Hey guys, Im really excited about writing this entry.

I must admit that I knew a

lot less when I started off. I spent a lot of time praying, reading, conceptualizing
and troubleshooting, before I developed the meat for this post. And I sincerely
hope that it helps.
Its a pretty long post and Ill right away get into it without wasting any more
time and space. Some of the initial questions that popped into my mind when I
started thinking about homosexuality were these:

What's wrong with a homosexual relationship:

o -Without the violence aspect (rape and exploitation)
o -With Mutual respect and love like in a normal heterosexual married
affair
Is procreation the sole purpose of 'natural'/god-ordained sexual
relationships? Then what about the case of heterosexual married couples
who are infertile/using contraception?
Isn't everything else other than procreation possible with a homosexual
relationship? Then, why the big fuss?
What's so difficult about accepting homosexuality as an alternative
lifestyle?
Is homosexuality natural? Is it a biological fact? If yes, why would God
condemn the natural feelings people have?

All these questions and several others which could be shot in this range, will all
find their answers in just two simple questions:
1. WHATS SO BAD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY ANYWAY?
2. ISNT HOMOSEXUALITY NATURAL?
The first question deals with morality and the second one about it being natural
or not. Ill try to answer both these together in a good logical flow, the second
one first.
One of the stumbling blocks I came upon as I started out my venture in
answering this second question was a very wobbly, infantile definition that I had,
of the word Natural. I almost reached a stalemate with Joel the other day when
we were debating this very matter. I went back, did some serious study and after
much thought and discussion, I was able to reach at a non-contradictory,
consistent and semantically useful definition. Id like to very briefly walk you
through the process that I myself went through in understanding the word,
natural. Two things that we often equate with the word natural knowingly or
unknowingly are the phrases or words which mean:
1. Good/morally acceptable (or something of the same character)
2. In the original plan (of God)/Before the Fall of man/In the glorious and
perfect original form of creation (or similar)
I will right away say that the word natural has no such meanings and any
interpretation along these lines are not substantial. In fact morality and theology
have no influence over the definition of natural, whatsoever.
Now, this is how I started. Natural means of nature.

Of itself subdivides into the clauses existing in and formed by. i.e. Natural =
something which exists in nature or formed by nature. Water is something
which exists in nature, so is a squirrel. But a Delta or a new mutated variant of a
flower is something which is formed by nature.
Now Nature can mean two things. One, the physical world with all its
components and interactions. And secondly, to mean, the inherent, innate
character of something.
So together the definition becomes Natural is anything which (exists in or is
formed by) (the physical world - with all its components and interactions and its
innate characteristics).
This looked quite comprehensive to me in the beginning. But then I found a
problem. According to this current definition, I was including humans and their
innate characters and interactions as part of nature. Since brain is part of the
physical world, the brainwork also had to be natural. Soon everything became
natural. Emotions became natural. Murder became natural. Airships became
natural. iPhones became natural. Even artificial intelligence became natural
according to this definition! And now I was clearly seeing the error. My definition
had to at least exclude artificial.
Then I figured out that if I remove all the modifications in the physical world
brought about as the result of human interactions from the definition, Id be able
to account for this problem and clearly differentiate between natural and
artificial things. But it wasnt that simple. I discovered a new flaw. Other
creatures and their interactions also had to be discussed if the aim was to
develop an unbiased, purely naturalistic definition. Would the dam a beaver
builds across the river be considered natural? If so, why not mans dams? And If
our dams are not natural, the beavers also shouldnt be. Soon it comes to that
every interaction of every component in the physical world that could modify it,
need to be excluded. Soon, everything becomes not natural. This was creating
more problems than solving any.
Thus I reached the idea of either everything is natural or nothing is. This was not
making any sense.
Then it clicked to me that to someone outside the physical world, everything is
natural. For example, to an Observer X (outside the physical world), the dam
built by a beaver and a dam built by a man are both natural (in the pure sense of
the word). But that from our perspective, we had to make a distinction between
what happens in nature by itself and what man does to nature, which was why
the word Natural was coined in the first place. At this point I understood that an
actual definition of natural is perspective dependent and self-exclusive. i.e.
a) If Man is using the word natural, a dam built by him is not natural, while
the one built by a beaver is natural.
b) If a beaver is using the word natural (if that were even possible), a dam
built by it is not natural, while the one built by a human becomes natural
from this new referencing point.
c) If an observer outside the physical world is looking at it, both dams are
natural.

This can be proved with set theory. (All formal mathematical as well as any
precise, logically consistent definitions are developed through set theory). The
initial problem I had was that of a self-referencing system, very similar to the
Russells barber paradox or Gdels incompleteness theorem (check it up if you
have time).
The final definition I reached was this:
'Natural' {w.r.t any Observer X} = (the physical world which includes the state,
the innate character and interactions of all its components) *minus* (all the
modifications brought about as a result of the interactions of Observer X with the
physical world)
Another simple way to frame this definition is to ask two questions whenever you
are in doubt whether something is natural or not:
1. Is it seen in the physical world? (If No, it is not-natural to any observer) (If
Yes, proceed to question 2)
2. Is it a result of an interaction of observer X with the physical world? (If
No, it is natural to observer X) (If Yes, it is not-natural to observer X)
Since weve finally arrived at a logically consistent formulaic definition, well ask
the question of whether homosexuality is natural.
1. Homosexuality (as of now) is seen in the physical world
2. Homosexuality is not really a product of a human interaction with the
physical world
What about bestiality?
1. Bestiality is similarly seen in the physical world
2. Bestiality is not a result of an interaction of a human with the physical
world (in this case an animal), it is the interaction itself.
So, what have we found? That any sin including homosexuality is natural? As a
matter of fact, that is true but the ultimate point Im trying to establish here is
that any notion of naturalness carries no implications for whether something is
morally good or not homosexuality included.
Now, I dont want to leave you right there on the cliff. Ill explore one more
aspect of the word natural and set this whole quest under the light of
scriptures. And this notable character of the word natural I want to show you is
that it is not a constant. It does not have a time frame fixed to it. In other words,
it is possible for things which may not be natural today to become natural
tomorrow. Uh? What??
Let me explain. If a mythological creature came into existence out of nowhere
into the physical world tomorrow, this creature though an unnatural element
today, will be considered natural tomorrow, by our definition. Today it doesnt
exist (and cannot be formed) in the physical world, so it is not natural. Tomorrow
it comes to being in the physical world: natural. This first example dealt with an
addition of a new component to the physical world. And this changes the
definition of nature/natural. Another way in which nature/natural is changed
is by introducing/altering/removing an inherent character. And thats exactly
what the Bible says, happened when sin entered the world at the fall of man. It

brought into existence in the physical world a new inherent character, the sinful
nature. It became natural to man, to sin, this point forward. And that includes
homosexuality. But homosexual or any other sinful feelings for that matter was
not natural to man, before the fall. God created man in his image, in his nature.
He had a choice to choose homosexuality or heterosexuality at creation (if he
had an avenue for that, but as Joel pointed out, at creation, he didnt have that).
But he did not have a craving/an obsession/a desire to choose one (sin,
obviously) over the other. Why? Because he didnt have a sinful nature. But when
sin entered, the 'nature of sin' came into being, and by definition, what was
'natural' itself changed. So what was unnatural before, became natural after
that.
I hope I was able to make that clear! If you have any doubts, shoot!

Coming to the other question that I posed, it goes without saying that when we
say homosexuality is good or homosexuality is bad, we are indirectly referring to
morally good or morally bad. I was intrigued by the question of whether it was
possible to show why Homosexuality is bad apart from God and his moral
law. It came to me later on, that though you might be able to fling a few points
on the demerits of homosexuality in a casual debate based on the framework of
popular cultural perceptions, when you seriously consider answering this
question, you come to realize that it is impossible to see the true horror and
perversion and ugliness of homosexuality and every other sin, once you step
outside the frame of God and his moral law. From a purely materialistic
worldview, there is nothing really that bad about homosexuality; murder either
everything including life is just a soup of matter interacting with each other in
fascinating thermodynamics. And thats because, Morality is baseless, without
the Moral law giver! Without the moral law, there is no morally good or
morally unacceptable. You simply cannot see it. Thus we come to understand
that a sort of a moral law exists among all human beings, however relative that
may seem (well come to the relative aspect in a bit).
So, moral law exists. From the Bible we understand that God had written his
moral law on mans heart from creation (we call this conscience now). But after
the fall of man, it became tainted and corrupted. It was tampered by sin. Think of
it like a piece of software which became corrupted. It did have a resemblance to
the original moral code of God in certain aspects, but the new conscience wasnt
similar to the exact prototype; there were certain clauses missing and certain
clauses modified. And this conscience or heart as the bible often refers to it, got
further ruined/hardened (another biblical terminology) as man gave further in to
his rebellion. This explains the foundational basis for a relative morality. To one,
murder is a horror, to another it is not. To one lying is a way of life, to another it
is morally unacceptable. To one, homosexual relationship is an abomination, but
a one-night stand quite justifiable. Everyone is ruled by the set of moral laws
they have on their heart (their conscience). And that defines what is moral to
them. Since this conscience itself got tainted and scathed (after the fall) and
further hardened (through rebellion), every human got a modified, infected set of
moral laws and thereby a relative morality.

This was when God chose to reveal the original moral law once again to man,
this time, written on tablets of stone. And it doesnt take much to realize that the
essence of all human morality is encapsulated in the last 5 commandments of
Moses. Every law passed by governments, every moral idea that exists are just
extensive corollaries to them! We understand that morality has its basis in
spirituality, i.e. moral law is not part of the physical world and neither its
construct. It was given to man in two forms. In writing on his heart (the
conscience which got corrupted) and in writing on tablets of stone.
Understanding this, is the first step towards breaking the neck of a material
atheist argument. The underlying assumption of naturalists who accept the
existence of morality, is that morality is possible without spirituality. That moral
law is not really something given from outside the physical world, but something
already present in the physical world. In other words, they believe that moral
laws are just cerebral constructs. If that is the truth, then all arguments
concerning the giving of the Ten Commandments and the conscience become
nothing more than beautiful fairy tales. But this is not so. Why? Lets look at their
argument. The real argument that they are making is that man (from pure
intellect) would have discovered the last five of the Ten Commandments without
a spirit being to give it to Moses first. Would he? No! The moral laws cannot be
derived anyway from the methods of pure science or logic. The proof is that
Artificial intelligence which solely operates on these principles can never bring
forth the moral laws, because morality is simply outside the realm of science,
logic and reasoning. And it comes to that, if an atheist believes in morality or at
least has a morality of his own, he is at serious err with his beliefs. The only
logically coherent escape he could make, would be to totally deny the existence
of morality whatsoever. And no man can ever do that faithfully in complete
conviction. Existence of Morality is a proof for spirituality and a death blow to a
naturalistic materialistic worldview! All I tried to do was to prove this fact, show
the true nature and origin of morality and then understand the basis for a
relative morality which exists right now in the world that dictates whether
homosexuality is right/wrong and leads to all the unsettled debate in the first
place.
I hope Ive been able to clear that also.
Now, I did find many childish arguments in my reading, both for and against the
question of homosexuality being natural. Even as I reemphasize the fact that the
two aspects which I already dealt with exhaustively (above) are the real morsels,
I will briefly go over these also, in my next post.

10000+ species of other animals do it. Not just humans. So, it is natural. It
is not a perversion.
Some people are biologically wired (oriented) this way during fetal brain
development. It is as natural and normal as being left-handed/having
green eyes. It is not unnatural/abnormal it is just uncommon.
Homosexuality was brought forth in nature, by evolution, as natures
population control!
Organ mismatch theory/lock and key analogy proves that homosexuality is
not natural.
Inability for homosexual couples to procreate proves that it is unnatural.

If any of you wants to add some arguments to this list or clarify something, post!

10000+ species of other animals do it. Not just humans. So, it is

natural. It is not a perversion.
This argument is unfounded. Homosexuality is not natural because other
animals do it, but because it fits our definition of natural (as we discussed in
my previous post). In fact if you read the last two statements of their argument
So, it is natural. It is not a perversion together, you realize that they have
defined natural itself differently from the semantically consistent definition that
we reached. Perversion only exists when you consider something within a moral
framework. And theyve tried to somehow tie the concepts of natural and
perversion with each other in this argument. Just as I already mentioned
previously, any notion of naturalness carries no implications for whether
something is morally good or not homosexuality included.
Scientists have documented around 1,500 cases of same-sex bonding,
apparently defined as behaviour associated with breeding between members of
the same gender. Nathan Bailey, who did a fascinating 2009 review of the
evolutionary nature of same-sex bonding, interestingly, points out that its
unlikely that all gay sex in nature comes from the same place. In bonobos its
often conflict resolution, in Laysan albatross its a way to raise their young when
few males are around, and in fruit flies its just a case of mistaken identity.
Sounds reasonable. But if you were to look at smarter animals perhaps
dolphins, elephants, and great apes which have more bearing on this question
for humans than fruit flies (because theoretically homosexuality would be a
prefrontal cortex thing), youd notice that there is no particular biological
function that it meets other than sexual satisfaction through an alternative
lifestyle just like in humans!
Well, in 2007, Luiz Srgio Solimeo, a critic of the nature argument for
homosexuality said, The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint
for human morality. He points to the fact that lions eat their young as a reason
that the animal kingdom is not to be trusted as a reflection about what is right or
wrong for humans.
So, we have 10000+ species of animals doing it, not just humans. True. And it is
by definition, natural in both animals and humans. Yes. But it is a perversion in
humans, when you consider the moral law God has given to man. In animals it is
not a perversion, because morality doesnt exist in their realm. Because, they
dont have a conscience and it was not to an ape that the Ten Commandments
were given!
Homosexuality was brought forth in nature, by evolution, as natures
population control! If homosexuality was abnormal, purposeless and
perverted, evolution would have eliminated it from the nature long
back.
I like to begin comment with a brief transcript of an interesting conversation I
found somewhere on the web.
"Procreation, Mr Denson, is a creative force. Those who bring life into the world
are vital. Those who secure lifes essential balance, preventing extinction ... they
are crucial. How do homosexuals secure the species, Mr Denson. I mean as
sexual beings?

We preserve the species. We are conservation realized. We provide natures ...

restraint ... on procreative extravagance. We keep human production from
becoming ... overproduction ... pollution ... destruction unbridled. We keep the
human race from becoming ... an obscene cosmic joke.
This is actually a lovely hypothesis. I like the scientific reasoning, behind this
argument. But it is nevertheless unsubstantiated. It comes from a wrong
understanding of the theory of evolution, its principles or simply put, how
evolution works! First of all evolution (in the biological sense) only acts on
genetic elements which code for physical traits. And we know that
homosexuality is not really a genetic trait or variant in the pure sense of the
word and has complex origins (as we will discuss in a bit). And hence it is not
directly under any sort of evolutionary pressure either to become a dominant
character or get totally eliminated from among the human species.
But let us for once assume that homosexual orientation is in fact purely a genetic
trait capable of being influenced by evolutionary pressures. The only standpoint
of evolution is that species will favour traits that ensure survival and eliminate
those that dont. Evolution isn't anybodys uncle; it doesn't have an opinion
about those traits in particular. Any normal variation that doesn't affect the
species as a whole negatively sticks around. That's why we have red-heads and
left handed people. White hair was a variation that died out during the Black
Death, because people with white hair turned out to be less resistant. So far, the
existence of an occasional gay person has not negatively affected the species, so
it remains a normal variation. This is the reason that it is not eliminated, not
because it is not abnormal, purposeless or a perversion.
While we clearly see that the argument is definitely not convincing scientifically,
the actual reason for framing such arguments is nothing other than to justify
homosexuality. Even if a scientifically convincing argument was brought forth, it
cannot attack the moral status of homosexuality.
Some people are biologically wired (oriented) this way during foetal
brain development. It is as natural and normal and an unalterable
aspect of identity as being left-handed or having green eyes. It is not
unnatural or abnormal, it is just uncommon.
The crux of the argument here is that, truly homosexual people are built in a
particular way by design and cannot change or perhaps, shouldnt be?
Dont plastic surgeons rectify the abnormality in babies born with cleft palate? Or
do we just say, No, that shouldnt be done. That they should not be forced into
getting reconstructed into having similar facial features like the majority. That we
just have to accept this uncommon variation in nature as it is and just learn to
respect it. Do we? Well, I know that cleft palate is not even a good comparison
and thats not really my argument.
My counter-argument is this: while there are several factors which contribute to
developing a homosexual orientation right from embryogenesis till death, no
one is brought forth into the world as a rigid piece of robotic material completely
wired with a default homosexual program. The potential for heterosexuality is
present in every single human being, because God put it there.

But to really understand this, we need to look at how homosexual orientation

develops in an individual. Let me very briefly explain the biological basis of
sexuality. We define sexuality in 4 levels, in the same order that it develops.
The first tier is chromosomal sex. This is sexuality defined at the level of
chromosomes in terms of the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. If Y is
present, it is a male. This is established at the moment of fertilization by pure
chance.
The second tier is gonadal sex. This simply put, refers to the presence of testes
in males and ovaries in females. Chromosomal sex influences the differentiation
of gonadal sex.
The third tier is phenotypic sex. This refers to the physical forms and
reproductive organs and the sexual anatomy of an individual. This is influenced
by both the chromosomal and gonadal sex. The second and third tiers develop
right from birth till puberty. Defects in any of these three tiers of sexual
differentiation, results in the formation of Intersex individuals (the transgender).
Now, the fourth tier is behavioural sex or sexual orientation. Its development is
quite complex, flexible and even reversible (without medical intervention) unlike
the other three tiers. It is influenced partly by the other three levels of sexual
differentiation and also by several other factors, which Id like to call
preconditions or predisposing conditions
I would like to discuss these preconditions here, classifying them as genetic
and environmental/social factors:
Genetic factors:
The possibility of a gay gene
We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference does
have a genetic component. A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have
a (biological) gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight women to have
gay sisters. In 1993, a study published in the journal Science, showed that
families with two homosexual brothers were very likely to have certain genetic
markers on a region of the X chromosome known as Xq28. This led to media
headlines about the possibility of the existence of a gay gene and discussions
about the ethics of aborting a gay fetus. But, there have also been headlines
about an alcoholism gene, which makes people become alcoholics, and a
warrior gene, which makes people unusually aggressive.
Genes cannot control behaviours completely, though. Genes regulate the
production of amino acids, which combine to form proteins. The existence or
absence of a particular protein can have an effect on things like alcohol tolerance
or mood. Affecting something is not the same as having complete control over it.
Though we do not really have any evidence concerning the actual effect that
such a small genetic element like Xq28 could possibly have on the development
of sexual orientation, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Environmental factors:
Environment, like genetics, plays an important role in how our behaviour
develops.

Alcoholism runs in families not only because there is a genetic component to

alcoholism, but also because children learn how to cope with stress by watching
how their parents and their older siblings behave in stressful situations. If you
come from a culture where alcohol consumption is forbidden, it will be difficult
for you to become an alcoholic, no matter how your body metabolizes alcohol.
There are factors besides a warrior gene that contribute to aggression.
Children learn to behave aggressively when they witness aggression being
rewarded. If you grew up in a family or as part of a culture where aggression was
not well accepted, you would be less likely to be aggressive. You would learn,
from an early age, how to control your aggressive tendencies.
Similarly our environment affects our sexual and romantic relationships.
Throughout history, marriages have been influenced by family relations and by
economic needs. People adhere to cultural constraints of monogamy despite
being attracted to people other than their spouses.
Your culture and morality affects your views on homosexuality.
In some societies, homosexuality is accepted, in others, it is frowned upon but
tolerated, in yet others, it is a serious criminal offense, possibly punishable by
death. Male homosexual behaviour was expected in ancient Athens. Today, ritual
male homosexuality plays an important role in some cultures in New Guinea.
Your upbringing can influence what you find desirable and what you find
repulsive. Most Americans would be probably be nauseated if they learned that,
when they thought they had been eating beef, they were, in fact, eating dog,
even though there is nothing inherently unhealthy about dog meat. What you
have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether
you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting. Some
people might argue that if you are genetically gay but the thought of
homosexuality nauseates you, then you just havent accepted the fact that you
really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference
is purely biological. It is not.
Broken homes and hurtful relationships as well as a history of abuse, have been
shown to be very important recurring factors in lives of homosexuals. I havent
really researched about this, so will not be delving much into it. This aspect can
be elaborated further by one of you, perhaps.
The last environmental factor that I thought of, more of a social factor really, is
that sensitive and gentle temperament or behaviour is not considered acceptably
masculine in our culture and this segment of the society is encouraged to
identify themselves as gay. The whole LGBT movement in itself could be a factor
which confuses people about their sexual orientation.
The argument that a gay brain is different from a straight brain
In 1991, a study published in the journal Science (again), seemed to show that
the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary
gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men. The third
interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was found to be more
than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. A later study,
which was performed in 2001, showed that in gay men, neurons in the INAH3 are
packed more closely together than in straight men.

PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the
brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual women than in
heterosexual men and homosexual women. These studies have also revealed
that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of straight
women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of straight
men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is associated with
the processing of emotions.
Some studies have shown that the corpus callosum the main connection
between the two halves of the brain- has a different structure in gay men than in
straight men. Also, gay women and gay men are more likely to be left-handed or
ambidextrous than straight women and straight men, according to a number of
different studies. Some researchers have suggested that this difference in
handedness preference for one hand over the other can be observed in
foetuses - is related to differences in the corpus callosum.
We also know from rat studies, that exposure to sex hormones in the womb
during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By
manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in
homosexual behaviour later on. The inference is that your brain was influencing
your sexual preference even before you were born. This can explain why many
gay people feel that they have always been gay.
Brain development does not stop at birth, though.
A large amount of brain development takes place during childhood, when you are
learning many new things including how your family and the adults around you
believe you should feel about things and what they believe is acceptable
behaviour.
The education you receive as a child strongly affects how your brain will develop
as you grow. For example, children who are given musical training, experience
changes to areas of the brain associated with hearing and motor control.
With the right experiences, your brain can change even after you have reached
adulthood (neuroplasticity).
Both London taxi drivers and professional piano tuners showed increases in grey
matter in areas of the brain associated with the skills needed for their
professions. The size of the increase in grey matter correlated with the numbers
of years of experience. In one experiment, elderly subjects showed increases in
grey matter in certain parts of their brains after they were taught to juggle. With
proper rehabilitation, it was possible for people who have suffered brain damage
from strokes to physically develop new neural connections and regain some of
their old skills.
In fact much of the anatomical differences found between gay and straight
individuals could be due to this neuroplasticity, which physically transformed
their brains due to the environmental factors that we discussed, rather than
being born with different brains in the first place. The only sure way to confirm
would be to have a brain scan of an individual at birth and after he grows to
become a self-proclaimed homosexual! But the interesting thing is that, even if
people were born with these physical differences in the brain, they could

change their brains - again through environmental factors, thanks to

neuroplasticity!

Now, after all that long lecture, I hope weve come to a pretty good
understanding of how sexual orientation develops in an individual and the
various predisposing conditions which mould it.
We have two kinds of homosexuals: Those who made a pure rebellious choice or
just started experimenting (without any preconditions) and those who made the
choice pressurized from the preconditions we mentioned before. Both classes
of people have the choice aspect and they chose!
Ill end, with this conclusion. Because we are made in the image of God, we can
choose how we handle and respond to the various preconditions that may
contribute to a homosexual orientation. Current thinking (as we saw) says that
our behaviour is determined by our environment and our genes. But the Bible
gives us the dignity and responsibility missing from that mechanistic view of life.
God has invested us with free willthe ability to make real, significant choices.
We can choose our responses to the influences on our lives, or we can choose to
let them control us. Someone with a predisposition for homosexuality may fall
into the sin of the homosexual behaviour much more easily than a person
without it, just like the sin of intellectual pride for an intelligent fellow. But each
of us alone is responsible for giving ourselves permission to cross over from
temptation into sin.

Can homosexuals change?

It is certainly true that most homosexuals never become heterosexualsome
because they don't want to, but most others because their efforts to change
were unsuccessful. It takes spiritual submission and much emotional work to
repent of sexual sin and achieve a healthy self-concept that glorifies God by
cooperating with Him in being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom.
12:2).

But for the person caught in the trap of homosexual desires who wants sexual
and emotional wholeness, there is hope in Christ. In addressing the church at
Corinth, the Apostle Paul lists an assortment of deep sins, including homosexual
offenses. He says,

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified,
you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11).

This means there were former homosexuals in the church at Corinth! The Lord's
loving redemption includes eventual freedom for allsin that is yielded to Him.
Some (rare) people experience no homosexual temptations ever again. But for
most others who are able to achieve change, homosexual desires are gradually
reduced from a major problem to a minor nuisance that no longer dominates
their lives. The probability of heterosexual desires returning or emerging
depends on a person's sexual history.