Sexuality under analysis

The origin of sexuality; from God or the result of evolution? Improper sexual behavior leads to suffering

Content:

Is sexuality the result of evolution or was it created by God? It is impossible for sexuality to have arisen and developed by chance

If sexuality is a God-given quality, then God himself defines what is right in the area of sexual behavior. From the Bible, we can understand that sex is only intended for marriage between a man and a wife.

Are men and women the same or different? Yes, differences still exist

Feminism and stay-at-home motherhood. There has been a change in society regarding the mother's position at home.

Many may view the Bible’s sexual morality as outdated, and therefore may encourage people to engage in premarital sex, extramarital sex, or homosexuality. They say that if people love each other, there is nothing wrong with that. However, not following the Bible’s teaching in these areas leads to negative consequences, such as:

• The position of children is deteriorating. If a child is born into a situation where he or she does not have a home where both parents are ready, it is a bad starting point for the child. The lack of a father is especially a problem today. Children who do not have a father at home get into trouble at school and in society.

• When sexual relations outside marriage and easy divorces are accepted, it increases the costs to society, for example due to institutional care for children and increasing housing benefits. Society's responsibilities increase when parents are unable to take responsibility for raising their children. Another bad consequence is the increase in the number of single-parent families. The situation is bad for both the single parent and the children, who are missing one of the parents, usually the father, from the family. Freedom has in practice led to an increase in malaise in society.

The positive attitude towards homosexuality is part of a change that has taken place in society. The main reason for this is that this issue is considered an innate characteristic, and not a sin and lust, as the Bible shows.

Extramarital sex and homosexual relationships have been defended with love, but the most important thing is the truth. If we are eternal beings, as the Bible says, then we should build our foundation on this foundation. Wrong lifestyles lead to separation from God and to damnation

In modern times, people are attacking the Christian faith. This is happening for reasons such as evolution and liberal theology. When they do not believe in the original events of the Bible or the historicity of the Gospels, they reject the Christian faith altogether.

However, the main topic of this article is not the study of history, but sexuality and sexual morality. When people do not believe in creation, they may also consider the Bible's teaching on sexuality to be outdated. They do not believe that morality comes from God, that He is the creator and judge who judges each person based on their actions and words. Instead, the current situation resembles the situation in Israel during the time of the judges. Even then, the concept of right and wrong was blurred:

- (Judges 17:6) In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

When analyzing sexuality, it is good to familiarize oneself with the beginning and creation. If creation is true, it cannot be overlooked when discussing this topic. That is why we will start off with what existed in the beginning and the origins of our sexuality.

WHERE DOES SEXUALITY COME FROM? Sexuality is something that is associated above all with reproduction. It is the main purpose of sexuality. The mechanism of reproduction can come from only two sources:

• It was born and developed by chance

• It was created by God

Which of the previous options is correct? Those who have a naturalistic worldview automatically lean towards the side of the first option, but there are insurmountable problems with this view. The following factors, among others, call into question the naturalistic theory:

• How did reproduction happen before there were reproductive organs? Shouldn't the reproductive organs have been ready from the start? Sexuality and reproduction must work right from the first generation, otherwise there will be no offspring, but the result will be extinction.

• How could the genitals suitable for a dog and a female develop separately and in different individuals? Shouldn't that have been impossible since the development would have had to happen simultaneously in two individuals?

• An even bigger problem is the different gametes in the dog and the female, which match each other, merge with each other and develop into a new individual in this world. How can compatible gametes develop separately from each other?

• The awakening of love and interest between different sexes is a puzzle. How could such a thing have evolved from a simple primordial cell that certainly had no sexual interest?

• Extinction would have threatened also if the uterus, birth canal and secured food intake had not been ready immediately. In fact, all the organs and stages related to reproduction should have been ready immediately, otherwise life could not have continued. The fact that all these parts would have arisen spontaneously and just by themselves is, however, so fanciful that there is reason to doubt its possibility.

• Breasts and teats and the milk that comes from them secure food intake for the months immediately after birth. How can this essential thing for survival come about by chance?

It was stated above that the naturalistic theory of sexuality and reproduction is mindless. Such things cannot develop by themselves from some state of the Big Bang, but must be ready immediately, otherwise the result will be immediate extinction (Provided that life has been ready first. No one has been able to solve the riddle of the origin of life, and no practical observation supports the possibility, that it would have arisen by itself). Much more reasonable is the teaching that these things came through God's work of creation. It is more natural to believe in that than in the birth of everything by itself. That is the most reasonable explanation for human sexuality.

The following verses relate specifically to man, whom God created in His own image. Jesus also referred to it when he spoke about the permanence of marriage:

- (Gen 1:26,27) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

- (Matt 19:4-6) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall join to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?

6 Why they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

So what can be concluded about sexuality and reproductive capacity? If it is a feature that God has put in us, then surely He Himself defines what is right in that area. He can also judge us for it if we do not follow His instructions.

Sexuality itself is not a bad thing, but the following verses, like the previous verses, show its proper boundaries in the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. This was the original concept of creation that Jesus was referring to. We are fools if we do not heed these teachings and warnings. If a person is a being of eternity, it is not worth losing eternal life because of wrong choices:

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you 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,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

- (1 Cor 7:1-5) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband.

4 The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

If man is an eternal being and the actions we do matter, then why do most people not consider the previous verses of the Bible?

One reason for this is the importance of the media. We get several wrong models of sexuality through it. They may contain pornography, encouragement of premarital sex, extramarital affairs or homosexuality. These materials affect our minds and attitudes. People absorb what they read and listen to.

However, those who are guilty of this kind of activity – e.g. spreading pornography – should think about things in the light of eternity. God has loved all people, but if a person intentionally does wrong and even leads others astray, the judgment of such a person is greater. Some may argue against this and claim the following verses as lies, but how do they prove their point of view correct? If their probability is even 10 percent, it is also worth taking into account. Don't be a fool but consider the possibility of eternal life:

- (Matt 18:6,7) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

- (James 3:1) My brothers, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Are men and women the same or different? When it comes to sexuality and the different genders, in modern times there has been a tendency to downplay the differences between men and women. There has been a desire to break the traditional models of women and men that society has been accustomed to for decades and centuries. This idea has been carried forward by the feminist movement, because it has been thought that a woman cannot be equal if she is not like a man in everything.

Despite everything, the differences still remain. When the needs of marriage have been studied, they are of different types for men and women. Of course, there are common needs, such as the need to be accepted as such, but there are also different needs. The following list, which has been concluded in connection with marriage work, illustrates the matter. The needs are described in order of importance:

A woman's needs

1. Thoughtfulness from a man

2. The Talking Husband

3. That the man is honest and open

4. That the man should take responsibility for the finances

5. That a man is committed to his family and is a good father

A man's needs

1. Sexual fulfillment

2. The company and companionship of one's wife in free time

3. Charming wife, that wife takes care of herself

4. A well-kept home

5. Admiration and appreciation of one's wife

The difference between men and women is also evident in the fact that men usually define themselves through their actions and work, while women through their relationships. Unemployment can be a tougher place for men than for women, because they usually want to be the main breadwinners in their families and be responsible for it. On the other hand, women usually consider relationships more important than their careers. They do not emphasize their achievements in work life as men do, but define themselves in relation to others. Carol Cilligan's statement is a good example of this. She interviewed professionally successful women and noted how they valued good relationships with others more than their successful careers. Academic achievements were not on the same level as relationships on their value scale.

“ When I asked women to describe themselves, they all included relationships. They described their identity as a future mother, a current wife, an adopted child, or a former lover, in other words, in relation to someone else. These highly educated and successful women do not even mention their academic or professional achievements when describing themselves. They even think that their professional activities jeopardize their self-awareness… Identity is defined in relation to others.” (1)

The second quote refers to the man's wishes and desire to bear financial responsibility for the family. That is why many men feel that just being at home and being unemployed is a difficult burden. It is much more difficult for men than for women:

The third assumption is related to breadwinnership, as Finland has persistently strived for equality in this regard. Doctor of Theology Sari Kokkonen conducted her doctoral research on the topic “Unemployed father in family and society” and was surprised by how strong the image of the male breadwinner who takes care of the family’s finances is. For some of the men she interviewed, their fatherhood experience was built on the foundation of breadwinnership, and their unemployment caused them to experience the instability of their own position both within the family and in society. They found it particularly difficult to adapt to being at home. The researcher is amazed at how her research results reflect a family culture divided into different roles, where the father’s duties are seen more through financial responsibility. The higher salary level of men has been found to support the persistence of this arrangement. (2)

The third quote further reveals the differences between men and women. The young journalist discovered that men are not the same as women after all. It was a shock to her. Such differences point to the richness and difference that exists between men and women. Both sexes have their good qualities. In some things, women are better and more skilled than men, while in others, men are. Their interests also vary somewhat. Of course, there are also individual differences between different people.

A young female journalist had read the discussion board of the Vauva magazine online and noticed that there was a separate section for fathers. The journalist was amazed at what the men were discussing and exchanging experiences about: not babies and being present at the birth, but cars. Opinions and analysis were expressed in the comparison of Japanese minivans, but not many had bothered to answer the survey about being present at the birth. The journalist was even more surprised by the fact that her circle of acquaintances included a considerable number of men who did not have a driver's license. She had not thought that having a child would make men want to talk about cars with their peer support group! She was shocked by the different interests of the men. (3)

Feminism and housewifery

- (Tit 2:4,5) That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

- (1 Tim 5:9,10,14,15) Let not a widow be taken into the number under three score years old, having been the wife of one man.

10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

The starting point in the feminist movement has been that when men and women are the same and do the same things, they are equal. The differences between men and women and the different roles that are valuable and in which each complements the other are not acknowledged. Instead, they try to put both sexes into the same mold, which is certainly not the right model. For example, a man cannot give birth and breastfeed a child like women do. In addition, throughout the centuries, the care of small children has always been the responsibility of women. There are no known cultures where the main responsibility for childcare has been with men. He can do it temporarily, but in general, women are better at it.

One part of the development of the feminist movement has also been that the career woman model has been idealized alongside the ordinary housewife. It has been thought that it is equality and that there is something glamorous about it. The stay-at-home mother has been considered too conventional.

However, belittling housewives is a relatively new trend. As early as the early 1960s, this was not widely thought of, as the description from the sixties shows.

There has been a clear change in social values, as even in the sixties it was a matter of pride for some Finnish companies to pay their white-collar workers such good wages that their wives did not have to go into gainful employment. The starting point of this thinking was family-centeredness, in which men and women have different roles and are both equally important. Today, this would be rejected as an unequal practice. (4)

It is of course true that some women may find staying at home stressful and a kind of obligation, and in that case it may be better for them to be in paid employment. Another reason for working may be money. Many would like to stay at home to take care of their children, but it is not financially possible, which is unfortunate. For example, in Finland, about 40 percent of parents of children in daycare have expressed their willingness to do so, but money has been an obstacle.

What has been the social significance of the decline in home care? According to many studies, it can be harmful, especially for younger children who have to pay for it. If they are separated from their parents too early, it can have a detrimental effect on their emotional development. Institutional care is rarely able to replace home care:

Finnish women are not the only ones struggling between career and home, as the same debate has been taking place elsewhere in Europe and the United States. There have been stories in the press about mothers who have built top careers and have returned home to care for their children for shorter or longer periods. They have begun to question their ambitious professional goals and look for alternative ways of life and work. Not content with breaking the glass ceiling in their own careers, they have left the treadmill of running to their husbands and dedicated their talents to taking care of their children and home.

This has been partly influenced by the research results of child psychologists such as the aforementioned John Bowlby, Donald Wiinicott and Penelope Leah, who have warned of the dangers of reducing home care for children. The studies have highlighted the attachment theory I have discussed above, as well as children's emotional and intellectual development. There have also been studies of the harmful effects of daycare on very young children. A large study published in the United States in 2003 suggests that group care is more punitive than any other form of care for children under the age of three. It causes aggression and other emotional disorders. The effects are long-lasting. (5)

David Wilkerson, a well-known preacher, speaks on the same topic; the presence of the mother and its importance. Of course, the role of the father is also important, because both parents are needed for the balanced growth of children. The mother cannot replace the father, nor the father the mother:

I asked Dave about this.

“ I was going to write a book about raising children,” Dave told me with a laugh. “This happened years ago. I gathered the kids around me and said, ‘I want you to tell me where we did the right thing. You all serve the Lord, and I’m very proud of you and what the Lord has done for you.’”

“ I thought they were saying, ‘Father, it’s all because of the long conversations you had with us.’ When one of my children had problems, I prayed for them and asked the Lord to reveal the cause of the problems.

" We sat on the floor and opened the Bible and I told them what the Holy Spirit had told me. And almost always it was spot on and we always got something from the Holy Spirit. And it was good that they knew I cared.

" So I thought they would tell me it was all because of those conversations. I was shocked when they all said in unison: 'Mom was always home when we came home from school. She was always there.'

David grinned at me dryly. "They didn't say a word about my long speeches. But they told the truth. One of the reasons they became so great is because Gwen was always there for them. They would come home from school and she would be there. I was always gone, but they had the assurance that Mom was with them the whole time.

" They would come home screaming, 'Mommy,' and get their glasses of milk and gingerbread, and then go outside to play. Gwen was always there for them."

" I think this is why so many kids are having a hard time today. There's no one to greet them when they come home from school."

“ They need a mother who is waiting for them.” (6)

”LOVE WORKS NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR: THEREFORE LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.” (ROM 13:10). As stated, people may consider the Bible's teaching on sexual morality to be outdated. They do not believe that e.g. relationships outside of marriage or practicing homosexuality belong to the category of wrong actions, and that human actions have an impact on eternity. They think that such views are not relevant today. They reject Christian sexual morality and God.

One trend rising from the end of the 1960s, when the so-called sexual revolution began, has been the justification of extramarital affairs and homosexual relationships with love. In previous decades, the issue mainly concerned extramarital relationships, but in recent years gay couples have also been featured in the media. Both things have been defended with love.

A small quote shows how development started in the late 1960s. The description tells how it was customary to contrast marriage and love back then:

(...) In the student world, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married. It seemed that the Teen League had been taken over by new leaders who proclaimed not only socialism and school democracy, but also the idea of free sexual relations. All in all, what was new was that reference groups had formed that spoke much more openly about gender issues than had previously been customary in public, accusing society and the Church of applying double standards.

The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morality was considered evil. It was reproached. At the same time, however, new morality was proclaimed, often in a very moralistic and intolerant manner. Whereas in the past there was talk of understanding the sexual behaviour of young people, some groups declared now that it is right to have casual sexual relations. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even contrasted. Couples living unlegalized cohabitation were interviewed in public as some kind of heroes of a new morality who dared to stand up against the morality of a degenerate bourgeois society. Similarly, homosexuals were interviewed and free abortion was called for.... "Love in the name of the law" was the headline of a radio program that presented legal marriage and true love as opposites. (7)

The questions we should be asking regarding this matter are the following: what is love, what is selfishness and what is the significance of our actions. In fact, some things that have been justified with love, might actually be acts of lust and selfishness rather than love, despite the media flaunting them. We are going to inspect this through some examples. We will begin with the situation of children.

If one were to have a baby. As stated, the main purpose of sexuality is to reproduce. It might include some pleasure, but the main objective is to give birth to new individuals. These things cannot be entirely separated from each other, although it is increasingly easier with modern birth control methods.

Still, unexpected pregnancies do happen. In the cases of superficial and brief sexual affairs, it might lead to the following situations:

1. The happiest alternative is that the parents commit to each other and the child will have a stable home from birth.

2. Another possibility is that the couple divorces, but nevertheless a child is born. The child lives with the other parent or is put up for adoption.

3. The third alternative is abortion, which in fact, is killing a child, although some might disagree. Those people are only lying to themselves. With our modern technology, we are able to see that 8 -to 12-week-old fetuses (most abortions are carried out during this time) have the same body parts as adults and newborn babies.

Abortion has been justified e.g. with the prevention of children's future suffering, but "the proponents of this idea ... must ask two questions of conscience. The first is this: How many people, when they speak nicely about children's sufferings, actually mean their own future sufferings, their lost free time, increased effort and fear of environmental attitudes? The second is this: Who among us can go to the gate of the world to sort the comers into those who suffer more and those who suffer less? Who can predict another's future with certainty in advance? Great personalities have emerged from difficult circumstances; some have gone off the rails having had an easy life. How many Leonardo da Vincis or August Strindbergs must have been destroyed during this abortion law!” (8)

What about children's raising and well-being? Many studies have shown that children thrive best in families where the parents have a permanent relationship like marriage. It is emotionally the best situation for the children and socially the most economical way to take care of the children. Other options are more expensive and worse. It has also been established that criminals mostly come from children's homes or single-parent families (usually the father is absent). This is an unfortunate fact, which the statistics prove.

If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (9)

It has been cogently showcased that children do not flourish, despite good physical care, if they are being held in impersonal institutions, and that separation from the mother – especially during certain periods – is very damaging to the child. Typical implications of institution care are mental retardation, indifference, regressing and even death, when a sufficient surrogate mother is not available. (10)

When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information.

He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds."

I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic.

In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home.

In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father.

The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (11)

So what happens when people defend extramarital affairs in the name of love, or when they march for homosexual relations in the name of love?

The direct answer is that it weakens the position of children. It leads to sexual experimentations by selfish adults and the breakdown of ordinary relationships and families (which means increased costs to society. E.g. Etelä-Suomen sanomat reports on 31 October 2010: A billion will soon be spent on institutional care for children and young people, Children's problems have escalated drastically since the beginning of the 1990s... Institutional care for one child costs up to 100,000 euros per year.../ Similarly, Aamulehti reported on March 3, 2013: A marginalised young person costs 1.8 million. If even one is brought back into society, the result is positive.) That may not be the intention of the marchers or those who stand up for these things in the name of love, but it is a direct result. The more these issues are brought up in the media, the more it breaks up families and relationships. Children become surrogate victims of adults' selfishness, which they call love.

The following quote shows how more and more children are born out of wedlock, and how the costs of society have increased as a result of the breakup of families. When the so-called the sexual revolution started at the end of the 1960s, at that time only approx. 5% of children were born out of wedlock. Since then, the number has grown, divorces have become more common and children's nausea has increased. If development has taken place, at least it has not increased the overall happiness and well-being of society. The situation has gone from bad to worse:

More than half (53%) of first-born children were already born outside of marriage. Of all children (second and third born as well) these numbers have increased:

Children born outside of marriage:

- year 1970 percentage was 5,8 %

- year 1980 percentage was 13,1 %

- year 1990 percentage was 25,2 %

- year 2000 percentage was 39,2 %

- year 2010 percentage was 41,0 %

From all open -and married relationships the percentage of open relationships was 24 percentage (the situation in 2008). Today, approximately half of marriages end up in divorce.

From all households receiving societal support, 70 percent are single parent households. One-quarter of single parents receive income support.

In 2006, 15,628 children and young people were placed outside the home by the authorities. Nearly 40% of those placed come from one-parent families.

... The responsibilities of society increase when parents are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for raising their children. In 2009, a total of more than 70,700 children and young people were clients of child welfare social work and open care support measures. More than 16,000 of them were placed outside the home. In the modern social system, raising children has extended from daycare to university. In addition to society, television and games have also become new educators. (12)

The increase in single-parent families. As sexual morality has changed and cohabitation and divorce have become increasingly accepted, this has had a major impact. One consequence has been the increase in single-parent families. More and more children are growing up in single-parent families where the father is absent from home. The situation is bad for both the single parent and the children, whose problems have been getting worse and who are usually without a father at home. Freedom has practically led to an increase in malaise in society. Women are increasingly burdened, and children suffer from the situation:

Actor-writer Eppu Nuotio and researcher Tommi Hoikkala together reflect on the confusion of the relationship between a man and a woman. Hoikkala wonders how, as women's rights increased, the nuclear family began to break down. He thinks that the same thing will happen to us soon as in Sweden, where one child and a single mother are the most common family form. Women wanted to get out of a position where they could not choose and have ended up in a situation where they cannot choose... Most often, housework, studying and part-time jobs burden women, who become exhausted under the burdens. In Hoikkala's opinion, problems in relationships indicate that men cannot stand successful women. As a person's tolerance threshold decreases, the threshold for divorce also decreases. A culture of divorce has emerged in Finland. (13)

If divorces lead to negative consequences, and are also wrong in the light of the Bible, can divorces be prevented? It is often quite difficult if the spouses themselves do not want it, but perhaps it can be influenced by legislative means or personal support. Many marital problems can be resolved on their own and many also regret their divorce afterwards, so preventive measures can be beneficial. It is always better and cheaper to treat the causes than the consequences. The problem is that divorce has been made too easy. There is no mediation or measures to try to keep the union together. The attitude in society, where divorce is no longer considered wrong and shameful, has led to more and more people divorcing for ever smaller reasons.

According to one study, about 30 percent of divorcees regret their divorce after three years. Up to 80 percent of divorces could be prevented with properly targeted support when a marriage is in crisis. Perhaps it is not always understood that changes are part of the relationship. It is sad if, under the pressure of change, people immediately start considering divorce, because there could be other ways to move forward…

The Marriage Act could be reformed to reinstate mandatory mediation before granting a divorce. When mediation was abolished as a condition for divorce in 1988, the number of divorces increased by about 30 percent. The new Marriage Act included the concept of “family mediation”, but in this context it was not linked to the divorce process, but meant a voluntary search for support and assistance. The main goal of mediation would be to prevent unnecessary divorces. Mediation should be made mandatory at least in cases where the spouses disagree on the divorce application or where they have minor children to care for. This would save both financial and human costs. (14)

Homosexuality. As society has changed, many of these changes have been related to sexuality, such as feminism and the downplaying of differences between men and women, divorce, and premarital sex. These issues became generally accepted or public knowledge starting in the 1960s, although the same behavior has been present throughout.

In the wake of these issues, homosexuality also came into the spotlight. An issue that had not previously made headlines came to the public's attention through marches and activists promoting the issue. What happened was, as had happened before with the rise of feminism and the sexual revolution: many people began to view it favorably and no longer considered it wrong behavior.

So what is new in the current situation and what changes have occurred from the past, we will consider in the light of a few facts. It is a question of small differences of opinion in this matter.

“ An innate thing”. The first difference is that today homosexuality is considered an innate thing, just like skin color, which a person has inherited. It is no longer considered a sin and wrong behavior, but something that the person himself and others must accept. An example of this is that in the past, psychology offered conversion therapy to homosexuals, because it was believed that this thing was caused by circumstances and that it could be healed. But now the trend is that it is not offered much, because it is thought that it is an innate characteristic like skin color.

Which is closer to the truth, the traditional or the modern view? Of course, people disagree on this, but the traditional view is much stronger. This is supported by numerous interview studies that have been conducted on the subject. Many homosexuals themselves believe that it is not an innate thing. They consider circumstances to be the most important factors.

I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person.

Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (15)

"You can't get rid of it". This argument originates from the previous belief. When homosexuality is believed to be an innate thing like skin color, it is considered impossible to be freed from it. This is impossible in their opinion.

God, who freed people from physical slavery in Egypt and thus took a negative view of this matter, can nevertheless free man also from the slavery of sin, of which this matter is one form. At least Jesus promised so (John 8:34-36: Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin. And the servant stays not in the house for ever: but the Son stays ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.) When many alcoholics, drug addicts or habitual criminals have been freed from their addiction, why can't a homosexual also experience the same if he wants to? It is wrong to limit God's possibilities in this matter.

When I said that I was going to preach about homosexuality, several people from my congregation took me aside and said, sometimes with tears in their eyes, “You know, I’m really looking forward to your sermon about homosexuality.” They might leave afterwards but they had left me their weak plea for help.

I have seen God doing miracles in this area in people's lives. A man wrote to me, “I attentively listened to you three years ago when you preached about homosexuality. Your sermon encouraged me to finally step out of the shadows and tell somebody about my problems in this area of life.” Then he described how he found help and concluded the letter by saying, “Now, three years later, I’m healthier and happier than I ever believed I could be. God has been faithful. And I finally feel freed from the ties that kept me in their hold. Please tell all homosexuals that there is hope. Remind them that God cares for them.” (16)

Truth be told. As stated, sexuality itself is not a bad thing, only its misuse is. It is the same as false patriotism, which despises other nations and foreigners and exalts the value of one's own people. Or it is the same as the misuse of food, which results in overeating and obesity. Neither of these, like sexuality, is wrong in itself, but they can be used in harmful ways.

The only restriction on sexuality is that it should take place within the marriage of a man and a wife. The so-called sexual revolution that came about in the late 1960s was not sexual liberation in this sense, because people had always had sex. The only difference was that the radicals of the 1960s thought that marriage was not necessary for the practice of sexuality. They despised the Bible’s instructions and did not understand that it was a sin to commit fornication. The same contempt for the Bible is shown by those who today defend homosexual relationships. Both of these things, extramarital affairs or homosexual relationships, have also been defended in the name of love. It has been argued that it is narrow-minded not to view them positively.

However, the most important thing is the truth. If it is true that we are eternal beings and our actions have a meaning for ourselves and others, then true love is to act according to that truth. Although some claim to represent love, such love cannot last if truth and eternity are not taken into account. Let us look at a few verses related to the topic. The last verses relate solely to the salvation of the soul. Consider the possibility that the teaching of the Bible is true and applies to us. Do not reject God's call when in his love he wants to save you and give your life a new direction.

- (Gal 5:7,8) You did run well; who did hinder you that you should not obey the truth?

8 This persuasion comes not of him that calls you.

- (1 Tim 2:3,4) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

- (Matt 16:25,26) For whoever will save his life shall lose it: and whoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The truth and its consideration is therefore the most important thing. If it is truly true that we are eternal beings and that we will have to give an account in this life, we are not acting wisely if we neglect this truth. Selfishness in sexual life and in other life is the stupidest thing we can do. According to the Bible, we are responsible for every choice and action we make in this life (Hebrews 9:27: And just as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment) , and this should be taken into account:

Think how closely God judges every unbeliever! Every day of every life is analyzed in detail. The secret thoughts and motives of every moment are reviewed, as are all actions and attitudes. Words spoken in secret are made public, the intentions of the heart are laid bare for all to see. There is no lawyer to turn to, no excuses to defend oneself. There are only bare, undeniable facts.

I believe the balance of justice is so fine that the producer of pornography wishes he had never published such material; the thief wishes he had earned his living honestly; and the adulterer regrets his immoral life. Faithfulness to the marriage vow would not have won a man a place in heaven, but it would have made his time in hell a little more bearable.

In God's sight, motives are not misinterpreted, nor are extenuating circumstances ignored. The woman who seduced the man receives the appropriate punishment, and the man who allowed himself to be seduced receives his share of the punishment. All charges are strictly proportionate to the actions. (17)

REFERENCES:

1. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 54

2. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 126

3. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 123 / Graglia p. 2, 127

4. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 140

5. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 150

6. Nicky Cruz: David Wilkersonin viimeinen varoitus (David Wilkerson: A Final Warning), p. 84,85

7. Matti Joensuu: avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 12,13

8. Michael Harry, Ulla Järvilehto, Markus J. Viljanen: Anna lapsen elää

9. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38

10. Margaret Mead: Some Theoretical Considerations on the Problem of Mother-Child Separation, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 24, 1954, p. 474

11. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104

12. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 193,194

13. Pirjo Alajoki: Naiseus vedenjakajalla, p. 21,22

14. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään, p. 134

15. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132

16. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 140

17. Erwin W. Lutzer: Miksi helvetti on (Coming to Grips with Hell), p. 24