5 Myths About Homosexuality


MYTH 1 – The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

It is common to hear the LGBT community say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. This is especially prevalent among those who claim to be Christians. “Nowhere does Jesus address homosexuality” is a constant refrain.

Of course, nowhere does Jesus say anything about mainlining heroin either.

In several places in the Old and New Testaments the Bible very clearly condemns homosexuality. Leviticus 18:21-22; Leviticus 20:13; and Romans 1:18-32, are just some of the passages that speak clearly to the issue.

Not until the rise and acceptance of homosexual behavior did anyone seriously attempt to argue the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Some have argued that the Bible only condemns homosexual behavior if it is not within a monogamous relationship.

Others have argued that the biblical writers just did not understand homosexuality in the same way we do today.

When the Bible speaks on homosexuality, it does so with clarity, forbidding it in any form.


MYTH 2 – 10% of the American population is gay or lesbian.

Actually less than 3% of adults in the US are estimated to be gay or lesbian. No less than four national surveys done between the years 2005 and 2009 indicate such according to the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law.

In fact, these percentages have remained relatively the same over the past 10 years.


MYTH 3 – Homosexuals are born that way.

This myth goes back to an article in Science magazine by Dean Hamer in 1993 where he said there is the real possibility that homosexuality is genetic. Immediately people jumped on that statement and declared that new “gay gene” had been discovered.

Four months later in the same magazine, a whole cadre of geneticists came out and said that this is not correct. But this information seldom made it on any of the talk shows or magazines that had already announced the “fact” of the new gay gene.

Even the American Psychological Association has come around:

 “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

Many in the LGBT community argue “God made me this way so it can’t be sinful.”

It is not true that anyone is born homosexual. It is true that everyone is born a sinner.

100% of all people are born sinners. “All have sinned” the Scripture says in Romans 3:23.


MYTH 4 – Homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle.

Studies show that almost three out of four male homosexuals have had over 100 sexual partners. More than half have had over 250 sexual partners. More than one-fourth have had over 1000 sexual partners.

Almost three out of four male homosexuals have had sex with boys 19 years old or younger.

One third of all pedophiles in America are gay. Remember that less than 3% of the entire population is gay. Homosexuals are 17 times more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

If you are heterosexual, your risk of AIDS is 1 in 715,000.

If you are homosexual, your risk of AIDS is 1 in 165.

Two out of three cases of AIDS in the US is a result of a homosexual lifestyle.

Although male homosexuals represent about 3% of the male population in the US, in 2010, they accounted for 78% of all new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections period. Of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, 52% were male homosexuals.

Somewhere between 10 and 15% of the population of the US are alcoholics. But how many would argue that alcoholism is a healthy lifestyle?


MYTH 5 – Homosexuality is unchangeable.

It is simply not scientifically accurate to say that homosexuality is unchangeable.

It is not biblically accurate either. God’s grace is greater than all sin, and if other sins can be overcome by the power of God in a redeemed heart, then so can homosexuality.

Remember 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Paul walks through a litany of sins, including homosexuality, that will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Then Paul says in verse 11: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

No sin and no power is greater than the power of the Gospel!

Tags: , , ,

54 thoughts on “5 Myths About Homosexuality

  1. Pingback: Responding to Homosexuals | Pastor Kevin Talks

  2. I would like to encourage you to familiarize yourself with reputable and affirmed studies on this matter. The statistics you presented do not have any validity to them as they are not sourced and cited. Your statement that homosexuality is not linked to genetic or prenatal environment is scientifically false. It is the majoral concensus among geneticists who have conducted medical studies on this matter that homosexuality does have a genetic predisposition. Please present an intellectual argument and not personal opinion.

    • Scott- I agree with you that Dr. Allen did not provide enough citation in his article. I would like to know specifically which studies he is discussing and who conducted them. However, you accuse Dr. Allen and then do less citation than he did. Please cite your sources for concluding that “It is the majoral concensus among geneticists who have conducted medical studies on this matter that homosexuality does have a genetic predisposition.” I’m genuinely interested. Thanks!

      • My sincere apologies, you have a substantial claim and concern. I was merely stating the concensus of medical journals and studies that I am familiar with. My knowledge was aquired via these scholars. 1. Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004).”Sexual orientation and adolescents”. Pediatrics 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519. 2.Bailey JM, Pillard, RC (1991). “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”. Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (12): 1089–96. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810360053008. PMID 1845227.

  3. Here are my sources.

    Gary J. Gates, “How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender?”
    http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA 90095‐1476
    williamsinstitute@law.ucla.edu http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute

    Jon Dougherty, “Pedophilia More Common Among ‘Gays’: Research Purports To Reveal ‘Dark Side’ Of Homosexual Culture.” © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

    Family Research Council (www.frc.org) – Article by Peter Sprigg, “The Top 10 Myths about Homosexuality” – http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf. Contains 84 footnotes from many professional journals on sexual studies.

    “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” Family Research Council post 7/2/2002

    • The family research council is not an academically respected institution that abides by the APA guidelines and methods for psychological and social studies. Also your source by Jon Daugherty is not valid as it is a secondary writing concerning a study(s) which when analyzed also do not abide my the APA proper methodology for acquiring statistically significant results

      • Good grief, Scott……now YOU decide what research perspective is valid? Don’t think so. But go ahead…continue to try to sound intelligent enough to argue this point. You’re arguing the Bible.

        • I am not deciding this, the American Psychology Association sets standards for studies and experiments to follow in order to be considered statiscally valid and ethical.

  4. Your comment concerning the overestimated number of gay people has merit to it as many studies conducted have shown that the 10% statisitic is skewed and a more realistic estimate is approximately <5%

    • I question the validity of both statistics given for the percentage of Americans who are homosexual. First, I know how easy it is to skew all statistics by selective sampling. Second, homosexuality still carries a stigma in many circles. How many people who are not actively and openly involved in a homosexual relationship would deny their attraction to the same sex simply based on the stigma it carries.

  5. I would also promote intellectual responsibility in that scholars make comment on only to which they have vast understanding and knowledge of. I am a graduate student at case western studying for my doctorate in human sexuality. It is my field of work and academia.

    • Barbara Frankowski is one of your cited scholars (Sexual orientation and adolescents), however, she states that current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is established during early childhood. She also agrees that a unique health concern for homosexuals is HIV.

      As for Bailey JM, Pillard, RC (“A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”.) Not all of the men in his study had the same Xq28 region, or “gay genes” and not all men that had a supposedly identified “gay genes” were gay. In Bailey’s study of twins it is shown that an identical twin of a gay man is actually more likely to be heterosexual, rather than homosexual.

      • My point being, research can be debated all day long, scholars contradict themselves, and science seems to be ever-changing, so one “fact” may not be fact tomorrow. The Bible tells me what I need to know about a man laying with a man, period. Do I hate men who give in to the temptation of homosexual urges, no, but I do hate sin. Man is flawed, God is not.

        • I believe that the Bible can also be debated all day long. Are you not aware that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians have argued for hundreds of years about how to properly interpret the Bible?

  6. I believe the most credible and compelling citations that Dr. Allen provided were the scriptures. ‘Man’s’ research/studies can be debated all day long, but the Word cannot.

    • And God’s Holy Bible says that God does not change so when it was written, it still applies today no matter how much we change how the world thinks and acts today.

        • John 8:3-11 ESV

          The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
          God did not agree with this so no.

          • Well, then, we ought not to trust Leviticus at all. Right? David Allen should not have cited Leviticus in his response to Myth #1.

  7. I appreciate Dr. Allen’s comments. As an Evangelist, I have led a number of gay men to Jesus and watched Him radically change their lives. Sadly none of them are still living today. They all died of AIDS. But they also came to understand the truth of Romans 1 and especially verses 24 thru 27. Jesus loves homosexuals but He hates their sin as He does every sin that separates sinful man from salvation that He made available on Calvary.

    • God does not change so whatever was written no matter how many years ago hasn’t changed it’s application for today. We the people may have changed but God stays and always will be the same.

      • We do not know that God approves of the Bible. There is no convincing argument that God played any role in the existence of this book.

  8. Do you stone adulterous women, too? Because you’re commanded to — in Leviticus, which apparently you adhere to strictly.

    • no because we are living under the new covenant of Grace not under the law, Jesus changed all this when He was teaching while He was walking the earth and is truly the heart of God, but I won’t say that there aren’t consequences for adulterous behavior that God will judge not mankind.

  9. John 8:5-11

    5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

    6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

    9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

    10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    • Using John 8:5-11 as a justification for sinning (like embracing the homosexual lifestyle) is actually contradicting what Jesus was accomplishing. We love the first 6 verses but never emphasize what Jesus told the forgiven woman…”GO AND SIN NO MORE!” This would mean that yes he forgives but his command to the forgiven is to sin no more and bear fruit of true forgiveness. When you use this story as a cop out and excuse to persue sinful things, then you are actually changing the very definition of forgiveness and the Gospel.

      • I agree but the it’s also saying that we don’t have the right to cast a stone at the sinner because we all sin and would be doing so out of hypocrisy and Jesus was most harsh with the Pharisees who were hypocrites.

        • I agree and I’m not saying that we should do that either, but is wrong to associate being a hypocrite with sharing the reality of sin and the Gospel. I am grateful that someone loved me enough to declare to me that I was a sinner and under the wrath of God and yet he made a way for me to be forgiven and changed. It’s not being bigoted or a pharisaical hypocrite to tell a practicing sinner (homosexual, drunkard, etc.) that they are in the wrong, need forgiveness, and that God is not for their perceived “morally correct” direction.

          • yes, I’m just trying to be balanced Grace with Law and don’t want to condemn a person but at the same time don’t want anyone who is practicing sin to think that God is fine with it as well. It’s hard to find the balance when we don’t know the person we are informing. I’ve been in liberal churches and was probably too harsh with them and I don’t want to cause anyone to stumble and fall away at the same time don’t want to sugarcoat sin either so thanks for your input, as I continue to try to keep Grace balanced with judgment.

  10. Who really cares about the hearts of the people that are gay/lesbian? Everyone is always talking about it “being a sin” or whatever….omg…the only thing we should concern ourselves with is whether they have Jesus in their hearts or not.Talking about what people are doing wrong or right alllll the time is not going to get them closer to Jesus. If you don’t sin yourself, then by all means judge away! It’s just aggravating….my daughter is gay …and she loves Jesus.

    • anyone who practices sin, lives in it, and doesn’t hate it, and says they love Jesus IS DECEIVED! or bible says they are a liar.

    • 1 John 3:7-10
      7 Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. 8 But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. 9 Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. 10 So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.
      Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

      • Michael,
        Please be careful how you use that verse, brother. By this standard we are all judged. Remember that while we are saved, we are all still struggling with this old sin nature and will continue to do so. Who is to say she isn’t trying to better herself and battle these temptations? In the very next part of this same chapter is love vs hatred. (1st john 3:11-24)

        Do not think for a moment that I am trying to cause any trouble. I totally agree with what you are saying. If the person is indeed still living in sin and not being changed, there’s a good chance they are not truly saved. But just remember where we all came from.

        • I believe that anyone who is a homosexual and has attraction temptation to the same sex is not sinning, temptation is not sin, Jesus was tempted. So then they would have a thorn in the flesh of battling this throughout life. I even go as far as to think that it could be a chemistry problem in the brain. I have brain cancer and brain tumors that are active in my brain and there are times when I know that I have no control over what’s going on with my body, and I’m not just talking convulsive seizures but even to go as far as erections that are totally out of my control as I’m not imagining anything or looking at anyone to cause these. So I believe that having same sex attractions is not sin. But if this person goes after it and fulfills the desire or temptation then it becomes sin. and If this person is loving this lifestyle and not hating it then this is dangerous because it opens the door for Satan and his demons to attack and cause strongholds. Going to bed now, nice chatting with you maybe we can follow up another time. my email is mnstjean@gmail.com

  11. You all are exhibiting what is known in schools of philosophy as argumentum ad ignorantiam where ignorantium refers specifically to a lack of knowledge of evidence to the contrary. This fallacy in informal logic asserts that because something cannot be disproven it must thus be true. However, in following this logic the consequence follows that because something cannot be proven it must be false and therefore we come to the premise based on formal logic that there exists somethings that due to lack of knowledge and experimentation cannot be proven true or false. In this case the argumentum ad ignorantiam is the belief in God.

    • Scott –

      Make certain I understand what I’m reading correctly. You are “a graduate student at case western studying for [a] doctorate in human sexuality,” you contend that “[Dr. Allen’s] statement that homosexuality is not linked to genetic or prenatal environment is scientifically false,” and lastly, having explained the phrase, you claim that the belief in God is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

      So that you know from whence I come, I offer a little insight. I remember hearing a preacher say that he believed all of the Bible, even the maps. For argument’s sake, consider me to have that same confidence in the Bible, as well as having an intentional desire to live my life in accordance with it tenets while fostering a personal relationship with Jesus, and a belief that Jesus is Lord of all. But I also believe that what I believe is irrelevant to what follows.

      I am aware of only two beliefs regarding the foundation of our existence: one, that we are created, presumably by the God of the Bible; and two, that we are the result of evolution.

      Given your statements, it appears that you do not believe in the God of the Bible. It also appears that you believe that homosexuality is somehow genetic.

      If you do not believe in the God of the Bible, then it is implied that you do not believe we (humans) are created beings. Since I have no knowledge of any other paradigm which proposes an explanation for our existence, that further implies to me that you believe we (again humans) are the result of evolution.

      If I recall my fundamental lessons on the theory of evolution (the title under which as it was presented in public schools in the 1970’s), we are the result of a process whereby progressively more complicated and improved genetic information is passed down from generation to generation. The process is predicated upon survival of the fittest, and has supposedly taken us from a single-celled thing, through the primates and “cave man,” to the upright, bi-pedal, self-aware beings that we are today. A process that was millions of years in the making.

      Assuming that we are not created and that my recollection of evolution is accurate as it has been presented, how do you explain the continued presence of a genetic source for homosexuality?

      Even if it is argued that homosexuality is a desirable genetic trait, dominant homosexual genetic information would have been lost millennia ago, because homosexuals cannot reproduce. If your argument is that it was passed along through heterosexual reproduction, then that implies that only a “weaker” homosexual gene is preserved, because the carrier of that gene exhibits some heterosexual attraction. This contradicts the evolution premise, as the “strongest” homosexual gene is not being propagated. If only a “weaker” gene is then passed along, again I ask you to explain how it has survived millions of years of evolution, because with each successive generation, there would presumably be an increasingly stronger heterosexual and correspondingly weaker homosexual genetic predisposition.

      • Your understanding of the theory of evolution and genetics is lacking. I wish to provide you with the knowledge that simply because a gene is not dominant does not mean that it is removed from the genetic pool. Furthermore, I do not claim that homosexuality is a trait passed through inherited genetic material from either mother or father but rather in stating homosexuality is genetically or physiologically based I am implying it may be a result of a genetic defect or an unexpected mutation in the deep structure of DNA, brain chemistry, hormones, etc. Just as hemophilia, blue eyes (which also deter from human thriving via being more sensitive to light) mental handicap (retardation), ADD, etc.,are not dominant genes yet they still occur. I also imply that there may very well be a genetic disposition inherited from the alleles of the parents and it has yet to be found. Let us remind ourselves science is a field which takes years to experimentation, observation, and analysis to come to a valid conclusion, opposed to religion where you simply refer to a book. Science has yet to come to a definitive cause for homosexual behavior and it is part of my field work to investigate this cause. However, I will do so using unbiased perspective and seek the natural and true answer.

        • you write – “Let us remind ourselves science is a field which takes years to experimentation, observation, and analysis to come to a valid conclusion, opposed to religion where you simply refer to a book. Science has yet to come to a definitive cause for homosexual behavior and it is part of my field work to investigate this cause. However, I will do so using unbiased perspective and seek the natural and true answer.”

          In as much as you have included the statement “opposed to religion where you simply refer to a book,” the implication is that you have already determined, dare I say predetermined, “the book” to be irrelevant. Your willingness to discount “outside” information or dissenting opinion, whether “the book” is the Bible or one of the other sources you have already discounted because they don’t use the APA guideline, seemingly disqualifies your claim to be unbiased.

          Just for reference, I wonder, do you consider it to be the “theory of evolution,” or do you consider evolution to be a fact. If fact, please be kind enough to point out several scientific evidences that have been discovered since the 1970’s when it was still considered to be, and taught as, theory.

          • I discount the bible as scientific evidence as it in no way follows the empirical methods of science. Furthermore, I encourage you to gain a greater understanding of evolution as you apparently do not understand that as used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. The theory of evolution is not questioned nor disputable. It is easily seen and observed in micro-changes of many species. The dramatic changes in humans over extended periods of time can be observed in the anthropological timeline. And yes I am absolutely completely unbiased. I do not celebrate any theology personally however I am well versed in the academia of many religion as theology is my minor including Juduism, Catholicism, Islam, and Shinto. I acknowledge the texts these religion use as being uncredited when discussing scientific matters.

          • I believe in the absolute truth that comes from the Holy Bible and nothing else. God’s Holy Spirit dwells in me and His Spirit bears witness with my Spirit that His Word holds to be true. The more I study HIs Word, the more faith I receive as well as any hardship or hard circumstance that is brought into my life increases faith & patience which matures me and makes me more like Jesus Christ and empowers me for service to do His will. I believe if the Bible says that God spoke something into existence then my faith allows me to believe that is what happened. If I’m trying to find some kind of proof of this than it’s not faith. I don’t believe that the stories in the old testament are fairy tales. I believe them to have actually happened and are there for us to learn by them.

    • God exists, and that has nothing to do with whether humans can prove or disprove His existence. I hope you have faith in God someday Scott. I hope you find comfort in knowing that I will be praying for you, personally. Maybe you can come back to this blog and comment if you come to the way of life that God wants for you? I’d truly like to hear from you. Shouldn’t we all be fervently praying for Scott? Please pray for him!

      • Well, any interpretation that contradicts other Scripture would be a false interpretation and we also need to lean on the conviction of the Holy Spirit who is the teacher of the Word of God. There are always going to be disagreements in areas of Scripture because of the fall of man. As long as the essentials are agreed upon then we don’t have to look at man’s philosophy. I personally don’t think that philosophy has any part in rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

        • Faith is a belief that requires no reason. Opinion is belief without reason and evidence; argument is belief with reason and evidence. Your statements continue to be circular. In saying you believe in God’s word because of your faith you therefore acknowledge there is no proof and support of the existence of God. It is because of this lack of certainty that I do not celebrate religion for I would rather educate myself to a realm in which certainty and truth can be attained.

  12. There’s one question that I have never heard anyone give an educated answer. I’ve never been a fan of the transitive factor outside of math, especially in debates, but it’s hard not to sound very ‘connect-the-dots’ on this issue. If we are a constant adapt-to-survive, survival of the fittest mate, best genes are passed on species, then how can homosexuality be genetic? And if it is, how is it passed on? I understand how you could argue that it may be a recessive trait and only show up every so often per generation of human, but why would it even still be replicated if it 1. directly contradicts the survival of a species and 2. technically would leave said organism one short of the six characteristics needed to be called ‘living’

  13. David, you may use me as a source for Myth 5 – over 20 years of being a homosexual sex addict, I was set free by the gospel of Jesus Christ eight years ago! Now, I have been happily married for four years to the most beautiful woman in the world and I am in love with the most amazing Savior and God.

    Richard Thomas
    Colossians 3:15

  14. Academics like this Dr and folks like Dr W Craig feed the christian conservative masses what they WANT to hear regardless of the FACTS. It is a form of entertainment. Notice that no-one on the conservative side wants to argue against its own beliefs rather they learn tidbits and counters and in doing so they add inertia to the entertainment thus the debate becomes stale.

    A vigorous conversation is a must.

    Homosexuality is ubiquitous in nature, that is a fact -ask a biologist or zoologist -or a zookeeper!

    The reason why the conservatives & the religious are going to loose the same sex marriage issue is because they are turning it into a religious battle the Gay folks are using a secular argument (& they are winning!!!) The nature of the Law in the USA is secular not religious.

    Gay folks are not from another planet they are everyone and everywhere. A society like ours cannot have two classes of citizenship, that is a legal partition for gays and a legal partition for straight . You know -separate but almost equal- I thought we’ve already learned that lesson, but I guess not …

    USA is a country for all its citizens not for some, Gay pays taxes, straight pays taxes,jews pay taxes, hindus pay taxes, latinos pay taxes, thus ALL should enjoy rights & privileges afforded by our Laws so that not one group of people within our social group manhandles another by forcing their biblical or sharia or what ever morality, for we already have not only laws in the books but also the golden rule.

    The dynamics of our society are evolving -its Ok, these are growing pains, like being 9 most pregnant -. Remember when Elvis was obscene? -now its lukewarm, remember the film with S Potier / J Drayton Guess who’s coming to dinner? when interracial marriage was taboo?

    Well America, Guess who’s coming to Dinner?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *