Steve Simon’s Homosexual Agenda

Yesterday, Minnesota Rep. Steve Simon made a impassioned speech defending homosexuality which can be found here. There are so many fallacious aspects to his position, I could probably create a series on this. However, I really do not wish to take the time to address this issue on a long term basis. So, I urge you to simply listen to his video and then, read my email to him, which quickly refutes his subjective ethic via the objective testimony of Scripture and the Law of God. I’m quite sure you will see the glaring fallacies in his argument that run throughout the duration of the video.



Rep. Simon,

Greetings sir. I am writing you in response to your recent comments made in defense of homosexuality. Please allow me to gently correct some of your statements regarding homosexuality and moral absolutes, which you appealed to in your passionate speech.

First, you brought up the issue of homosexuality and “nature or nurture.” Here sir, you fail to see the grave error regarding the nature of “sin” and repentance. If I were to have a disposition that caused me to lie in certain types of social situations, or, if I were a constitutional liar from birth, and this was an “in-born” condition of my being, the Bible still requires me to turn from that sin. You see sir, the question is not about the ontological make-up of the individual, which you cited in your speech. Rather, the question is about the law of God and what He has set forth in His holy word. Meaning, homosexual conduct is condemnable regardless of the means by which homosexual  feelings or impulses come about.

Next, you stated; “How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?” Sir, your question here is circular because you are assuming what you have not proven; that God creates people gay. In contrast to this is the Holy word of God that is found in the Bible, which states that homosexuals are turned over to their own lustful desires due to idolatry, as seen in Romans 1:24-32. Hence, according to Paul, the spokesmen for Yahweh, men and women are not created this way. Rather, they are delivered to this point from a rejection of their creator and because of this, they are under the wrath of God and so are those who support them according to verse 32.

Sir, you mentioned in your speech that you are Jewish, and hence, you would reject my citing of the New Testament texts (unless of course, you are a Jewish Christian). If this is indeed the case, please allow me to cite, from the Old Testament, the prohibition against homosexuality and its consequences. In Leviticus 18:22, Yahweh states; “You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.” This prohibition is recited with the penal sanction of death in Leviticus 20:13. When one comes to the New Testament teaching on this subject, we see that Paul pulls from the Leviticus text to restate this prohibition in the newer Covenant, as seen in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:7-10. In the latter of these two texts, Paul states that the law of God is to be used to suppress unlawful actions, with homosexuality being one of those actions cited. Moreover, the Penal sanction for this act is restated in Romans 1:32 which is again, taken from Lev. 20:13. So you see sir, according to the founding documents that you cited, homosexual actions are prohibited. Moreover, the Lord Jesus affirmed and upheld the Law of Moses in its complete form in Matthew 5:17-19. So, on both lines of transmission, homosexual actions are prohibited and condemned.

You also stated; “I’m Jewish. Eating pork or shellfish is not allowed in my tradition, but I would never ask the government to impose that on our fellow citizens.” With this statement, you created a category error because the eating of shellfish falls into the realm of separation laws in the Old Testament (which were strictly Jewish), whereas homosexuality falls under the rubric of God’s moral and civil law (which is meant for all of mankind). Meaning, the analogy that you attempted to use is point-in-fact, dis-analogous and fallacious.

Finally, you asked the question about the “moral force” of ones argument “if” homosexuality or sexuality is a “gift from God.” As previously shown, this type of comment is fallacious because God condemns such actions in both the Old and New Testaments. Hence, the Christians “moral force” is upheld to reject gay marriage (which is between one man and one woman per Genesis 1 and 2) because our ethical standard is the Law of God. Our standard is the objective testimony from God Himself, via His law, which is a reflection of His holy and perfect character. Hence, your question exposes the fact that you wish people to appeal to the subjective standard of man, which is not an option if God has indeed revealed Himself to His creation. Sir, “your” subjective standard is meaningless because God has revealed His law to His creation (and so is mine – it is simply “our” opinion). Since God has revealed Himself in the pages of the Old and New Testament, we as His creatures have a corresponding moral duty to follow His law. Ethics is about “ought.” Why I ought to do something is different then why I “will” do something. I “ought” to follow God’s Law because it is the revealed standard of righteousness to the world and hence, a failure to do so will result in sin and condemnation. Being the revealed standard, it is the means by which God will judge all who do not have their sins forgiven in Jesus Christ, the Lamb slayed before the foundation of the world. Hence, by your appeal to subjective ethics, you are in actuality setting forth a standard that will condemn men to judgment on the Day of Judgment.

Sir, thank you for your time on this issue. I do know that you are a busy man and I am grateful that you have read this. It is indeed my prayer that the Lord Jesus Christ enlightens  you on these issues because when all is said and done, when this world vanishes, His word will remain.

Jeff Krause


One thought on “Steve Simon’s Homosexual Agenda

  1. Pingback: Dr. James White Responds to Rep. Steve Simon « Applied-Apologetics

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s