“If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

These words of Christ show that Christ expected us to take His message at His word, even if we did not understand it. Doing comes before understanding. I sometimes wonder if the reason that so many people who struggle with same-sex attraction justify their homogenital activity and claim that their experience of their acts as good runs contrary to Church teaching is that they have not abided in Christ’s word first.

I found the arguments presented by the theologians on the panel discussion for the movie For the Bible Tells Me So (”Film and panel address religion, sexuality”) to be the same tired arguments that the gay movement has been presenting for years now. The problem is that the facts just don’t square with the arguments.

Professor Vanderhooft argues that the verses in Scripture normally cited for Leviticus are part of the Holiness Code and no longer apply to Christians. Furthermore, he says that the code did not relate to homosexuality as an orientation like we know it, but that the condemnation was for men who would occasionally lie with men. Leaving aside the fact that the argument against homogenital activity does not rely on these few Scripture verses cited (something noted by Luti), Vanderhooft’s interpretation is debatable. First of all, the very same Holiness Code condemns incest (Leviticus 18), adultery, and bestiality. Using Vanderhooft’s logic, these would all now be acceptable. Either we end up with this absurd conclusion or the premise that chapters 17-27 of Leviticus are abolished as false.

The second problem is that we just cannot assume that Saint Paul and Leviticus were only condemning men who did not experience same-sex attraction and still had homosexual intercourse. The concept of homosexual relations did exist in the days of Saint Paul. A quick reading of Greek philosophers shows this. Saint Paul may have very well been condemning homosexual relations as we know it.

However, Luti too goes astray when she says, “Gay people who live good holy lives are themselves a text we need to read.” This is reasoning in a circle. To be holy is to do God’s will: to love as He demands of us. If, however, the will of God is that people not commit these acts, then all the other good of that people does not change the will of God. Similarly, no matter how many times someone commits a sinful act, it never becomes virtuous.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to experience same-sex attraction. It must be a very difficult cross to bear. Furthermore, there exist real religious Fundamentalists who act as if homogenital activity was somehow more sinful than other sins. Of course, this is simply not for us to judge. While I can see that acts are sinful, I cannot judge the sinner. I must rightly assume that my sins are worse.