Seems like today might be a good day to go over the basics as to what the New Testament says about homosexuality. It speaks to it clearly and unequivocally. From there we can move on to deal with related issues.
First, the New Testament speaks plainly to homosexuality. It describes it in remarkably frank detail.
heidelblog.net/2014/04/homose…
heidelblog.net/2014/04/homose…
Second, the notion that there are LGBT Christians is nonsense. There are Christians who have a history of LGBT orientation and behavior. There are Christians who struggle with SSA just as there Christians who were thieves and idolaters, who continue to struggle with those sins.
We must stop talking, however, about LGBT or Gay Christians. Such a way of thinking and speaking is completely foreign to the New Testament.
"Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you" (1 Cor 6:9-11).
From the outside, it *seems* as if the Revoice Conference celebrates celibate homosexuality as heroic but Carl Trueman is right. It isn't:
heidelblog.net/2015/01/it-is-…
heidelblog.net/2015/01/it-is-…
One of the assumptions that I hear expressed regularly (just this week by @joshtweeterson on 1620thezone) is that homosexuality is just like being African American. It isn't. There's no "gay gene." The scientific for homosexuality being biologically determined weak at best.
As late as 1973 homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in the DSM. It was removed about then not because the science changed but because the economics and politics changed. That's why Barack Obama's views "evolved" between '08-'12.
Here's a resource addressing the "it's just like being black" argument.
heidelblog.net/2014/02/the-mi…
heidelblog.net/2014/02/the-mi…
This is the crazy thing about the move to silence/ban counseling of people struggling with homosexuality. Yes, there have been some high profile cases where people left the lifestyle and then went back. So what? Ever attended an AA meeting?
Ask a honest AA/Alanon meeting how many have fallen off the wagon? It happens. That doesn't make being a drunk okay or "just the way I am." Are there people with a predisposition to homosexuality? Sure but...
counselors will tell you that there is usually an underlying case history: an alcoholic parent, an abusive parent (physically, emotionally, sexually) or a relative in the family who made the lifestyle look attractive to a needy teen or substance abuse by the homosexual.
Currently the LGBT "community" and lifestyle gets so much uncritical press and even adulation--name a sitcom where there isn't an obligatory LGBT character. Even in the ostensibly pro-Trump Roseanne show they had an LGBT pre-teen,
This is all really just part of a larger war against nature and the very idea of fixed norms. We've been through this at least twice since the turn of the 20th century but this is the first time with social media (& associated manipulation of it).
During the last sexual revolution from c. '68-78, we had 3 TV channels. Cable was a niche medium. There was no internet. Kids were free to ask questions, doubt, and then grow up. They didn't have a social medium on which
to brand themselves forever as one thing or another. Now doubts are like tattoos. One bad night and you're stuck with it forever. "Coming out" is apolitical act, an association with a political-cultural faction.
To change one's mind about one's sexual interests (as teens often do) is now a form of betrayal. Kids are looking for an identity, a group, and acceptance.
The LGBT movement offers acceptance to needy, scared, lonely kids. Plus it's "cool" now. Identifying with the LGBT world brings affirmation and a sense of belonging. That's not about "sex" per se as much as a kid's own struggles. That certainly isn't about biology.
That much of this is about nature is clear when pre-pubescent children, who have no sexual interest are being groomed by idiot parents to be LGBT, to satisfy their own desire to be perceived as enlightened.
Consider how often females who were (or seemed) quite hetero suddenly, after a bad relationship, come out as homosexual. That's not biology. That's not nature. That's a perverse nurturing. It's hurt and anger manifesting as homosexuality.
In short, by the time one eliminates all the behavioral stimuli, all the various ways that an LGBT identity is nurtured, the percentage of cases where there's no issue regarding nurture becomes quite small.
How and why did the DSM change in the early 70s? Advocacy & noise, not science. From Cantor, Barrett, Black, & Cantor (2006): 
Homosexuality was at least a "disorder" until 1994 (ibid).
What happened at the APA in '73: (Kirk, rev. 2017)
Polanyi was right. All knowing is personal. Were the APA/DSM just about "science" the process of changing the DSM (and consequently the culture and the rhetoric) would have been scientific. It wasn't. It was political.
The change was driven by a desire to fit in, to be accepted, to appease, to be considered enlightened. None of that is science.
