You should be aware that homosexuals use many subtle and not so subtle tactics to overlay their sexual behaviors with credibility. With the  advent of gay marriage and its cottage industry of religious and political support, homosexuals have been largely successful at obscuring the truth about their sexual behavior with some rather domesticated terminology. As a precursor to gay marriage, homosexuals begin adding the identifier “long term” to their relationship statuses.  For instance, media might report: “John Q. Private and his long term partner John E. Public attended a play”.  After some time an additional identifier was added to the mix:  committed. These intentionally undefined identifiers sent messages to the public that homosexual relationships were not the highly promiscuous, anonymous sex romps critics claimed they were. More importantly, it conveyed that homosexual relationships embodied longevity just like heterosexual relationships. And basically the only “proof” we have of the alleged longevity is the words of the gay couples. There is no external independent source to verify any of the claims.

While long term gay relationships may be an admirable trait in the human context of reasoning, does longevity make homosexual relationship good in God’s eyes?

Liberty Christian Ministries takes an indepth look at how apologetic arguments supporting the ideology just doesn’t add up.

“The argument that gay relationships are morally justifiable because some last long enough can itself be challenged by consequentialist anecdote.  The founder of Liberty Ministries, Christopher Keane, wrote his testimony in a book called ‘Choices’, and in it, he talks about the phantom of long-term committed gay relationships.  Chris lived in the gay community for about 30 years, but found that the long-term relationships were a myth: “One of the popular beliefs in the gay culture was that of the faithful, long-term relationship.  It was portrayed as being exactly the same as heterosexual marriage except it was [just] with a person of the same-sex.  But where were these faithful and happy relationships?  I certainly hadn’t experienced any, and I was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the promiscuity that, in my experience, was an integral part of the homosexual community” (‘Choices: One Person’s Journey out of Homosexuality, Acorn Press: Brunswick East, Victoria, p. 30).  He continues: “Although [my gay partner and I] had each spent about 15 years as active homosexuals, we couldn’t think of any couple we knew who was in a faithful relationship.  In fact, we could think of very few – including ourselves – who were even happy.  The couples we knew had sex with others as well as their partners.  Often the partners knew about the infidelity, but sometimes they didn’t.  Some of these couples had group sex or anonymous sex … We knew of no one who was in a faithful relationship … We all seemed to be on a merry-go-round of alcohol, drugs, and promiscuous sex, waiting for Mr Wonderful to come along and rescue us … I came to the conclusion [one] afternoon that between us we had spent 30 years chasing something that just did not exist” (pp. 30-31, emphasis that of the author). There is much to be said about this, particularly the faulty assumption that gay relationships are equally the same as heterosexual ones.”

Its clear from recent polls and studies that homosexuals have  a vastly different view of  how fidelity in marriage is lived out. Many hold disdain for the “heterosexist ” model but yet demand their convoluted version of it be called by the same name. Thus, without foundational moral restrictions in relationships (such as the 7th commandment found in Ex 20:14), homosexuals are free to redefine literally everything about marriage and relationships again while co-opting the common terminology. Review the Family Research Council’s report Comparing the lifestyles of homosexual couples to married couples.

LCM used a parable of  Jesus which teaches about the issue of sin and its consequences, in Luke 16:19-31 to highlight that believers should view sin and its fruit as from God’s perspective.  Three important points:

1) The rich man, who ends up in hell, seemed to be- in this life- a good man.  Everything went well for him: he was rich, wore robes of purple (which means loaded with wealth in the ancient world).  Looking at his life from a consequentialist perspective, he looked like he had it all together.  He was influential and denied himself nothing.  The poor man, on the other hand, was probably looked at as accursed because his life was lived in sickening poverty: as a modern American would say, he deserved what he got because he didn’t ‘make the most’ of his ‘opportunities’;

2) Despite what lives they seemed to have in their earthly lives, the rich ends up in hell and the poor ends up in heaven.  Why?  Because the poor man listened to his maker and had a relationship with God.  The rich man was self-sufficient, self-focused, secure in self, and had no room in his heart for God or anyone else.  That sounds identical to the world we live in today, where people spend more money on their plasma screen TVs than they do on loving the poor and giving their lives to Jesus.  But notice where the two men end up.

3) The rich man, as altruistic as he seems of having his brothers saved from hell, demands a miracle to convince them of the need for salvation.  ”Send Lazarus (a man in heaven) so that my brothers won’t be in torment”, he barks to heaven from the confines of hell.  This rich man wants to warn the brothers with an argument of consequences: trust God and you’ll be in heaven.  But Abraham’s answer to him is telling:

‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them … If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead”

The brothers already have enough information.  They know that it is wrong and why it is wrong and where it will lead them.  The verbs in these verses say it all:  let them listen to them.  The problem is not the scarcity of information, it is the lack of listening.  It’s disobedience.  It is their desire to carve a life out of their own regardless of who they hurt and how much they anger God with no sign of deep-seeded sorrow at their sin, not information.

What does this say about long-term gay relationships?

It has everything to do with it!  Essentially, it does not matter if someone has managed to stay in a long-term gay relationship or if the feel as if they are born that way.  Those things are really beside the point.  Sin is sin not because of the consequences so much- although they do play a part- but because God has not made people to live that way, and by living contrary to how God has made us (and decreed in His goodness) we are actually attracting His righteous anger.  For every person happily living in a ‘long-term gay relationship’, I can find an equal number who are not: and all we’re left to is a flimsy argument about morality based on a numbers game (which would be interesting to do if you are talking about 1930′s Germany or South African apartheid).  Sin is wrong because it is wrong.