Can You Be Both Homosexual and a Christian? A Look at History, Science, Psychology, and Biblical Truth

Introduction & Intent

To clarify from the start: This article is not rooted in hate, nor does it endorse violence. It's written from a Christian worldview, aiming to examine homosexuality through psychology, biblical teachings, nature, and historical trends. The goal is to inform readers and offer an argument, not to attack individuals. I’ll present the arguments and facts, along with my own perspective, as we go through each section—ending with my final thoughts in the conclusion.

Section 1. Defining “Perversion” & The Role of Nature

Historically, words like pervert and perversion weren’t always used as harsh insults—they once referred to behavior that simply deviated from the norm. Today, the word carries heavier moral weight, but its original context matters: it was used to describe something outside the natural or societal order.

In nature, reproduction is essential to survival, and almost every species relies on a male–female pairing to continue its kind. The overwhelming norm—across plants, animals, insects, and humans—is heterosexual coupling, and the biological function behind it is clear: procreation.

1a. Nature, Reproduction, and Survival

Virtually all species—plants, insects, animals—reproduce through male–female pairing, a biological imperative rooted in survival.

In the kingdom Animalia, there are about 1.5 to 2 million described species, while estimates of total animal species (described + undiscovered) range from 5 million to over 10 million.

1b. Same-Sex Behavior Is Rare and Non-Beneficial

Same-sex behavior has been observed in roughly 1,500 species, which is a tiny fraction—<0.03%—of the ~5 million to 10 million estimated species.

Crucially, these behaviors do not produce offspring or increase genetic diversity. They contribute nothing to species survival or reproductive success.

> There is no observable reproductive or survival benefit in same-sex pairings among animals. They produce no offspring, contribute nothing to the gene pool, and don’t enhance species survival.

In the wild, behavior is dictated by instinct, seasonality, and survival. Animals mate to pass on genetic material and preserve the species—not to express love, social identity, or ideology. When abnormal behaviors occur—like same-sex pairings—they do not provide evolutionary advantages. If anything, they are deviations from the reproductive purpose built into nature.

So, while advocates may argue that same-sex behavior in animals “proves” such tendencies are natural, this ignores the core truth of nature: Nature selects for what ensures survival. And same-sex pairings, no matter how often they appear in data, do not contribute to that.

Therefore, even if occasional same-sex behavior appears in animals, the overwhelming evidence shows it’s:

1. Rare.

2. Non-beneficial, and outside the reproductive design observed in nearly all species.

That makes these behaviors the exception—not the rule—and certainly not justification for redefining what’s natural or healthy in human morality.

Section 2. Sexual Immorality in Biblical & Pagan Histories

Both biblical and ancient records associate sexual immorality—especially same-sex acts—with divine judgment, disease, and cultural decay.

Greek and Roman societies eventually legislated against these practices as part of reclaiming cultural integrity.

From a health perspective, societies that embraced sexual conservatism—especially reproductive marriage—avoided many of these disease risks and societal harms.

Sodom & Gomorrah

In Genesis 18–19, these cities are condemned “because their sin is exceedingly grave,” including sexual immorality and abominable acts. Jude 7 refers to them being “tormented by fire and sulfur” due to unnatural lust. Ancient writers—like Philo and Josephus—described Sodom as a place of sexual violence toward strangers. Many believed the destruction and disease were divine or natural punishments for licentious behavior. In biblical marriage, by contrast, same-sex acts are impossible—and disease outbreaks are not tied to heterosexual unions, reinforcing the belief that moral conduct aligns with divine and natural order.

Greek & Roman Societies

Classical Greece and Rome featured openly accepted practices like temple prostitution, pederasty, and bisexuality among the elite.

But even within Greek culture, criticism emerged—Plato’s Laws calls homosexual sex “utterly unholy, odious to the gods, and ugliest of ugly things”.

Eventually, Greek city-states legally suppressed pederasty and homosexual acts, viewing them as a stain on society. By the Roman era, sexual excess—including homosexual activity—was blamed by Christian writers like Firmicus Maternus and Theodosius I for causing moral decay and societal collapse. Laws were enacted banning same-sex behavior in the late 4th century CE.

Section 3. Links Between Sexual Immorality, Disease & Decline

Historically, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)—like syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV/AIDS—have disproportionately affected non-heterosexual populations:

Syphilis and gonorrhea rates have risen sharply among men who have sex with men since 2000.

A CDC-linked study found men engaging in same-sex behavior had 2.7× higher odds of having any STD.

Homosexual men suffered significantly during the AIDS epidemic; syphilis and HIV remain serious threats.

By comparison, traditionally married heterosexual couples—who engage in monogamous, reproductive sex—are significantly less likely to spread STDs. Jean Alfred Fournier, in an 1880 work titled Syphilis and Marriage, argued that marriage was the surest way to avoid syphilis. In short: no fornication equals no STD.

Section 4a. Health Consequences of Male Same-Sex Behavior

Anal intercourse, common among male same-sex couples, can lead to damage of the anal lining, increasing susceptibility to infections (including enteric diseases, HPV, and anorectal cancers)—risks not seen in vaginal intercourse within traditional marriage.

Over time, these health challenges can result in chronic disease, pain, and reduced lifespan—as documented in medical sources.

Section 4b. Mental Health Challenges for Lesbians

• Higher rates of depression and anxiety: Lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to experience depression and anxiety compared to heterosexual women. Factors contributing to this include discrimination, rejection by loved ones, and lack of social support.

• Increased risk of suicide: Studies have shown that lesbian youth are particularly vulnerable to suicidal ideation. For instance, a UK study found that 74% of lesbian youth reported having experienced suicidal thoughts .

• Substance use disorders: Lesbian and bisexual women have higher rates of alcohol and drug use than heterosexual women. This includes increased use of tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine, which can lead to various health issues.

1. Internalized Homophobia

   • Many lesbians raised in conservative or religious environments experience guilt and shame over their sexual orientation, especially if they've been taught it’s morally wrong.

   • This internal conflict (feeling same-sex attraction while believing it is sinful or wrong) has been directly linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts (Source: American Psychological Association).

2. Religious and Moral Conflict

   • Lesbians from faith-based backgrounds often struggle with spiritual guilt, feeling they are in conflict with their God, church, or upbringing.

   • This unresolved guilt frequently leads to major depressive episodes and feelings of worthlessness.

3. Social and Familial Guilt

   • Guilt over disappointing parents, family, or cultural expectations can also weigh heavily.

   • Fear of letting others down or being disowned creates chronic stress and sadness, which feeds into depression.

4. Behavioral Guilt

   • Beyond orientation, some feel guilt over sexual behavior, especially if engaging in risky sexual activity, serial relationships, or violating their own moral boundaries.

Section 5. The More Recent Past (Facts Only)

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) first classified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1952 with the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, First Edition (DSM-I).

Details:

In DSM-I (1952), homosexuality was listed under “Sociopathic Personality Disturbance” and described as a sexual deviation.

Here are the ten historical clinical findings that supported the psychiatric classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder prior to its removal from the DSM in 1973

1. Homosexuality was the result of abnormal or arrested psychological development, often linked to dysfunctional family dynamics such as an overbearing mother or absent father.

2. Homosexuality was biologically unnatural, since it did not lead to reproduction and therefore was seen as a deviation from the natural purpose of sex.

3. Social disapproval of homosexuality indicated a deeper mental illness, meaning that if society rejected it, it must be psychologically disordered.

4. Lack of heterosexual attraction was considered a sexual dysfunction, implying that a healthy individual would naturally desire the opposite sex.

5. Homosexuality was associated with sociopathic or deviant behavior and was grouped in the same diagnostic category as criminal or immoral acts like pedophilia, voyeurism, or fetishism.

6. Homosexuality could be cured or reversed, using psychoanalysis, aversion therapy, or other forms of treatment aimed at converting individuals to heterosexuality.

7. Homosexuality was symptomatic of deeper neurosis, often interpreted as a manifestation of unresolved internal conflicts or psychological trauma.

8. Homosexual individuals were prone to other mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety, or suicidal tendencies, believed to be caused by their orientation rather than external circumstances.

9. Homosexuality involved confusion or rejection of gender identity, with the belief that individuals failed to properly identify with their own sex or exhibited envy of the opposite sex.

10. Homosexual behavior was inherently compulsive or addictive, characterized by a supposed inability to form stable, monogamous relationships and a drive toward excessive sexual activity.

In DSM-II (1968), it was moved under a broader category of “sexual deviations” but remained listed as a mental illness.

What was used to form these criteria:

1. Freudian psychoanalysis

   • Much of early psychiatric thought leaned heavily on Freud, who theorized that everyone was born bisexual and developed heterosexuality through proper psychosexual development.

   • Homosexuality was seen as a failure to resolve the Oedipus complex or as a result of gender identity confusion.

2. Case studies

   • Many early beliefs were drawn from individual therapy sessions, where patients—usually already in distress—were seen as “proof” of the pathology of homosexuality.

3. Clinical impressions

   • Psychiatrists often relied on their own moral or cultural judgments in interpreting behavior.

   • These impressions were then published in early psychiatric literature and reinforced among colleagues.

Section 5. The movement (Facts only)

1970: The movement of change began gaining momentum during the APA annual meeting in San Francisco, where gay activists disrupted sessions and directly challenged psychiatric findings.

1971–72: Activists like Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings continued organizing at APA events, forming the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Psychiatrists group, and drafted persistent appeals demanding change.

Activists, and influential voices like John E. Fryer in 1972 (as “Dr. H. Anonymous”), pressured the APA to reconsider.

On December 15, 1973, APA’s Board officially removed homosexuality from the DSM:

> “by itself, homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being a psychiatric disorder…”.

In 1987, remaining diagnoses like “ego-dystonic homosexuality” were finally removed.

Section 6. What was the argument to discredit the old criteria

What the 10 findings lacked according to detractors:

• Controlled studies with randomized participants

• Longitudinal research showing cause and effect

• Distinction between correlation and causation

• Consideration of external social stressors, such as stigma or criminalization

  
  

In summary:

The ten “clinical findings” were determined by detractors to not be rooted in conclusive scientific evidence. They argued that the criteria were shaped by:

• Psychoanalytic theory (mainly Freudian)

• Biased case studies

• Societal values and religious norms of the time

• Lack of large-scale, controlled, peer-reviewed research

So, while psychiatry presented these ideas as professional “findings,” they were largely speculative and untested, according to the detractors, which is why they eventually collapsed under scrutiny in the 1960s and '70s.

It was in the late 1950s and 1960s that so-called new research started to undermine the old psychiatric claims that would ultimately lead to the overturn. Here are some examples:

• Evelyn Hooker’s landmark 1957 study Compared projective psychological test results (like the Rorschach) between gay and straight men. Result: Clinicians could not reliably distinguish them; gay men were as psychologically healthy as straight men. Impact: This study was a major blow to the assumption that homosexuality was inherently pathological.

  
  

• Kinsey Reports (1948, 1953) Alfred Kinsey’s massive surveys showed that same-sex attraction and behavior were far more common than previously believed. Impact: Suggested that homosexuality wasn’t rare or aberrant—just underreported.

  
  

• Growing body of psychiatric literature Studies began to show that mental distress among gay people was more tied to societal rejection than to orientation itself.

  
  

Section 7. Activist Pressure

Scientific studies weren’t enough on their own. The turning point came with public protest and strategic activism:

• Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings Organized protests at APA conferences, including signs reading “Psychiatry is the Enemy Incarnate.”

  
  

• Dr. John Fryer’s 1972 speech revealing how the APA’s classification forced people like him (a gay man) into secrecy and professional isolation.

  
  

• Direct debate within the APA Gay activists and sympathetic psychiatrists pushed to challenge the validity of the original diagnosis, arguing it was rooted in cultural bias, not science.

  
  

  Conclusion: The APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. What were the causes:

• Scientific research (like Hooker’s) showed no evidence of inherent pathology

• Activists exposed the unscientific basis and cultural bias behind the diagnosis

• Internal pressure from gay professionals (like Fryer and Spiegel) forced the organization to self-examine

So, while studies did challenge the disorder claim, it was only when combined with social pressure and moral arguments that the APA finally acted.

Section 8. Personal Stakes & Gains Among Key Figures

Dr. John E. Fryer (“Dr. Henry Anonymous”)

Motive: Fryer was himself a closeted gay man. His dramatic 1972 speech, delivered under disguise, helped the cause.

Dr. John P. Spiegel (APA President‑Elect, 1973)

Closeted at the time. Spiegel was a gay man who remained hidden during his term. He used his influential presidential position to support the DSM changes. Motive: His own identity was central to shaping policy. Gay normalization was personal to him.

Dr. Alfred Freedman (APA President, 1972)

Leadership role: Freedman guided the APA through the decisive 1973 vote, endorsing Robert Spitzer’s motion to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Known for advocating social justice, Freedman viewed this as the most significant achievement of his tenure. Motive: This movement built his reputation as a progressive leader. LGBTQ movement at any cost philosophy.

Dr. Lawrence Hartmann (APA President, 1991–92)

Motive: LGBTQ movement at any cost. Hartmann played a central role in the APA’s 1973 action and later worked to solidify LGBTQ civil rights in the 1990s.

Dr. Charles Silverstein (Psychologist & Activist)

A psychology graduate student in 1973. Motive: Gay normalcy. Silverstein testified against the disease model and later authored resources like The Joy of Gay Sex. While he profited modestly through his writing and founding LGBTQ organizations. His findings were proven false by actual science.

Section 9. Were the Studies That Removed the Diagnosis Any Better?

The research used to challenge the psychiatric classification of homosexuality was not much more scientifically rigorous than the assumptions it replaced. While it aimed to undo cultural bias, it often lacked hard biological or behavioral data. For example:

• Evelyn Hooker’s 1957 study did not measure behavior, biology, or long-term mental health outcomes. It relied on psychological testing (Rorschach, TAT, MAPS) to show that gay men appeared just as “well-adjusted” as heterosexuals in personality tests—something critics point out says little about actual behavior, morality, or societal impact.

• Kinsey’s reports in the 1940s–50s showed that homosexual acts were relatively common—but frequency doesn’t equal normality, morality, or psychological health. Kinsey also controversially blurred lines between consensual and deviant acts in his data, further undermining its objectivity. My take: He was an evil man, a pervert and pedophile.

In truth, both the original diagnosis and the arguments used to remove it were not grounded in robust, long-term scientific studies—they were built on shifting values, cultural momentum, and politicized science which is also done today.

What This Shows:

• The original DSM classification relied on assumptions tied to tradition and Freudian theory.

• The removal in 1973 relied on social activism and limited psychological studies—not conclusive evidence about behavior, biology, or outcomes.

Many argue neither side had strong empirical science at the time. Psychiatry was responding to public pressure as much as—or more than—scientific consensus.

Section 10. Choice & the Christian View

Modern LGBTQ advocates assert sexual orientation is inherent, not chosen.

Christian perspective: acknowledging behavior as sin is vital for repentance and salvation—not hatred. Accepting homosexuality as moral a result of pride and deception, conflicting with biblical teachings on sin and repentance.

Expansion of LGBTQ+ Visibility & Children

There's no debate that LGBTQ movement has escalated—from pursuing civil rights to advocating for fluid gender identities and inclusion of children, which is seen as grooming. This is not debatable because the timeline from Gay marriage till where we are today proves this. Examples: Trans reading to kids, LGBTQ books for kids and activism to make them forced material in curriculums, clubs in schools formed through non-profits to indoctrinate children and push LGBTQ agendas, etc.

The Medical Hypocrisy: Major mental health bodies oppose “conversion” therapy; also oppose any policies facilitating minors in hormone treatment without safeguards.

Laws in California and elsewhere prohibit conversion therapy for minors, not orientation per se.

The LGBTQ movement as continually expanding in ideology and societal influence. The solution is for society—especially Christians—to push back on what you call propaganda and reaffirm biblical morality.

The "God is love" debate. Let's see what the bible says:

Luke 6:32 (KJV)

“For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them.”

• Luke 6:33 (KJV)

  “And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thanks have ye? for even sinners do even the same.”

• Luke 6:34 (KJV)

  “And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thanks have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.” 

This is just to prove that you can be a sinner and still love. So, if you think God gives a pass to sin because you love your gay partner than you should know that doesn't make it not a sin. It just makes you a sinning lover. You can love all sorts of sins. You can love violence, you can love money, you can love power, you can love murder, none of this is pleasing to God. But how do we know if gay love or transgenderism is a sin. Let's see what the bible says:

Verses Stating Marriage & Sex Are Between a Man and a Woman:

1. Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

“Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

2. Matthew 19:4–5 (KJV) (Jesus quoting Genesis)

“And he answered and said unto them, have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

3. Mark 10:6–8 (KJV)

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

4. Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

“Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” - So, to not be confused, he clarified who and what marriage is first. There is no substituting a man and man or woman and woman or anything other than a man and a woman for marriage.

Verses Stating Homosexual Behavior Is Sin:

1. Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

2. Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

3. Romans 1:26–27 (KJV)

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another…”

4. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (KJV)

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…”

Verses Addressing Transgender Behavior / Gender Confusion:

1. Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

My full conclusion:

Let me first start by stating that the homosexual individual is not a sinner just because he or she is homosexual. It’s the homosexual act—the sex itself—that is the sin. This article has already covered the facts: the disease risks, the inability to procreate within that lifestyle, and the historical downfall of societies where this perversion spreads and intensifies when left unchecked. We are literally witnessing that in our time.

As stated, we went from it being classified as a mental disorder, to overturning that classification, to being “in the closet,” to pushing for gay marriage, to forcing it into movies and schools, to transgender individuals reading to children at libraries, to biological males competing against women in sports. Where this is heading is easy to see. When you start passing laws that allow teens to sleep with older individuals—laws that many see as tailor-made to benefit gay offenders—you can see this is all part of a broader loosening of moral standards tied to this movement.

But let’s switch gears here.

Notice how many of the people who were prominent in pushing for the change—removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders—were themselves gay. This isn’t surprising. It’s been proven time and again that people don’t like being told what they’re doing is wrong. The lust of the flesh is so strong that evil will find a way to force society to accept it as normal.

The individual gay person isn’t the biggest problem. The real danger is that an entire organization—the LGBTQ movement—has grown from simply telling people not to be ashamed of their sin to outright celebrating and spreading that sin. You know who else had this as their mantra? Aleister Crowley, who believed in total “Do as thou wilt” living—the idea that fulfilling the flesh was all that mattered. He’s the same man who inspired much of modern Satanic thought and is often credited as a foundational influence behind the Satanic Bible.

God says without recognizing sin, there will never be repentance. Without repentance, there will never be salvation. That’s what saddens me the most. The LGBTQ has confused so many.

As we’ve also seen, statistics and narratives can easily be manipulated. LGBTQ activists often say their high suicide rates are mostly because of religious shame and social rejection. I say it’s something deeper: the soul is at odds within them. The guilt they feel is not because of religious people—it’s because deep down, the human soul doesn’t want to be condemned. That’s what guilt is for. It’s a warning system built into us. But this community has been lifted up by the demonic LGBTQ agenda, which tells them the guilt they feel is everyone else’s fault.

They twist statistics to make their case—focusing on how many have “thought about” suicide while ignoring the fact that most people, including Christians, have had dark thoughts at some point in life. What they also don’t mention is that suicide is statistically far less likely among Christians—not because Christians feel accepted by the world, but because they know they’re accepted by God. That’s something the LGBTQ narrative can’t explain or come to grips with. Nearly all hardcore sin comes with suicidal thoughts—drug use, porn addiction, and just about every other sin under the sun. Sin is the problem, not societal norms. The norms exist simply to let you know you’re going about things the wrong way.

And if you want proof that being gay is a choice? Look at the many people who practiced the lifestyle for years and later walked away from it—by choice. Even Little Richard, a pop culture icon who lived the gay lifestyle, later renounced it and returned to Christianity. (Reference: Little Richard interviews, including his 2017 public statements condemning homosexuality as unnatural and reaffirming biblical values before his death.)

He changed. Why? You guessed it—because he wanted to. It was always a choice. It’s just that many in the gay community don’t want to change. It’s hard. Getting out of deep sin is never easy. The flesh wants what it loves. So, to save face, they act as if their hand is being forced—that they have no choice. Nonsense. If that were true, then it should go right back to being classified as a mental disorder or a disease. But the LGBTQ movement doesn’t want these labels. Why? Because it destroys their argument for normalcy.

If homosexuality were labeled a disorder, it couldn’t be spread through pop culture, academia, or public schools. They’d lose their ability to groom the next generation—and generations to come. But see for yourself. If you don’t want to accept the biblical account, which clearly labels this as damaging to both the soul and the mind, then here’s the man-made clinical view that so many homosexuals rely on instead.

 Medical Disease Consensus (Current View):

• Organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) define addiction—whether to drugs, alcohol, gambling, or even behaviors like sex addiction—as a chronic brain disease.

• It’s often called a “chronic relapsing brain disease”, meaning it affects brain chemistry, decision-making, and behavior, with biological, psychological, and environmental factors all playing a role.

Why They Call It a Disease:

• Changes in brain structure and function have been documented in people with addiction (affecting dopamine, impulse control, etc.).

• It has predictable patterns (craving, compulsion, tolerance, withdrawal).

• It often requires long-term treatment and management, like other chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes).

Psychology itself favors this argument. If you teach your children early enough—if you give them structure and clarity—there’s no confusion growing up. What’s truly harmful and demonic is this modern idea that you should not guide your children—that you should just let them “figure it out” in a world full of evil and perversion.

The Bible is clear: the world is evil. And it also commands us to raise good, God-loving children. So why would you let an evil world teach and pervert your kids? Jesus Himself said, “Let the children come to me.” That’s a call for parents to teach their kids His Word and truth.

And for those who try to lie and say Jesus never said anything about homosexuality—that’s a lie, too. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law of Moses. In those books—written under God’s instruction—it was clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. There’s no loophole here. No gray area. Just truth.

Besides the individual, another issue is being ignored. It’s not about rights—it’s about psychology, culture, and how society slowly conforms. Look at where we are today. This is not progress. Sin being lifted is not progress. This didn’t happen overnight. It unfolded over time. Something that started hidden and quiet gradually gained power and influence. What began as a call for privacy turned into something louder, bolder, and now fully demanding affirmation. It doesn’t stop at equality—it demands validation and celebration.

In every civilization that leaned too far into sexual liberty, things eventually fell apart. The cracks didn’t appear right away, but they always came. Societies grew soft, self-obsessed, and started inventing problems where none existed. One of the clearest warning signs is always the shift in how sexuality is treated. The more a society makes sexual freedom part of its identity, the more it loses its grip on discipline, responsibility, and legacy.

The LGBTQ movement isn’t about tolerance anymore—it’s about recruitment. Because it can’t reproduce, it must convert. It targets the youth—not all at once, but gradually. It keeps pushing boundaries: redefining gender, childhood, and morality itself. And if you speak up, you’re labeled hateful. But it’s not hate to call something what it is.

The problem isn’t individuals making private choices. It’s the organized movement itself. It needs constant attention, space, and validation to survive. And if you don’t give it that, it comes for you. This is a movement built on pride—an emotion that, by its very nature, demands to be seen, heard, and celebrated. An abundance of pride is also a sin.

You can’t debate people who have already made up their minds. It’s not about truth to them—it’s about controlling the narrative. Most people who defend it don’t actually care about logic; they care about being accepted by the group. That’s why so many go along with it. It’s easier to agree than it is to be honest.

We live in a world where right and wrong are now reversed. Where standing for anything moral is seen as offensive.

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Reprobate Mind Verse – Romans 1:28 (KJV)

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

But evil works in cunning and deceptive ways. It frames arguments to appear untouchable, making them difficult to challenge—at least in their own minds, among their allies, and within the unwise masses. They’ll say things like, “You don’t understand how we feel,” or “How can you know if you’re not gay?” The answer is simple: we were all born with original sin. Every one of us has sinful struggles we have to deal with. Committing a homosexual sin is no greater than committing adultery or any other similar sin. Most sins are equal in God’s eyes.

And let’s not play the “Why are you just picking on me?” game. This has nothing to do with targeting individuals. If there were a group demanding the same attention and openly celebrating their adultery, they would receive the same backlash. That’s the real issue here—the LGBTQ movement is simply the loudest and proudest group of sinners right now.

But, to answer the question posed in this article’s title: Yes, you can be a Christian if you’re a homosexual—but only if you recognize the act as a sin. Once that person does that, there’s hope that one day they may stop practicing the sin and grow closer to God. And when that day comes, he or she would no longer be a homosexual in action or identity.

As for society, history shows that when civilizations trade truth for comfort, there’s always a price to pay. Thank you for reading, and God bless.

Visit theinforminator.net homepage for more insightful articles!