual relationships, the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm are not the problem per se (as if the absence of measurable harm would justify the relationship’s existence) but rather symptoms of the root problem.

Brian Anthony Bowen: While these "sound like" valid arguments, they are glaringly absent of any sound medical statistics to back them up.

However, I contend that these are all the more reasons to encourage marriage amongst homosexual people by providing them with a state recognized marriage option. It helps to curb heterosexual promiscuity, and there is no reason to believe it would not also curb homosexual promiscuity. By decreasing promiscuity and other dangerous extra marital sexual activity, all society benefits from the reduction in providing the financial resources of caring for those afflicted with sexually transmitted diseases, frees our medical personnel resources to focus their attention on more noble causes (such as finding cures for cancer), and reduces the stress factors related to those involving homosexual people, regardless if they are brought on and exacerbated by societal stigmas, sexual practices, or mental health issues related to absence of life affirming, loving, monogamous marriage relationships.

Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender

A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 3: The Illogic of Homosexual Unions

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 20, 2009

In Part 2 I dealt with how the disproportionately high rates of measurable harms attending homosexual activity point to the structural discordance of homoerotic unions.

Brian Anthony Bowen: I continue to refute the idea that there is any structural discordance of homosexual unions based on "complementary natures of two sexes", because the whole of human sexuality is not dependent upon two sexes, but two people.

Dr. Gagnon: Can the problem of structural discordance be alleviated if one of the same-sex partners tries to play the role of the other sex through gender nonconforming behavior? Not likely.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Actually, there is no structural discordance that is necessary to be alleviated. It matters not if same sex partners "try to play the role of the other sex through gender nonconforming behavior." There are many sexual acts that heterosexuals engage in that do not involve in any difference of either partner, and are not based on the opposite genders of those participants, but are based instead on the acts themselves. Mutually identical acts can even be engaged in at the same time, and so again, even in opposite gender heterosexual expressions, there is not necessarily a need to conform to any gender whatsoever. While that may not be true of ALL heterosexual acts, it is indeed true of enough aspects of human sexuality as to be easily replicated in both male/male and female/female engagements. Gender is not the issue when it comes to sexuality. Compatibility, attraction and consent are.

Dr. Gagnon: A man cannot fake being a true sexual complement to another man and a woman cannot fake being a true sexual complement to another woman.

Brian Anthony Bowen: This is somewhat comical in that it tends to imply that it is possible for a man to fake being a true sexual complement to a woman, and a woman can fake being a true sexual complement to a man. And that this is good reasoning upon determining whether or not the couple involved is "compatible." Forgive me, but that's just silly.

Dr. Gagnon: The symptoms of higher incidences of sex partners over life, of sexually transmitted infections, of sexual unions of shorter duration, and of mental health complications are just that: symptoms of a root problem. The root problem is too much embodied identity between the participants, similar to the root problem for incest of even an adult-committed sort.

Brian Anthony Bowen: That's simply not true. Heterosexuals can experience higher incidents of sex partners over life as compared to other heterosexuals, can experience sexually transmitted infections, can experience sexual unions of shorter duration, and can experience mental health complications as well. While I agree they are symptoms of a root problem, I strongly disagree with the notion that the root problem is the embodied identity between the participants, but rather the embodied incompatibility, between them, not to mention the unwillingness of one or the other to commit to the relationship, extra-marital sexual behavior, and unsafe sex practices.

Dr. Gagnon: Even when homosexual unions "beat the odds" and don’t exhibit most of the normal harms associated with homosexual activity, they—like occasional adult-incestuous or adult-polyamorous unions that "beat the odds" by exhibiting loving commitment with few scientifically-measurable negative side-effects—still suffer from the root problem of too much formal or structural identity between the participants.

Brian Anthony Bowen: No more so than heterosexual couples, as aforementioned.

Dr. Gagnon: Since there are two and only two primary sexes—even the existence of "intersexuality" among a miniscule percentage of the population merely draws on features of the two primary sexes—it is axiomatic that each sex, male and female, is only half of an integrated sexual whole.

Brian Anthony Bowen: This is true whether gay or straight. In fact, the fact that there are two primary sexes lends itself directly to the determination of sexual orientation of males and females alike. When it comes down to it, there are only two choices, whether a person is gay or straight.

Dr. Gagnon: The beauty of a committed male-female sexual union is that it brings together in harmony the two complementary sexes, thereby moderating sexual extremes, filling in sexual gaps, and honoring the individual integrity of one partner’s maleness and the other partner’s femaleness.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Likewise, the beauty of a committed male-male or female-female sexual union is that it brings together in harmony the two complementary people (not sexes), thereby moderating sexual extremes (like promiscuity), filling in sexual gaps (like the absence of companionship/sex), and honoring the individual integrity of one partner's maleness and the other partner's maleness, or one partner's femaleness and the other partner's femaleness. There is nothing lacking between Dr. Gagnon's description of the beauty of heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. The beauty results from the people involved, not the sexes.

Dr. Gagnon: In a heterosexual union what a man brings to the table, so to speak, is his essential maleness. What he does not bring is essential femaleness; that is supplied by the woman. Likewise, the woman brings to the sexual table her essential femaleness; what she lacks in essential maleness is supplied by man. Two sexual halves unite to form a complete sexual whole.

Brian Anthony Bowen: In a heterosexual union this is necessary for sexual compatibility of the participants involved.. Likewise, in a homosexual union the necessity of sexual compatibility between the participants involved depends on the absence of femaleness in male-male partnerships, and the absence of maleness in female-female partnerships. Just as the heterosexual couple depends on the sexual compatibility with the opposite gender, homosexual couples depend on the sexual compatibility with the same gender.

This is another example of an argument wherein either Dr. Gagnon's and mine are equally valid, or equally moot, and not based on either of our ability to present our ideas, but on the sheer sexual compatibility of the partners involved in the relationships we are discussing.

Dr. Gagnon: Incidentally, that is why Genesis 2:18-20 refers to woman with the expression "as his counterpart" or "complement," Hebrew kĕnegdô, where the component word neged denotes both similarity corresponding to (i.e. similarity on the human level) and difference opposite (i.e. difference as regards a distinct sex extracted from him).

Brian Anthony Bowen: In the case of Adam and Eve, we have to remember first of all that this couple was created, and not born. Interestingly enough, when we consider that Jesus tells us in Matthew 19:11-12 that there are eunuchs who are born from their mother's womb, we are again reminded that God's original creation must have been innately designed to produce such people as eunuchs, whom Jesus specifically exempts from the male/female marriage paradigm.

To lose sight of this is to disregard a teaching from Our Lord Himself. Dr. Gagnon also concludes that the born eunuchs Jesus mentions would have included those who were homosexually inclined. If this is true, then that means Adam and Eve MUST have been originally created by God to eventually give birth to these same eunuchs through their subsequent offspring's offspring.

Dr. Gagnon: That is why the story of Genesis 2:21-24 presents the image of two sexes emerging from one flesh (illustrating the point of sexual complements) as the basis for the two sexes, man and woman, reuniting into "one flesh." By its very nature sexual intercourse was designed for sexual complements or counterparts.

Brian Anthony Bowen: While I agree that in a Bible study geared towards heterosexual people, this is a good illustration of sexual complementarianism, it is by no means the ONLY sexual complement that God designed, or there would have never been any eunuchs born from Adam and Eve's subsequent descendants. While part of Adam and Eve's design was to be heterosexually inclined in order to produce the "reuniting of one flesh", that by no means negates the possibility that gay men and women are by their very nature already include both the original male/female components that Adam himself MUST have originally possessed, or it would have been impossible for God to extract the "female" from Adam, and would by necessity have needed to create Eve from the dust of the ground as a new prototype, just as He did with Adam. But that's not what God did. All the female component of humanity was already embodied in Adam.

What is to say this same male/female embodiment is not a unique characteristic inherently endowed in the birth of eunuchs?

Dr. Gagnon: If in a heterosexual union two sexual halves unite to constitute a sexual whole, the logic of a homosexual union, by analogy, is that two half-males unite to form a single whole male; or two half-female unite to form a single whole female.

Brian Anthony Bowen: That is to assume that Adam was only "half a man" when God created Eve from him. But he wasn't a "half a man", he was innately (if not physically) CREATED as both male and female, or God could not have possibly extracted the female component of our human species from Adam. He would have had to start from a completely new prototype.

Dr. Gagnon: A half unites sexually with its complementary half.

Brian Anthony Bowen: But Adam was not created as a "half", but a "whole man", and also wholly male and wholly female, or God could not have extracted Eve from him.

Dr. Gagnon: To regard one’s self, if male, as completed sexually by another male is to make an implicit statement that one does not regard one’s particular gender as being intact apart from such a union.

Brian Anthony Bowen: But that statement is predicated on the assumption that gay men or gay women regard themselves as sexually "incomplete." In fact, it would be predicated on the assumption that ALL men AND women, whether gay or straight are sexually "incomplete" and mate only for the purposes of "wholeness". That is to contradict God's Word that enables each human being to stand as "whole" as a new creation in Christ (Who, by the way) never found it necessary to "complete" Himself sexually, and yet was imminently qualified to die as the propitiation of sin for ALL humanity, both male AND female.

If sexual completeness was the issue, it would have been necessary for Christ to have taken a wife, and BOTH of them be crucified in order to atone for the sins of men AND women, but that was not the case at all. A MAN (Jesus Christ) was sufficient in and of Himself to die for the sins of both genders, which would render Dr. Gagnon's point not only moot, but borderline insulting to both God's original creation of Adam from which He was able to extract the female component of humanity from him, as well as to Christ, Whom God deemed "whole" as a person, without ever having the need to marry and crucify a woman with Him. I think Dr. Gagnon treads on an area of ground that he has not truly considered in light of God's creation, including eunuchs.

Dr. Gagnon: The same goes for a female-female sexual union. This is both sexual self-deception (one’s maleness or femaleness is already intact) and sexual narcissism (one is erotically aroused by one’s own essential sex).

Brian Anthony Bowen: Here again, that would say that Adam was sexually narcissistic in that God created him with his maleness and femaleness already intact. Further I would argue that sexual narcissism is not defined as being erotically aroused by one's own essential sex, but by the compatibility of a potential sexual partner, whether gay or straight. To say that sexual narcissism is based on arousal of one's own essential sex is to say that sexual narcissism results in self stimulation, and not based upon the companionship of any other human being, and this would have to apply to both men and women, and both gay and straight.

I think Dr. Gagnon stretches beyond his ability to comprehend the full spectrum of human sexuality, and in doing so, shoots holes in his own theory on this and the immediately aforementioned points that he raises. It sounds intelligent and lofty and noble, but upon closer examination, reveals a sieve like logic that simply doesn't hold water except by the preconceived biases built into preconcluded deductions that may or may not actually align from God's perspective of His very own creation of Adams' completeness as both male and female from whence He extracted the female component to create Eve, nor Christ's Own completeness as a male in which He was able to be crucified absent of an accompanying wife for the sins of all men and all women.

Dr. Gagnon: That is why the apostle Paul in Romans 1:24-27 refers to homosexual acts as intrinsically "dishonoring" for the participants, even when the relationship is conducted in the context of care and commitment.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Actually, if we are to read the entirety of the account of Romans, we discover that the dishonor of their bodies had nothing to do with being in the context of care and commitment, but rather as an act of idol worship of the fertility goddess, and was committed by men and women who were heterosexual, else they could not "exchange" the natural function for the opposite sex for relations with the same sex. This is clear evidence that not only were they engaged in idolatry, but engaged with members of BOTH genders.

Dr. Gagnon: Similarly, most would acknowledge the dishonoring character of an adult-committed incestuous bond, which tries to make of "one flesh" two persons who in terms of kinship are already of the same flesh.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Actually, being of the "same flesh" is never referred to in Scriptures in relation to those next of kin, but only in the context of "becoming one flesh". Those who are next of kin would "become one flesh", not start off as "same flesh." There is no Scriptural basis for even making this argument, so it must be considered a non sequitor.

Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender

A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 4: Responses to Counterarguments

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 21, 2009

There are three main counterarguments against my overarching thesis in Parts 1-3; namely, that adult-committed incest and polyamory are better analogies to homosexuality and transgenderism than are race and gender. None of them are convincing, in my view.

First, supporters of homosexual unions will sometimes argue that there are no significant sexual differences between men and women, often appealing to a strict social-constructionist philosophy. The problem is that most people don’t live in accordance with such a perspective, including most persons who identity as "gay" or "lesbian." Why is it the case, for example, that the vast majority of homosexual men would not (or claim not to) be fully satisfied with a sexual relationship involving a woman, even a particularly gender-nonconforming, masculinized woman?

Brian Anthony Bowen: Because she is still a female, no matter how "masculinized", just as a gay man who is "feminized" is still a male, and would still qualify as more compatible for a gay man than a "masculinized" woman.

Dr. Gagnon: Why do they regard themselves as a "category 6" on the Kinsey spectrum? Could it be that they tacitly recognize that there is an essential maleness to men that not even a gender-nonconforming woman can successfully reproduce?

Brian Anthony Bowen: EXACTLY!

Dr. Gagnon: If there were nothing essential or significant to male-female differences then we should expect nearly the whole American population to be bisexual rather than "unisexual." Yet, as it is, over 98% of the population (possibly over 99%) is strongly disposed to sex only with members of one sex, whether the other sex (heterosexuals) or the same sex (homosexual). There must then be a fundamental difference between maleness and femaleness that, in turn, constitutes a radical difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Brian Anthony Bowen: AGREED!

Dr. Gagnon: The former is sexual arousal for the sex that one is not but which complements one’s own sexuality.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Whether one is gay or straight, sexual arousal for either is actually predicated on (not negated by) that which complements one's own sexuality. Whether male or female, heterosexual people are complements to heterosexual people and homosexual people are complements to homosexual people.

Dr. Gagnon: The latter is sexual arousal for what one already is as a sexual being and does not truly complement one’s sexuality.

Brian Anthony Bowen: I believe Dr. Gagnon has erred in saying "sexuality" instead of gender, because again, sexual arousal for what one already is as a sexual being (gay or straight) does truly complement one's own sexuality, although I understand Dr. Gagnon does not believe it may actually complement one's own gender.

Dr. Gagnon: They are not simply two different sexual orientations that are otherwise of equal developmental naturalness and soundness. One is intrinsically disordered and it’s not heterosexuality.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Here, Dr. Gagnon contradicts his stated belief that those who are "born eunuchs" would include people who are homosexually inclined. That would not make non heterosexual people "intrinsically disordered", but instead would qualify them as members of God's divinely created order, or we would not be "born" of our mother's wombs as eunuchs/gay people.

Dr. Gagnon: The second potential argument against my thesis is that congenital causation factors for some homosexual development (which factors, in any case, are neither total nor deterministic) make homosexual desire and behavior "natural."

Brian Anthony Bowen: Again, Dr. Gagnon contradicts his own stated belief that "born eunuchs" would include those who are homosexually inclined. That would mean that his own belief states that there IS a congenital causation factor for (not some but ALL) homosexual development, in that we are BORN homosexual. And indeed that fact is not only total but also deterministic, just as it is for people who are BORN heterosexual. It would then indeed make homosexual desire and behavior "natural", or we could not be "born eunuchs" who again, Dr. Gagnon agrees are the "born eunuchs" Jesus refers to in Matthew 19:11-12. Dr. Gagnon therefore contradicts his own logic, rendering this statement as sheer speculation, nonsense, and convenient argumentation, but he defeats it himself.

Dr. Gagnon: This argument misunderstands the elementary point that persons can have innate or involuntary desires for behaviors that remain unnatural on other grounds.

Brian Anthony Bowen: But there is no other grounds upon which to base homosexuality as "unnatural" if people are indeed born gay, as Dr. Gagnon states is his belief by stating that he believes that the "born eunuchs" Jesus refers to in Matthew 19:11-12 includes those who are homosexually inclined. Again, Dr. Gagnon argues against himself.

Dr. Gagnon: Pedophiles, for example, don’t "choose" to be pedophiles in the normal meaning of the term "choice." Even so, the absence of choice does not make sexual intercourse with children "natural" in the truest sense of the word because children are structurally or formally incompatible for sexual intercourse with an adult.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Not to mention it is a crime against someone who has not yet reached the age of consent, and is equally applicable whether the pedophilia is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. And it remains a crime regardless of whether the person is gay or straight, but not based upon a person's sexual orientation, but based on the non consensual nature of the act itself, rendering this comparison to homosexual expressions between two consenting adults another apples to oranges comparison that does not hold water.

Dr. Gagnon: My point here is not to claim that in all respects homosexual practice is as bad as pedophilia but rather to make the singular point that the innateness of a sexual orientation does not make the behavior arising from the desire "natural."

Brian Anthony Bowen: Again, if "born eunuchs" includes people who are homosexually inclined, then it does not render homosexuality as "unnatural", even if pedophilia continues to be. In no case though, is pedophilia considered anything except a crime, because it always involves someone who has not reached the age of consent. But when both parties are of consenting age, the act no longer becomes "pedophilia", because no children are involved, whether gay or straight, meaning once again, this is another disregardable argument based on it being a non sequitor.

Dr. Gagnon: Moreover, we all know that innate urges are unreliable guides for moral behavior. An argument for homosexuality based on biological causation is not an effective moral argument because, as even admitted by two scientists who have studied extensively biological causation factors for homosexuality and who support homosexual causes: "No clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior is biologically caused" (so J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Brian Mustanski of Indiana University).

Brian Anthony Bowen: I would disagree that "all behavior is biologically caused" For instance, in the case of someone murdering someone in a violent rage of jealousy when he finds out he's been in an adulterous affair with his wife has nothing to do with the biology of the person being targeted, by the man pulling the trigger, or by the woman. Instead it is the mental state of the person committing the behavior that is causing the behavior, not that person's biology. Biology is the function of the human body, not the human mind. The human mind is contained within the brain, but the mind is not a physical organ, but rather a self awareness of one's own existence. But that self awareness is not biological, but spiritual.

Dr. Gagnon: The third argument is that homosexual practice cannot be compared to incest or polyamory because the latter two intrinsically produce harm while any harm arising out of the former is attributable primarily to societal "homophobia." Such an argument is based on false premises and inaccurate information.

First, as we have noted above, male homosexuality and female homosexuality both produce higher rates of measurable harm but do so differently and in a manner that corresponds to male-female differences. It is thus not possible, in my view, to blame the lion’s share of problems on so-called "homophobia."

Brian Anthony Bowen: AGREED! There are however, many behaviors brought on by one's perception of social stigma that does indeed lead to dangerous sexual activity, such as promiscuity, that leads to the symptoms of the social stigma in the manifestation of sexually transmitted diseases. Also, social stigma in the form of denied access to marriage equality lends itself to the ensuing promiscuity. If there were no social stigma aspect involved, there'd be a marriage option to those homosexually inclined in the entirety of the worlds' countries, but that is not the case, so one cannot completely dismiss out of hand the underlying social stigma's effect that results in the symptoms of increased harm to those who are so stigmatized.

Dr. Gagnon: Incidentally, what would "incest-phobia" or "polyphobia" be and to what extent does societal disgust for these behaviors trigger higher incidences of measurable harms?

Brian Anthony Bowen: Again, I think this is yet another apples and oranges comparison. Marriage equality for homosexual people does not require that one be related to oneself, nor does it request recognition by the state of more than two partners in the marriage structure. Therefore, it matters not that even homosexually inclined people have a certain disgust for "incest" and "polygyny", as demonstrated by the sheer fact that homosexual people are not advocating for those relationships to be sanctioned in marriage under any circumstance, whether gay or straight.

Dr. Gagnon: Second, there are no scientific studies demonstrating intrinsic, scientifically measurable harm for adult-committed incestuous unions, much less traditional polygamous unions. Oprah Winfrey, an American cultural guru, had on one of her television programs a year or two ago a group of intelligent, attractive, wealthy women in polygamous relationships in Arizona. By the end of the program Oprah was telling viewers that society might be painting with too broad a negative brush the phenomenon of polygamy. Even as regards pedophilia, two APA studies have indicated (one argued, the other conceded) that a child who has sex with an adult often grows up exhibiting no measurable harm. If that is true of pedophilia, how much more of adult-committed incestuous and polyamorous bonds?

Brian Anthony Bowen: While these are interesting observations, Oprah is not requesting the right to engage in a same sex union herself, nor a polygamous union, so it can hardly be concluded that just because she thinks people over stigmatize non mainstream relationships in no way means she advocates marriage equality for such relationships, and nor do those homosexually inclined who are seeking to have their two-adult, non related, consensual marriages recognized by the state. Again, Dr. Gagnon compares apples to oranges thinking that enough off putting emotive reactions evoked in his readers will equate into a solid basis for opposing same sex marriages. This is not an argument per se', but a scare tactic based on appealing to one's fears rather than one's sense of justice and equality based on legitimate grounds found in law and/or Scriptures, and thus must be disregarded as a non sequitor.

Dr. Gagnon: After hearing a reasoned case for why homosexual practice of an adult-committed sort is more like adult-committed incest or polyamory than the conditions of race or gender, most avid supporters of homosexual unions will express great outrage.

Brian Anthony Bowen: I'm not outraged, but I'm not fooled by such fabricated fear tactics, nor moved by the "perception of evidence" such arguments are designed to create. There is absolutely no evidence that gay marriage will lead to any of the non mainstream relationships being sanctioned as marriages, yet the idea is for the opponent to evoke emotive responses that creates a sense of despair in anyone trying to separate the two, give up and vote against it (just in case.) Again, it's a non sequitor and a fear mongering technique designed to stimulate the senses rather than the sense of otherwise critically thinking people, who have better things to do with their time than to sort out the facts from the fiction.

Dr. Gagnon: However, outrage is not a substitute for reasoned argumentation,

Brian Anthony Bowen: No, and neither is the fear mongering Dr. Gagnon shows a willingness to engage in.

Dr. Gagnon: though the former is often practiced with great effectiveness by those promoting a homosexualist cause.

Brian Anthony Bowen: Likewise.

Dr. Gagnon: It might be time for those who have good arguments for believing that homosexual practice not be endorsed by society to become equally outraged.

Brian Anthony Bowen:  Perhaps, but not based on outrageous tactics such as the fear mongering demonstrated by Dr. Gagnon's descent into a desperate plea for reasoning people to consider his arguments while ignoring the same tactics he accuses his opponents of employing. This is not what I expected from Dr. Gagnon, but it is nothing new.