Note: The quotes and many ideas from this section sprang from the first chapter of Denny Burk and Heath Lambert’s book Transforming Homosexuality.

As the gay movement continues to blossom many positive aspects of relationships between people of the same sex are destroyed.  A good example of this is found in the APA’s definition of sexual orientation:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to men, women, or both sexes…

When I read this my question was, “Why is emotional attraction part of sexual orientation?”  I understand why “romantic and sexual attraction”  are included. Sexual orientation must include the erotic or it is not sexual. But I do not understand why they include emotional attraction. Can a man be emotionally attracted to another man and it not be sexual? Can a son love a father or a brother love a brother and it not be sexual? Can football players admire one another and it not be sexual? Of course  they can. And they have throughout all of history. The clearest Biblical example is David’s love for Jonathan. But we also have the disciple leaning on Jesus at the Last Supper. We have Paul’s love for Timothy. We have the church at Ephesus weeping when Paul left, which included men and elders. History is filled with men loving one another, admiring one another, praising one another’s virtues, and finding them emotionally attractive, without the relationship being sexual.

Lest you feel I am too picky notice that little word “or”  in the definition. Of course sexual attraction will include emotional attraction. But the word “or” indicates that emotional attraction can be the sole indicator of sexual orientation. Really? There can be no sexual component and yet it still be sexual? Wesley argues the same thing in his book Spiritual Friendship.  He says  that same sex attraction cannot be reduced to sex, but includes a desire for same-sex friendship and maybe even a preference of same sex companions. But this latter part has nothing to do with homosexuality. Men have often preferred the company of men to women without the relationship being erotic at all. In fact, one could argue that outside of bed and some social functions, most men throughout most of history have preferred the company of other men to women, even their wives, for work, play, and study.

It seems to me that if we are not sexually attracted to members of the same sex what type of attraction is left? Emotional attraction would be a good way to describe it. Most of the relationships between members of the same sex throughout history have been of this kind. What is admiration, but emotional attraction? What is the love of two soldiers who have endured war, but a type of emotional bond or attraction? What is the love of sister for sister, but a type of emotional attraction? Can a young boy admire a man and it not be latent sexual desires? I should hope so!

We see here again the sexualization of all relationships. I believe most men and perhaps women, feel that any admiration for someone of the same sex, any emotional joy at being in their presence, any delight in their company, must be evidence of some underlying sexual attraction. The push for the normalization of sodomy is destroying normal relationships between members of the same sex.  That is a terrible thing.

As Christians we must fight homosexuality on several fronts. But one of the least talked about is the need for men to learn to love men, and women love women, rightly. Emotional attraction is a huge part of this. We must be able to love each other , laugh with one another, weep with one another, prefer the company of someone of the same sex, praise each other, and that not be squished through the homosexual grid. A man can love another man and be emotionally attracted to him and it not be sexual. If we don’t believe that then I am not sure we can ever recover a Biblical view of relationships.