Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2000 Feb 19;320(7233):514.

Bible's stance on homosexuality

Bible shows no understanding of homosexual orientation as mutually supportive and affirming

Alan Sheard 1
PMCID: PMC1127544  PMID: 10678878

Editor—Wayte quotes selectively from the national survey on sexuality about the prevalence of homosexuality.1 He is doing exactly what I reported in my personal view—distorting the evidence.

He says that the “Bible references to homosexuality clearly show that they are disapproving of homosexual activity (not orientation).”1 Experts in biblical interpretation believe that in biblical times there was no understanding of the modern view of homosexual orientation as mutually supportive and affirming.2,3 Wayte is right in saying that the Bible's stance is not to “bash homosexuals.” Leviticus chapter 20, verse 13 reads: “If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death.” So the Bible's stance is not just to bash homosexuals but to murder them. Why Wayte or anyone else wants to associate themselves with such barbarous and inhuman texts is beyond my comprehension.

Wayte comments on the medical risks of homosexual activity by which he presumably means anal intercourse. But only two thirds of gay men take part in anal intercourse while as many as one third of heterosexuals do so. This means that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have anal intercourse.4 Wayte's criticisms should therefore be primarily addressed to heterosexuals. And the national survey found that there is no great disparity between numbers of partners overall.

Wayte says that the use of the word homophobia in this context is incorrect. A recent survey of 4000 known homosexuals and bisexuals has shown that 34% of gay men and 24% of lesbians had experienced physical violence and 73% had been taunted in the previous five years because of their sexuality.5 This is clear evidence of the “extreme abnormal fear or aversion to” homosexuality which Wayte rightly quotes as a correct (though ungrammatical) definition of homophobia.

References

  • 1.Wayte C. Bible is disapproving of homosexual activity but not homosexual orientation. BMJ. 1999;319:123. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7202.123b. . (10 July.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vasey M. Friends and strangers. London: Hodder and Stoughton; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Reiss M. Homosexuality and schools—a Christian perspective. London: National Children's Bureau; 1999. . (Sex education forum lecture 1 July.) [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bell R. ABC of sexual health: Homosexual men and women. BMJ. 1999;318:452–455. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7181.452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Health Education Authority. Mental health promotion and sexual identity. London: HEA; 1998. [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 2000 Feb 19;320(7233):514.

Summary of rapid responses


We received 12 responses to the letter by Wayte replying to Shearer's personal view that some Christian documents misrepresent the sources they quote.1-1 Only one response from the 11 respondents (seven of whom declared themselves to be gay) was supportive of Wayte's position. The rest were highly critical of Wayte's thesis and of the BMJ for publishing his letter.

“What the Bible has to say about homosexuality is of no interest in a scientific discussion, but Wayte's claim that the Bible is ‘disapproving of homosexuality ... to protect people from dangerous behaviour’—that is, HIV infection—is fanciful in the extreme, given that the authors of the Bible cannot have had knowledge of HIV” (P Bailey).

“I had no idea that the Bible was written in the early 1980s in response to the AIDS crisis.... I am not sure of the figures for young people unable to reconcile their sexuality and their faith who harm or kill themselves each year but I hardly think the Bible's stance assists these people either” (P Barron).

Having studied the experiences of gay and bisexual men in primary care, B Cant defines the existence of homoscepticism—“a lack of awareness of gay social networks and a lack of appreciation of the values, connections and desires that bind these networks together.” He argues that it is “preventing gay men from getting the primary health care they need.” J S Dawson adds: “Whether the Church condones such activity or not is irrelevant, we as health professionals should remain impartial and eager to offer help and advice to whoever, whatever their sexual orientation.”

Respondents were not only sceptical about the relevance of the Bible to health matters but also puzzled by the BMJ publishing Bible based medicine. G Rimar begins: “It surprises me that a medical journal sees fit to discuss health issues from a biblical perspective,” while K C Crosby ends declaring his competing interest as “the overriding belief that theological debates have no place in medical science.” C Ward concludes: “In an era when we are supposed to be practising evidence based medicine I am surprised to see the Bible in the reference list.”

References


Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES