Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika
Posbus 20004,
NOORDBRUG
522
POTCHEFSTROOM

Tel. (018) 297 3989
Faks. (018) 2931042
E-pos: [email protected]

The Hon. F Chohan-Kota	The Hon. HP Chauke
Chair, Portfolio Committee on Justice	Chair, Portfolio Committee on Home
& Constitutional Development	Affairs
National Assembly	National Assembly
PO Box 15	PO Box 15
CAPE TOWN	CAPE TOWN
8000	8000

Dear Me. Chohan-Kota and Mr Chauke
Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs regarding the amendment of the Marriages Act (25/1961): Reaction to the proposed Civil Unions Bill.

The deputy for governmental affairs of the Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika would like to make the following presentation to you with regard to the possible legalisation of homosexual marriages. Attached is an appendix that contains an account of Biblical and law philosophical material that are relevant to the subject.

Our view is as follows:
According to Scripture homosexual behaviour is unnatural (contra naturam). God instituted the monogamous heterosexual marriage as the union within which sexual relationships can be properly expressed. Any form of homosexual behaviour, including the so-called homosexual marriage, must therefore be rejected as contrary to God's will by Christian ethics. Persons with a homosexual orientation have the responsibility to refrain from homosexual behaviour in the same way that other persons have the duty to exercise self-control with regard to their own sinful! nature.

Because homosexual behaviour is contra naturam, Christian ethics and the church, cannot legitimise homosexual relationships, nor homosexual marriages.

This position and system of values is held by the majority of South Africans. Since the Constitution and the laws of the country must reflect the values of the citizens of the country, the state ought to refrain from legitimising homosexual marriages. Because laws reflect ethical principles, the legalisation of homosexual marriages can send the message to South Africans that homosexual behaviour is morally acceptable and constitutes normal behaviour.

The legal redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples can have far reaching implications for our society. It will mean than homosexual couples also must have the right to adopt children legally. According to us the homosexual marriage cannot provide an acceptable environment for the nurturing of children, since various studies have shown that children need the guidance of both male and female parents. Such a redefinition of marriage will lead to further abnormalities in our society that are already burdened by the disintegration of family systems. It will also mean that the state upholds the right not be discriminated upon on the basis of sexual orientation in an unqualified manner. This will leave room for the future legalisation of poligamic and other forms of marriages.

According to the behavioural sciences it is not possible for homosexual people to change their sexual orientation. This orientation is mostly due to certain deficiencies in their development during childhood years. The church must therefore guide homosexual people with love and care to understand their orientation. They have not chosen their orientation but can choose the way to deal with it.

The faithful person with a homosexual orientation that does not exercise homosexual behaviour must be fully accepted as member of the church and must enjoy the same rights as any other members of the church. As citizens of our country, people with a homosexual orientation must enjoy all the rights of the Constitution and must be protected against any form of discrimination. However, these rights ought not to include the right to engage in a legal marriage with a same-sex partner, because marriage is a heterosexual union. The right to engage in a homosexual marriage or homosexual union is not seen within Christian ethics as a fundamental right.

Homophobic behaviour and other forms of discrimination against people with an homosexual orientation, is contrary to the central Christian message of love and is therefore unethical. The church and state must reject al forms of homophobic behaviour.

Persons with a homosexual orientation have the right to be treated in a dignified manner, but also has the responsibility to refrain from any form of homosexual behaviour and therefore cannot demand the right to engage in a homosexual marriage.

For a documented account of our view we refer you to the attached appendix.

With regards Dr N Vorster
Secretary of the deputy for governmental affairs.

Appendix

The rights and responsibilities of homosexual people.

J.M. Vorster
School of Ecclesiastical Studies (North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus)
[email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Since the eighties of the twentieth century Western Christian Ethics has increasingly been confronted with the matter of homosexuality.1 This confrontation was caused by the surging human rights culture that called for the recognition of homosexual people's right to make their own choices with regard to coping with their sexual orientation. In addition, human rights groups made out a case for homosexuals having the same rights in society than all other people. These rights include that they should be able to enter into marriage with persons of the same sex and should have the right to adopt children. Human rights organisations and some churches challenged traditional views about homosexuality and argued for the liberation of persons with a homosexual orientation.

Now, twenty odd years later, Western society is divided into two diverging opinion groups concerning this issue. The first viewpoint teaches that homosexual behaviour should be seen as normal and that marriages between homosexuals should be legalised in Liberal Democracies. The Netherlands lead the way with the legalisation of homosexual marriages. In South Africa the Court of Appeal passed an appeal in December 2004 against an earlier verdict in the Supreme Court that declared homosexual marriages illegal. Although the South African government appealed to the Constitutional Court, it is clear that jurists deem that an embargo on homosexual marriages tampers with the constitution’s foundational values of freedom and equality. In 2006 the Constitutional Court instructed Parliament to promulgate a new marriage law where marriage is defined in such a way that it can include a homosexual marriage. Homosexual behaviour is increasingly regarded as normal, in the legal world as well as in the human sciences.

However, this tendency invoked fierce reaction. Fundamentalist religious groups and native cultures who regard the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in Western countries as immoral and in contradiction to their own moral values, react to it with what can be described as "homophobia". This term describes an attitude of hate and distrust, and acts of aggression and injustice towards persons with a homosexual orientation. As the normalisation of homosexual behaviour increases, homophobia increases as well.
Christian churches rejected homosexual behaviour in the past? As a result of the new reflection throughout the past five decades, some churches took another view. Currently the Christian churches are at opposite sides of the tension. A recent study that was undertaken for the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa (DRCSA) on the topic reports the following:

On the one hand there are persons (and churches - JMV) that see the biblical texts (about homosexuality) as a reference to the phenomenon of homosexuality as such and therefore interpret it as a clear indication that Scripture voices a strong negative judgement. On the other hand their are persons (and churches - JMV) that see the same texts as a reference to specific perverted forms of homosexuality (for example rape, temple prostitution, idolatry and paederasty) and based on this assumption they accept that it cannot be seen as a rejection of homosexuality as such.

There are also different Christian ethicists who claim that homosexual behaviour should be seen as a normal expression of sexuality as long as it is practised within a permanent devoted relationship. Christian ethicists support one of three positions:
.
Scripture prohibits any form of homosexual behaviour. This position can be typified as the traditional view.

The second position sees the first-mentioned as fundamentalist. This view adjudicates Scripture as providing for homosexual behaviour within a permanent devoted relationship and that the principles of a heterogeneous marriage are applicable. This position can be typified as the modem view.

The third position departs from the point of view that Scripture provides no pertinent details about homosexuality, because Scripture is an old book written with the knowledge and insights of that age. The problem does not lie with homosexuality, but with Scripture itself. Views about homosexuality are shaped according to current scientific knowledge, in addition to Scripture's message of liberation. This position can be typified as the view of scriptural criticism.

The acrimonious reaction in South-Africa with regard to the verdict of the Court of Appeal and the division amongst Christians as well as between Christians and other religions in the country necessitates further consideration of this matter. On the one hand the rights of the homosexual person should be entrenched in a Liberal Democracy, but on the other hand it can not be done without consideration of the value system of society. Furthermore, what should the attitude of Christians be towards fellow citizens with a homosexual orientation and what should the attitude of gay Christians be in an ecclesiastic environment and social environment where homosexual conduct is perceived as immoral?

In this discussion my aim is to play a part in the current reflection on the matter in Christian circles. As I stated in the first chapter and reaffirmed in later arguments my hermeneutic angle of approach is the recognition of the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture as the specific revelation of God, as it is confessed in articles 3-5 of the Belgic Confession and other classic Reformed Confessions. The logical consequence of this presupposition is that Scripture is ethically relevant for modern times and that it addresses the matter of homosexual behaviour. I do not see Scripture as an old book irrelevant for modern ethical reflection.

However, this point of departure does not mean that the insights of science are ignored. To the contrary, this chapter will indicate the value that research results on the topic have for the formulation of a Christian-ethical viewpoint, as well as for the way in which the church can fulfil her calling with regard to persons with a homosexual orientation. The view of scriptural criticism that Scripture is no longer relevant in discussing the morality of homosexual behaviour is a hermeneutical question that will not be debated here. The research will therefore concentrate on the traditional and the modern views and not on the view of scriptural criticism.

The research question is as follows: Which principles and norms do Scripture lay down for homosexual behaviour, and in the light of this, what are the rights and responsibilities of persons with a homosexual orientation in a Liberal Democracy? The following questions follow from this main question:

Is homosexual behaviour acceptable if it is practised within a permanent
relationship?
What do the behavioural sciences say?
Can homosexual marriages be legalised?
How should "homophobia" be judged?
What is the role of the government and the church with regard to
managing homosexuality?
What should the attitude of heterosexual Christians be?
What should the attitude of homosexual Christians be?

My central theoretical argument can be formulated as follows: Homosexual behaviour is a complicated matter that should be treated cautiously. However, homosexual behaviour is "contra naturam" and should not be legitimised as normal or as normal relationships in interpersonal interaction in a Liberal Democracy. Although the South African government should protect the fundamental rights of persons with a homosexual orientation, this government should not grant legitimacy to homosexual marriages, because it is "contra naturam". Furthermore, it contravenes the value systems of the majority of the South African society.

This investigation will in the first instance pay attention to the applicable ethical principles. In the light of these, the research offers ethical norms flowing from the principles. The discussion considers the consequences of these ethical norms for the responsibility of society, the person with a homosexual orientation, the calling of the church and the responsibility of the government with regard to the treatment of the person with a homosexual orientation.

2. SCRIPTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON HOMOSEXUALITY
Three matters are important when considering ethical principles on homosexuality. Firstly, the socio-historical context of the texts has to be considered. In this regard the modern view provided important information. Secondly, the dictums that occur in the different parts of the Old and New Testament should not be divorced from the whole of the Scripture message and the continuous revelation-historical lines. As I have said before in this book: the exposition of a periscope against the background of the whole is essential for an understanding of Scripture. This point of departure is an important principle in the traditional Reformed hermeneutics.

Thirdly, in the light of the above-mentioned exegetical principles, all Scriptural information regarding marriage and sexuality should be read against the background of the creation of man and woman, and the institution of marriage and sexuality as interaction within the security of the marriage. A few thoughts about this: Kroeze mentions that God specifically created differentiation of genders when creating man with the aim of sexual communion. The sex concept of the Old Testament starts there. After the fall of man this heterosexual concept is confirmed when the woman is told that her desire will be for her husband. This desire drives sexually different people towards each other to look for the unity that was disturbed by the Fall. For this reason Jesus quotes the words in Mt. 19:4-6 and Mk. 10:5-9 to prove that it is not permissible to divorce your wife for any reason. Kroeze says that Jesus upholds God's intention that the desire that searches for unity should not be expressed unbridled in the unification of each random man with each random woman. This would be beastly.

The desire should be fulfilled in marriage, the unbreakable bond of one man with his wife, whom he chose. Although Kroeze does not say anything about homosexual behaviour in this exposition, it is fair to deduct that homosexual behaviour, like random sexual behaviour, is against the creational order of God. Douma comes to the same conclusion after his discussion of creation and Covenant.12 Keane also contends that the parts of Scripture that deal with homosexuality should not be read in isolation, but in the light of the high value that Scripture puts on marriage.

In reaction to this view Johnston maintains that the creational will of God can not be used as an argument against homosexual behaviour. If it was the case that God only willed monogamous marriages, practices such as birth control and people who choose to remain single should also be seen as unethical. According to him marriage was instated with procreation as purpose. However, this is not the question. The question is what God's intention with sexuality is and from the creational events it is clear that sexuality is intended for man and woman within the security of a devoted marital relationship. In Genesis 1 :28 people are not forced to marry, neither to have children. This passage rather deals with the fulfilment of the cultural mandate. This conclusion is edified by Gn. 2:5. After the Fall the female person is told that her desire will be her husband (Gn. 3: 16). Due to the androcentric character of many parts of Scripture the reverse should also be included here, and that is that the male person' desire will be for his wife.

Homosexual behaviour is thus "contra naturam". It does not, like random sexual relations, express the natural creational order with regard to the relationship between the sexes, marriage and sexuality. Seen within the context of the unity of Scripture, all passages about sexuality and homosexuality should be read against this background.

With these three matters as point of departure, we can now look at Scriptural passages that deal with homosexuality directly, being Gn. 19; Jg. 19; Lv. 18 and 20; Rm. 1 ;"1 Cr. 6:10 and 1 Tm. 1 :8-10.

2.1 Genesis 19
Genesis 19 relates the events during the two angels' overnight stay at Lot's in the guise of men. The men of Sodom congregated before Lot's house and asked him to send the two visitors outside so that they "can have sex with them" (Gn. 19:5). Lot urged them not to do such a "wicked thing" and he offered them his two unmarried daughters.

The traditional view, as formulated by Douma, maintains the view that Lot rejects the sinful desires of the Sodomites and rather let them commit a lesser sin by offering them his two daughters. The modern view offers the explanation that this text does not deal with sex, but that the Sodomites wanted to get to know the men better Uada). According to them, there is no suggestion of an intention of homosexual intercourse in this chapter.16 There is no proof of large scale homosexual behaviour in Sodom. The wrong thing that Lot refers to, is not what they wanted to do with the men, but the fact that they were inhospitable towards the men who "have come under the protection of my (Lot's) roof' (Gn. 19:8). In the Eastern culture such inhospitality was seen as wrong.

Although it is true that jada in the Old Testament was used with the meaning to "to get to know", it was also used to indicate sex. According to the grammatical exposition for the purpose of exegesis in Van Gemmeren, the word jada in this case undeniably refers to homosexual relations, as is indeed also the case in Lv. 18:20 and 20:13.

When the rest of Scripture is consulted concerning the Sodom tale Ez. 16:4950; 2 Pt. 2:6-8 and Jd. 1:7 come into play. Ez. 16 names the sins of Sodom, namely haughtiness, greed, selfishness and that they did detestable things?

What were these detestable things? 1 Pt. 2 speaks of the godless people of Sodom, specifically referring to their immorality. Jd. 1:7 speaks of the Sodomites' immoral acts that they wanted to commit with "strange beings". This information indicates that the godless life of the people of Sodom was reflected in their immoral behaviour. This immoral behaviour included homosexual behaviour, especially as revealed in Jd. 1 :7. The Sodomites saw the angels in Gn. 19 as men, and called them out of the house as such. In the light of all this information it is unlikely that the narrative in Gn.19 does not deal with the rejection of homosexual behaviour. The events are furthermore not presented descriptively, but are clearly prescriptive in nature.

In Jg. 19 the host typifies the street thugs' desire to have sex with the Levite Gibea as an immoral act. In the traditional view this verdict is seen as further proof that homosexual behaviour is against God's will.19 On the contrary the modern view is of opinion that homosexual behaviour is only addressed indirectly here.2o According to this view the text deals with the dishonouring of the host's hospitality, the violation of the host's dignity and the rape and murder of two women. It is this blameworthy matter that induces Israel to attack Gibea.

The question is whether this part can be seen as prescriptive. Is it not just the description of an unfortunate historical event that led to a war? Can one really deduct ethical norms that are still relevant from this historical account? The matter can be argued as follows: Exponents of the modern view say that the word nebalah that the host uses to describe the act actually means "stupid". According to this the host advised the attackers not to do something stupid because it could have repercussions - as it indeed had. The word nebalah can indeed be translated with stupid. But Hamlin indicates that the word is here used as stupid in the sense of "not having knowledge of the will of God".

They are accused of being uninformed about the will of God. Fausset is of opinion that the host saw the attackers as "fools before God" because they are stupid about his judgement of wilful sin.22 The concept nebalah describes an act that goes against the "fear of the Lord". The concept is indeed used in a similar meaning in Ps. 74:18; Dt. 32:5-6 and Is. 32:6. The host admonishes the attackers that their desire disturbs the Covenant relationship between God and man. The fact that he delivers his daughter and the guest's concubine to the attackers indicates that he deals with a moral conflict in which he chooses for the lesser of two immoral acts.

The obvious explanation of this passage is that the attackers' desire for homosexual behaviour is regarded as a sin - even more so than heterosexual promiscuity. The text can therefore be regarded as prescriptive because it is imbedded in an ethical theme that is addressed in Scripture continuously, namely that homosexual behaviour is against the will of God. Precisely because the ban on such behaviour is a continuous theme, it is not time bounded but always relevant for the church.

2.2 Leviticus 18 and 20
The traditional view sees the ban on homosexual behaviour in these holiness laws as an ethical prescription that is relevant for all times, which do not, like the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, find fulfilment in the New Testament. Douma wrote in 1984 about the meaning of these parts for a Christian ethical point of view for today. 24 According to him the ethical verdict of Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 are in line with that which is written about the matter in other places in Scripture, as becomes clear from the already discussed parts of the Old Testament and Paul writings in Rm. 1:1; 1 Cr. 6 and 1 Tm. 1. Although the punishment that is indicated for homosexual behaviour, namely capital punishment, does change, the culpability before God does not. In the same laws capital punishment applies for adultery, but in the New Testament adultery becomes a forgivable sin according to Christ (In. 8:11). From this information one can conclude that homosexual behaviour is a forgivable sin as well. However, it remains a sin, also in the New Testament dispensation.

The modern view objects to such a literal explanation and feels that the texts, like others, should be interpreted within the wider narrative of God's revelation history. This wider narrative is a narrative of deliverance and also implies deliverance of the person with a homosexual orientation. According to the modern view these passages can at most be read as a ban on homosexual promiscuity and not with reference to a permanent homosexual relationship between two people.

Advocates of this view base their objection on the argument that the laws on homosexuality are part of the holiness laws of Israel that have to do with the cultic and ritual pureness of that time. McCormick & Russell defends this view as follows:

First they (these citations - JMV) form a part of the "Holiness code" of ancient Israel, a code that was concerned primarily with cultic and ritual purity, with making certain the Hebrews were not defiled or
contaminated by contact with unclean things or practices particularly those of their idolatrous neighbours. As a result, this code forbids a number of practices that contemporary Christians would not see as immoral, including the eating of certain "unclean" foods and intercourse during menstruation. Second, scholars tell us that it is most likely that the condemnations of homosexual acts in Leviticus 18 and 20 are directed specifically against the practice of temple or cultic prostitution. Israel's Canaanite neighbours often used male prostitutes as part of their worship of fertility gods and goddesses, and the biblical authors condemned any association with such idolatrous practices. Thus, it is unclear whether these passages can be seen as offering an absolute ethical condemnation of all homosexual acts.

In my view this argument is well refuted by Potgieter and Van Huysteen.28 They indicate, with well-founded socio-historical information, references to other parts of Scripture and word exegesis that this text does not deal with cultic practices, but that it concerns everyday behaviour. When the revelation-historical lines of Scripture regarding this matter are evaluated, no proof can be found that indicates that the prohibition of homosexual behaviour is lifted. On the contrary! The opposite is true! As becomes clear form Rm. 1; 1 Cr. 6: 10 and 1 Tm. 1 :8-1 0, the homosexual person is not liberated like the woman and the slave, but is still kept to the prohibition of homosexual behaviour. Scripture addresses all forms of homosexual behaviour in these texts - not only for the Old Testament dispensation, but also for today.

2.3 Romans 1
Sexual immorality was a familiar phenomenon in the time during which Paul sent his letters to the believers in Rome. Botha says the following in his recent study with regard to this matter:

Paul was at home in the Graeco-Roman world. He spoke the language, lived and worked in its cities and knew its culture. Paul surely knew the Roman world inside out. He knew that there was a great deal of immorality, abortion and the exposure of children. Prostitution and the keeping of courtesans were equally common. Divorce was frequent and many married to get access to a large fortune.

In Rm. 1 :26-27 Paul affirms his admonition of homosexual behaviour against this background of sexual immorality. The modern view interprets this text as a verdict against certain forms of homosexual behaviour and not against the behaviour in general. Keane explains this proposed alternative meaning of Rm. 1. His view is that this pericope deals with cultic practices and the apostle cautions believers not to involve themselves in practices of idolatry by taking part in these cultic customs that included all kinds of sexual immorality including homosexual conduct. He is of the firm opinion that this text does not primarily deal with homosexual behaviour.3o Johnston holds this view as wel1.31 In addition to this argument the modern view further holds that the
expression para fusin (against nature) here indicates "against the general cultural customs of that time". Paul therefore exhorts believers to not react to the acceptable culture of their time by practising idolatrous customs.

However, Botha indicates in his recent socio-historical study that homosexual practices were not limited to the cult. 32 Paederasty (love for young boys) and homosexual behaviour amongst men was a well-known and accepted practice in the Greek-Roman culture. He builds his view on the analysis of the semantic domains of the Scriptural words concerning immorality. On these grounds he indicates that the apostle addresses the extra-cultic immorality in this text as well.
The expression para fusin can not be translated differently than "against nature". With this Paul links up with the creational order. Homosexual behaviour is in his eyes in conflict with God's creational order. For God the meaning of sexuality involves the spiritual "unification" between man and woman at the deepest level within marriage. There is no mention of a liberation of homosexual people from the moral bondages in the Old Testament as is the case with women and slaves. Homosexual behaviour remains a sin according to Paul. In his elaborate exposition with of Scripture's continuous discussion of these topics, Webb reaches the following conclusion:

The same canons of cultural analysis, which show a liberalising or less restrictive tendency in the slavery and women texts relative to the original culture, demonstrate a more restrictive tendency in homosexuality texts relative to the original culture.

The rejection of homosexual behaviour in the Old Testament revelation is continued in the New Testament with appeals to the creational will of God. Homosexual behaviour is at all times and for all times regarded as "contra naturam."

2.4 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10
In these two passages Paul uses the words malakos and arsenokoites. Both are translated with "homosexuality" in standard translations. Literally malakos means gentle, and according to Botha it seemingly has no sexual connotation. Arsenokoites, on the other hand, has a clear sexual meaning. However, when the semantic domains of the two words are investigated, it seems that both have to do with homosexuality and this in an interesting way. In their semantic research Louw en Nida comes to the conclusion that arsekonoites indicates the active male person in the homosexual act and malakos on the passive partner. It is therefore fitting to translate these words with "people who practice homosexuality".

The modern view laments these translations. Both McNeil36 and Johnston doubt whether these words can really be translated in this way. Yet they acknowledge that it is difficult to uncover what Paul meant, and they assume that he refers to intercourse between men and boys, in other words so-called pedeastry. It could also be used to indicate male prostitution. McNeill's view, which is followed by many exponents of the modern view, was formulated in 1977. However, he used dated and obsolete methods of word analysis. Since then progress has been made with regard to the investigation of concepts within their semantic domains. Using this method of investigation Louw & Nida refute McNeill and Johnston's view convincingly and provide good reasons for the translation of these words with "people who practice homosexuality".

Seen in the context of the continuous ethical rejection of homosexual behaviour throughout the Old and New Testament, it is difficult to agree with the modern view on mere scientific grounds. There are enough grounds to establish that Scripture rejects any form of homosexual behaviour as an act that contravenes God's will.

3. ETHICAL NORMS
The modern view's re-writing of the prohibition of homosexual behaviour in Scripture ultimately does not refute the "contra naturam" argument. Homosexual behaviour is against God's creational will and run against man's projection of the image of God. Christian ethics should develop its view about homosexual conduct from this point of departure. If it is not accepted, ethical principles with regard to many other matters should also be placed under suspicion. For example, the bible scholar could argue in the same way that the call to fight the works of the flesh (GI. 5:13-26) is not valid anymore because all the matters that are indicated in this pericope can be typified as normal behaviour. One should rather look for a way in which the norms of Christian attitude namely, love, stewardship, self-denial and obedience to God can be realised towards people with a homosexual orientation and by people with this orientation. To find this way it is first of all necessary to say more about the nature of the homosexual orientation and its implications for a Christian ethical point of view.

3.1 The homosexual orientation
The report that served before the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches of South Africa (DRCSA) offers, with reference to several researchers from different disciplines, including behavioural studies and natural sciences, a nuanced discussion of the causes of a homosexual orientation. The report pays attention to the views concerning the orientation and studies on the matter throughout history. It indicates that the causes of the homosexual orientation lie in a combination of constitutive (hereditary), psychological and social factors that possibly play a role. There are researchers who attribute it to psychological factors and new research makes a case for a basic genetic underpinning for homosexuality. Then there is the research that could possibly lead to a presupposition of the hereditary nature of the phenomenon that could be caused by certain hormonal influences during pregnancy, the development of the structure of the brain and the possible influence of chromosome variations. The report furthermore states:

Social factors that qualified as possible causes of homosexuality over the years amongst others include family dynamics (dominant mothers and absent fathers), educational patterns (boys that are raised like girls and girls that are raised like boys), seduction of children by adults and the exposure to the example of a homosexual person.

Scientific research that is being done in different disciplines has not yet clearly determined whether there is a genetic cause for a homosexual orientation. Some scientists in the behavioural sciences are convinced that a homosexual orientation:

does not depend on a genetic predisposition, hormonal imbalance, abnormal learning processes, but on difficulties in the parent-child relationship, especially in the earlier years of life.

This research is received sceptically in other circles. Due to the ethical nature of this investigation no choice will be made between the different research results. Yet it seems that the view that Moberly offers above enjoys the widest acceptance still to date. These ethical norms join this view. It is furthermore important to accept that there is at least enough scientific proof that indicates that people with a pure or core homosexual orientation received this orientation in one or the other way that falls outside of their own control. It was not their choice. There is also enough proof that these persons cannot change their orientation to a heterosexual orientation. Although the causes of a homosexual orientation have thus not been determined above all doubt, it has to be accepted that at least persons with a pure or core homosexual orientation did not choose their orientations themselves and that they can not change their orientation. However, this argument is not valid for people who accepted the orientation consciously or on purpose, for instance prisoners, soldiers or other social environments where it is accepted as normal.

The question that comes to the fore after reading all the research results is whether homosexual orientation and behaviour should be accepted as normal or seen as a deviation? The answer to this question is of the utmost importance in any attempt to come an adequate ethical evaluation. Scripture regards homosexual behaviour as "contra naturam". What does science say? In 1973 the American Psychological Association took homosexual behaviour of the list of deviating behavioural patterns and since regarded it as a normal variety of sexuality. This view is accepted in many countries and communities and many churches are satisfied with such a point of view.

Yet the matter is not that simple, even from a modern scientific approach. In this regard Moberly offers important insights.46 During her psychological research she found that persons with homosexual orientations experienced considerable loss. This loss originates in the growing process where certain gaps exist in family relationships. The reasoning in this chapter will return to the management of that loss later on. This standpoint leads to the conclusion that a homosexual orientation can not be regarded as normal because there are certain emotional and psychological needs and an experience of loss that do not generally occur in all people. If one sees this experience of loss as normal and therefore unimportant, why are other behavioural patterns such as a tendency to chemical dependence, outbursts of aggression, manic depression, panic attacks, a paedophilic orientation, kleptomania and others not accepted as normal?

Following this line of thinking the subsequent two conclusions are important for an ethical consideration:

The person with the pure or core homosexual orientation did not choose this orientation and can, according to the scientific information to date not change this orientation.


A homosexual orientation is a psychological and a social deviation and homosexual behaviour can not be regarded as a normal variety of sexuality.

Now the implications of these conclusions for the homosexual relationship, the recognition of marriages between homosexuals and homophobic behaviour can be considered.

3.2 The homosexual relationship
The Scriptural information on homosexual behaviour makes any form of homosexual behaviour unacceptable. Therefore the modern view that homosexual behaviour is acceptable as long as it happens within a permanent relationship and is subjected to the same prerequisites as the heterosexual marriage is not acceptable. In that case, all the other human orientations that are part of the broken reality in which people live and against which they struggle must also be approved within the confines of certain conditions. Such a view by implication endangers the entire concept of Christian sanctification.

The biblical principle of the unacceptability of homosexuality finds support in the sciences as well. Based on scientific research Moberly says that homosexual behaviour is not the solution to the problem of the homosexual person's experience of loss. A permanent homosexual relationship is not the answer.47 Due to the fact that the orientation is the result of an experience of loss in such a person's formative years, and because this is the crucial matter that should be addressed, such a person is not capable of commitment to a permanent relationship.48 The solution lies in the person's coping with his orientation and this should be found on a psychological level:

Homosexuality involves both a state of incompletion and a drive towards completion. The normal process of pschycological growth has been checked in a significant respect, but the potential for restoration is not absent, and the process of growth may be resumed. This reparative attempt is, we must repeat, the solution and not the problem. The normal process of growth has been interrupted and left unfulfilled, and the capacity for same-sex love is itself the attempt to restore the disrupted attachment. It is this that the homosexual strives towards.

3.3 The legitimating of the homosexual marriage
The above-mentioned remarks are also valid for marriages between persons with a homosexual orientation. Another argument can be added. Because homosexual behaviour is "contra naturam", it endangers the dignity of the persons who are involved. The human being as the image carrier of God is part of the journey out of a broken dispensation. God's intention is that man should become a new person and should grow out of the ruggedness and the imperfection of this world. The person on this road should fight the sinful dispensation. Christ's redemption makes this struggle possible and the Holy Spirit leads God's children on this path of renewal. Persons who surrender to behaviour contradicting the values of the new life in Christ endanger their own likeness to the image of God. This is not only valid for homosexual behaviour, but for all behaviour that is in conflict with the fruits of the Spirit (GI. 5:22-24). Although homosexual behaviour must be regarded as a sin it is not a greater sin than all the human deeds that flow from the works of the flesh such as adultery, anger and hatred.

For these reasons the so-called homosexual marriage can not be regarded as dignified. Christian ethics agree that human dignity should be one of the foundations of the Liberal Democracy in South Africa. However, an affiliation that is "contra naturam" and that does not qualify as dignified from a Christian ethical point of view should therefore be seen as contradictory to this constitutional value. A homosexual marriage is in my view unconstitutional, because it violates the basic value of human dignity. More will be said about this dimension of the matter when the responsibility of the government is discussed.

3.4 Homophobic behaviour
Although homosexual behaviour is "contra naturam", the homosexual person is. like all people, an image bearer of God. The Christian doctrine of man as image of God is the foundation for Christians' humane treatment of their fellow humans. People are not obviously humane, but they should be humane and should become humane.49 Dehumanisation of others through discrimination and maliciousness inhibits the process of becoming humane.

In addition the commandment of love demands a love towards all people. Christian love can not be limited to persons of the same group, nation, race, class or sexual orientation. As depraved people that fights against their own depravity. Christians should love all people unqualified, although they hate sin itself. The person with a homosexual orientation must be treated and regarded with love. As in the case of racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and sexism, homophobic behaviour should be rejected. Homophobic behaviour is inhuman - for the doer as well as for the object. It is furthermore harmful for the homosexual person's idea of God and contrary to the commandment of love.

4. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
Hauerwas' view that the church does not "have a social ethics" but rather "is a social ethics" delineates the duty of the church with regard to homosexuality in a nutshell. Although he has a different opinion about the handling of homosexuality. The emphasis that he places on the church as example of moral cohabitation of people is valuable in this sense. One can therefore in general depart from the view that the church edifies society as "social-ethical example" so that the value system of society mirrors the Scriptural ethical perspective. The church is after all an opinion former, both in testimony and as example of a worthy society.
When the general point of departure is further refined, the following can be said: The duty of the church is firstly to carry a Scriptural testimony into society. Scriptural principles should especially be emphasised these days, our times being the result of years of secularisation of sexuality with its harmful and painful effects on human relationships. The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical tradition is indeed an example of this. Unfortunately the Protestant voice has become largely irrelevant due to differences among them on the matter of sexuality and it seems that some groups are just constructing an ethical underpinning for the further secularisation of sexuality.

Secondly, the church has a particular calling towards people with a homosexual orientation. In the fulfilment of this calling it is necessary to distinguish homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour. Although the church cannot grant recognition to any form of homosexual behaviour or the homosexual marriage, the church must look after the person with a homosexual orientation in pastoral compassion. The person with a homosexual orientation bares, like other people, the image of God and is entitled to full respect and humane treatment. Such a person should be fully accepted into the community of believers and can not be excluded from for instance the ecclesiastical offices as a result of the deviating orientation. Such a person should be guided to deal with the deviating orientation without expressing it sexually in any way. Just as in the case single heterosexual people, divorcees, widows and widowers that may not express their sexual desires in an extra-marital relationship; homosexual persons may not express their homosexual orientation in homosexual behaviour. For the persons with a homosexual orientation the norm of self-denial as part of Christian attitude is of particular importance in this regard. They have to lay down the desire for sexual fulfilment, just as single heterosexual people have to do it. This should be done as fulfilment of their obligation to be obedient to God. A true Christian attitude can not entertain homosexual conduct.

When guiding a person with a homosexual orientation, it must be considered that the person is trying to work through a certain loss and in this regard pastoral ministry can contribute greatly. Moberly says:

Unmet needs are to be met - but without erotisation. It is the sexual expression of pre-adult pschycological needs that is unacceptable, and it is in this sense that one may say that God did not intend homosexuality. The needs are legitimate: the only question is of the legitimate means of fulfilling such needs when they have not been met in the ordinary process of growth.

She furthermore says that it does not help to convince the person to enter into a heterosexual marriage, because:

Marriage (heterosexual - JMV) cannot be a cure for homosexuality, since a relationship with the opposite sex cannot deal with same-sex deficits. Indeed, the practice of heterosexuality may bring unhappiness not only to the homosexual but to the heterosexual partner.

The call for celibacy can not be seen as the sole solution either. This call should be coupled with dynamic counselling to work through the sense of loss. The people with homosexual orientations have certain psychological needs and they can learn to better handle this orientation, which they can not change, and to make better choices if these needs are met on a psychological level.

5. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT
The current discourse in South Africa argues that there are two matters of importance with regard to the government's responsibility towards people with a homosexual orientation. The first concerns the legitimating of marriages between two persons of the same sex, and the second deals with the question of whether people with a homosexual orientation may be discriminated against under certain circumstances.

The legitimating of homosexual marriages is currently being considered in South Africa. After the South African Court of Appeal's ruling in December 2004, the Afrikaans daily, Beeld, wrote in a main article that the ruling is a purely juridical ruling and not a moral verdict. 57 With this statement the paper reflected the opinion of many of the advocates of marriages between people of the same sex. The view departs from the positivistic view that jurisprudence is paradigm free and morally neutral. However, this positivistic view can be questioned with good grounds. The post-modernist view of science has already proved such an approach invalid.58 All science and rational points of view function within and are determined by certain paradigms. The same can be said of jurisprudence. Jurisprudence does not function in a vacuum as if it is "objective". Jurisprudence is always value-driven and takes place within a certain paradigm as well.

The verdict on marriages between people of the same sex in South Africa departs from a certain view of equality and human dignity - in this case a secular-humanist life and world-view. The underlying life and world-view can be questioned from a Christian ethical perspective. It firstly disputes the Scriptural idea of human dignity. If man is permitted to enter into a marriage that is "contra natura mil, it reduces humanity to a beastly level because man has been lifted from the randomness of sexual relations, differently so than animals. The verdict is therefore also a moral verdict that is forced upon society. As moral verdict it goes against the neutrality that the government is supposed to maintain with regard to religious views. With the legitimating of marriages between people of the same sex the government does take a definite moral position and its neutrality can thus be questioned.

When seen from another angle a further argument against the legitimating of homosexual marriages can be offered. A constitution and its application in jurisprudence should take the values of the community it serves into account.59 Exercising rights should not go against the value system because that estranges the constitution form the community and the history from which the constitution grew. The strong Christian nature of the South African community and the influence of Islam and the traditional African Religions in those communities are all strongly opposed to the legitimating of marriages between persons of the same gender. For this reason the government should not legitimate such marriages.

However, one can argue differently about the other fundamental rights of a person with a homosexual orientation. In a Liberal Democracy the government cannot do differently than to recognise and protect the rights of all people. All citizens live under the protection of the constitution and are forced to obey the responsibilities that it lies down. The current South African government's emphasis on the protection of the rights of previously disadvantaged groups, women, the disabled, etcetera, must be welcomed. It is in line with the norms of the Christian attitude. The person with a homosexual orientation's rights should also be protected.

In this regard the Vatican's view that it is no injustice to discriminate against persons with a homosexual orientation in terrains like teaching, sport coaching, military recruitment, public housing en health is not defendable. Such a view is not only a violation of the commandment of love, but it also contradicts the central principles of a democracy. It further promotes homophobia. Due to the preference to religious neutrality when it comes to ethical principles and the constitutional principles of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience a government should refrain from imposing a certain value system on society. The government can only take the existing values into account, as was argued above. For this reason it does not lie within the limits of the authority of the government to arrange sexuality through legislation. With the exception of a redefinition of a marriage, because of the reasons I discussed above, there can thus be no other forms of discrimination against people with a homosexual orientation by way of legislation, as has indeed been the case in different periods in the past. Christians and churches have to defend the rights of people with a homosexual orientation in the same way they are defending the rights of all other people. The norms of a Christian attitude leave no room for the discrimination proposed by the Vatican. Sexual morality should be shaped by churches; other religious institutions and
educational societies through education and convincing, and not by way of governmental legislation.

6. CONCLUSION
In the light of the research, the questions in the introduction of the chapter can be answered as follows:

Homosexual behaviour is "contra naturam". For this reason any form of homosexual behaviour should be rejected by the Christian Church. People with a homosexual orientation should keep themselves from homosexual behaviour and must have self-discipline, just like all other people should, given their broken human nature. Abstaining from homosexual behaviour is their duty as Christians who want to manifest the norms of Christian attitude namely, love, stewardship, self-denial and obedience to God. Especially self-denial and obedience to God can be valued as very important ethical directives in this sphere of human life.

According to the behavioural sciences the homosexual orientation of pure or core homosexuals is not reversible. This orientation is founded in a certain loss in the developmental phases during the childhood years. The Church should lead the person with a homosexual orientation to understand this loss and to work through it with Christian love and pastoral compassion.

The believer with a homosexual orientation, who do not practice homosexual behaviour is, like others, an image bearer of God and should be treated as a full member of the church and should enjoy the same rights as any other believer. As citizen the person with a homosexual orientation should enjoy all the rights that the constitution offers and such a person may not be discriminated against in any way.

Due to the fact that homosexual behaviour is "contra naturam" the Christian ethic, and therefore also the church, cannot grant any legitimacy for a homosexual relationship or a homosexual marriage. A constitution grows from the soil of a certain history and it mirrors the value system of the society, and therefore the constitutional court should have given a verdict against the legalisation of homosexual marriages and the Parliament should refrain from redefining marriage in order to make room for homosexual marriages.

Homophobic behaviour and also discrimination against persons with a homosexual orientation is contrary to the commandment of love and therefore unethical. The church and the government should reject all forms of homophobic action. Christian attitude requires that the norms of love, stewardship, self-denial and obedience to God be implemented in Christians' relations with homosexual people to it fullest extent as it should be done with all other people.

Persons with a homosexual orientation therefore have the right to be treated humanely within the church and society, but have the duty to abstain from any form of homosexual behaviour.

PMG note: Footnotes and graphs have been removed