What Doug Wilson says about gay and transgender people

In other words, the Bible requires the suppression of homosexual vice, with the tools for such restriction including the possibility of the death penalty, but also allowing for banishment. Death is not necessarily an unjust punishment, but lawful punishments shy of that are certainly endorsed by Scripture as well.

Actually, this is the case for homosexual and adultery—heterosexual sin and adultery both. The capital offenses in the Old Testament, many people take them as minimum penalties... I take them as maximum penalties... [Sam Harris: “Are you open-minded with respect to the sanction of capital punishment in response to homosexuality and adultery? There are cases in which you think the maximum biblical sanction could be and should be applied?”] Correct. There are—I could envision a circumstance where that could happen. Capital punishment could be applied without injustice... One of my baseline convictions is I’m not going to apologize for any sanction that’s clearly in the Bible... When there was a man who was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, I’m not going to apologize for that. That was holy, righteous, and good. When someone was executed for the various offenses you mentioned back then, that was holy, righteous, and good.

▶Watch from 1:01:01

King Asa in Israel and King Jehoshaphat both, in modern parlance, closed the bathhouses, they shut it down, and they exiled the homosexuals, and they didn’t execute them. And so my argument was execution is not the minimum penalty in the Old Testament; it’s the maximum penalty. It’s not a minimum ‘you must do this in all circumstances.’ So I was arguing for the civil magistrate having the leeway to deal with the social problem of public sodomy and the pride parades and whatnot.

▶Watch from 32:49

[Pamela Brown: “Would you endorse punishing someone who is gay in the America you want to be living in?”] This brings up another old controversy. King Asa in Israel and King Jehoshaphat both, in modern parlance, they both closed the bathhouses, they shut it down, and they exiled. They said, all done with that, and exiling homosexuals. And the Scripture praises both men for doing that, which means that the requirement for the death penalty that does exist in Leviticus, that requirement was not a minimum penalty, but was a maximum penalty, because Scripture praises the kings who didn’t execute the homosexuals; they just shut the orgy down. They just shut the party down. So there is latitude in the application of biblical law.

▶Watch from 26:17

In that debate back then, I pointed out that King Asa and King Jehoshaphat in the Old Testament closed the bathhouses, and they exiled the sodomites from the land. And their behavior is praised in the text. That told me that execution, although a lawful penalty for homosexual behavior, was not the minimum penalty; it was the maximum penalty. [Spencer Macnaughton: "And do you believe that still, that in your eyes the maximum penalty for homosexual behavior in an ideal world, in Pastor Wilson's ideal world, would be execution?"] Yeah. [SM: "You do?"] Yeah, if you ask me: "Could you ever envision a homosexual crime of any nature being visited with the death penalty?" Yes, I could.

▶Watch the video

Modern Christians are finding themselves increasingly surrounded by a sodomite culture. […] Whether we are considering the problem of sodomy on a personal level, or on a civil level, we will not come to sexual wisdom until we come to realize that God hates all homosexual practice, and that the fear of the Lord is to hate what He hates. Compassion for the sodomite, and a willingness to present the gospel to him, is not inconsistent with a true hatred for the perversion.

[Spencer Macnaughton: “Right, that’s pedophilia though, which is of course different than homosexuality.”] Well, it’s a species of homosexual behavior. So let’s say it’s a Roman Catholic priest and a 15-year-old boy... [SM: “So you see pedophilia as an element of homosexuality, is that right?”] Yeah, if we’re talking about the alphabet people. Right? ... LGBTQ+. What’s under the plus? [SM: “Not pedophilia. Would you consider adding a ‘P’? Do you think a P is meant into that umbrella of LGBTQ?”] Absolutely. [SM: “You do? Because you conflate lesbians and gay people with, like, kind of akin to pedophiles. People who rape children?”] I don’t think that I’m making that association. I think the LGBTQ+ acronym, that whole chain, is sort of a sexual alliance of people who are defying traditional biblical norms. And pedophilia is one of those things that defies those norms. [SM: “Do you see two men having sex as equally sinful as a man raping a girl?”] Yeah, they’re both violations of God’s law.

▶Watch the video

Sodomites parade in the streets, claiming that if we do not appropriate more money to study why people with foul sexual habits get sick, we are somehow violating their civil rights.

A homosexual man has as much right to marry a woman as I do. So, it's not, in one sense, it's not uneven at all... I don't think the law should say that anybody's sexual choice, whatever their predilection is, should be honored or recognized by the state as an acceptable manifestation of our sexual impulses, because we're now dealing with minor attracted persons, right? MAPs. When you look at the LGBTQ plus community, I want to know what's underneath that plus. Who are we talking about there? Does it include pedophiles? Does it include people who are attracted to minors?

▶Watch from 9:03

Wilson The things I would change — some would be constitutional amendments. I’d want to see abortion outlawed everywhere. I’d want to see Obergefell overturned.

Fadel So no same-sex marriage. No abortion.

Wilson No same-sex marriage. I’d like the LGBTQ+ thing to go away at the legal level.

Fadel So there would be no legal protections for LGBTQ+ folks?

Wilson Correct. There would be no special carve-outs for them. [...]

Fadel But you would want to make it illegal for them to be in partnerships. You would want to restrict what they could do in their bedrooms.

Wilson Oh, you mean, like, sexual partnerships, like marriage? Yeah, so I don’t want legal recognition of those relationships.

Let's say if I were, you know, Christian nationalist king for a day, [Obergefell?] would be done. No same-sex marriage at all. [Sam Harris: “Same-sex couples would not be able to get married. They would not be able to adopt children.”] Correct.

Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.

▶Watch from 56:51

The series of appointments in the federal judgeships that led to the overturning of Roe would be the central thing. Our church doesn’t have a spire with a bell on it yet. But if we had the bell, that would have been when Dobbs came down. We would have been ringing it all day. [Pamela Brown: “And you want to see Obergefell…?”] I want to see Obergefell go the same direction.

Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.

▶Watch from 9:54

I'm not plotting with administration officials to make a move on Obergefell, but I am very vocal about it. So I think repealing Obergefell is an attainable goal in our current climate... I think there'd have to be an increased number of conservative Christians in the Senate. You would have to have trained, capable judges who were evangelical Christians... Before, Senate confirmations, hearings were all about abortion. I think the next ones will be about Obergefell... And so if you have more Christians in the Senate, if you have Christian men nominated, and the Senate has the kind of people who don't fold under pressure, then it is a doable thing.

▶Watch the video

And the laws of matrimony are not currently being upheld by our rulers, and merely extended to people who happen to be a little more creative with their sex organs. No, the goal is the abolition of marriage. These laws are not mildly adjusted marriage laws. They are laws that will have the effect, in the very near future, of nullifying and/or outlawing marriage. These current laws are not standing between us and the devil. These laws are the devil.

You see, if the gospel says that repentance and belief actually mean something in this world—like canceling that sex change operation, or forgoing the nuptials with someone whose genitalia are uncannily similar to yours, or letting your kid stay alive, or even worse, having a repentant king say that such goings-on ought not to be going on—such particulars might create a stumbling block.

[Spencer Macnaughton: “What specifically do you mean by that? Like what becomes illegal when it comes to sodomy laws?”] OK. I would regard sodomy as male-to-male intercourse, anal intercourse or oral intercourse. [SM: “Would hand jobs count or just anal and oral?”] No, between two men, between two men... Hand jobs, oral sex and anal intercourse—would be sodomy... Well, I would say that the main enforcement mechanism would be social expectations and a withholding of societal approval. It would be sort of ‘back in the closet, boys,’ not because of fear of legal retribution, but because this is simply not done. [SM: “So would it be illegal, or are you kind of walking back?”] No, I’m not walking it back. I think it ought to be that society needs to express its disapproval of this behavior in law.

▶Watch the video

When I first began ministering in 1977, in the late ’70s and early ’80s, sodomy was a felony in all 50 states, and that America of that day was not a totalitarian hellhole. [Pamela Brown: “So you would like America to go back to that?”] Yep. [Pamela Brown: “And someone watching might be like, you want to control behavior in the bedroom?”] Well, yeah. Well, I have the advantage of having built my own house. And people like to say that liberals don’t care what you do in your bedroom, but the state had opinions about how thick the sheetrock had to be in the bedroom, how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be, how big the window had to be for egress... What do you mean the government doesn’t care what happens in the bedroom?

▶Watch from 28:41

[Aaron Zitner: “And gay rights, gay marriage, homosexual activity?”] No gay marriage, no... [Aaron Zitner: “But at one point in this country, same-sex activity was a felony. Would you reinstate that?”] Same-sex activity was illegal, yes. And would be again, yes.

▶Watch from 3:01

[Cenk Uygur: “First, are you saying that we should bring back sodomy laws or no?”] Yeah, I think that sodomy—homosexual acts—should be against the law. Yes... Same-sex mirage, I call it, ought to be not a legal thing. I want homosexual unions to be not a thing anymore. And so consequently, I want those relationships to be banned—first not recognized, not honored, not glorified—and secondly, I think that it ought to be against the law.

▶Watch from 3:35

Sodomy was a felony in all 50 states. [Host: "All 50."] And my point in the interview was not primarily, let's go back to that, although I'd be happy to. My point was that state of affairs, America was a free and prosperous country at that time. We were not a totalitarian hellhole because we had those laws.

▶Watch from 34:17

There are a number of other questions I am leaving unanswered. One of them has to do with the governmental treatment of certain individuals convicted of certain homosexual acts in some unnamed Christian republic five hundred years from now. They are reasonable questions, but please keep in mind that I am in a series of controversies of some unreasonable people, and so I will answer generally. In such a republic, would homosexual acts be against the law, and if so, what would the penalty be? Like I said, reasonable questions. Yes, such behavior would be against the law — just like it was throughout all fifty states just a few short years ago. And what would the penalties be? The answer to that question requires a certain level of cultural maturity (beyond what is currently in evidence) — that has to take into account careful exegesis of the Old Testament texts, the nature and purpose of common law, the circumstances of each particular case, the flow of redemptive history, and the forgiveness that is offered to everyone in Jesus Christ.

When I first began ministering in the 70s as a preacher, sodomy was a felony in all 50 states. Now the point I'm making here is that the America of the late 70s was not a totalitarian hellhole, but we had laws like that on the books. And what that basically amounted to in practice was the ability of a magistrate, a local municipal police department or whatever to shut down bathhouses, to have a vice—and that'd be the sort of thing that I'd be interested in. A vice squad that could shut down bathhouses or deal with prostitution... I am primarily interested in the suppression of public vice. So no more homosexual marriages, no more pride parades, no more flaunting that sort of thing. But I don't want a sex gestapo either.

▶Watch from 57:14

[Cenk Uygur: "So but if the government, big government, barges into your home for whatever reason, they find you in the wrong kind of sex, you think that that person should be arrested?"] I don't think there's anything perverse or evil about charging them with this additional crime if they had a warrant... I'm entirely in favor of probable cause, you know, getting a judge to give a warrant, that sort of thing. If you have a collection of offenses and a sexual offense is one of them, and it's against the law, then I don't see any problem with charging them with that also.

▶Watch from 6:24

I think transgenderism is simply sad. I don’t think that it should be elevated to a category given equal carved-out rights... The man is the image and glory of God, and the woman is the glory of the man. I believe God created us in such a way as to reflect his glory. And the transsexual movement, I think, is a movement away from that glory... So when I see people who are tatted up and pierced, dog collar, it’s hard for me to not see self-loathing. [Spencer Macnaughton: “I have a lot of trans friends, none of them are wearing those things.”] Well, I’m glad you’re more fortunate... We’ve seen many instances of transsexual violence over the last few years. That doesn’t mean that all transsexuals are violent, but a disproportionate number of the violent episodes are coming from transsexual individuals.

▶Watch the video

And so I will do my best and will say that if circumlocutions are required of me, at the end of the day, when all things are considered, in the course of any proffered argument that I might want to advance concerning certain persons who are individual practitioners of that class of actions historically understood as faggotré […] “That’s it, bub.” I find myself in court, looking at a $250 fine, and ten counseling sessions. “How do you plead?” “Your honor, I will be the first to admit that my French is not the best...” “How do you plead?” “Not guilty, your honor.” “And yet you acknowledge that you used the word... the word spelled f-a-g-g-o-t-r-é?” “Yes, your honor. I did use that word...” “How was that not a violation of the ban on the eff-word? The Constitutional Amendment concerning this passed a entire year ago.” “Your honor, I didn’t know that was the word. I thought the eff-word law was referring to fudgepacker.” […] So would I ever taunt a slave of a particular sexual sin with a word like faggot? Of course not. But when these Pharisees of Phootball are falling all over themselves to ban the ph-word — and all driven by an insolent spiritual pride that represents our current apostate elites very well — I am more than willing to have some phun over their phailures of imagination when it comes to fallic placement. It’s their pride that makes it so funny.

But then there are the gaytards. These are the people — homosexual, straight, and whatever Justin Bieber is — who are the ideal receptacle for the cultural propaganda served up by our duly appointed thought managers. They believe in “gay rights” for the same reason that they believe in climate change. The cool kids have decreed what is “in,” and the wannabe cool kids will enforce it on the unconvinced with a ferocity that can scarcely be credited. They do this in the hope that the cool kids will notice them, and promote them to better things. These people amuse themselves by taunting people ten times shrewder than they are as “low information voters.”

And we also have to tell them that there is a pro forma way of coming to the sacrament that just accelerates the hell-bound. As I write that last sentence, I am most eager not to have it taken as encouragement to morbid introspection by the uberpious. I am talking about the guys getting lap dances, the angry husbands, the men with silk undies getting hormone shots, and so on. Paul says that the works of the flesh (which result in not inheriting the kingdom) are manifest.

In this respect, masturbation could even be considered an odd form of “homosexuality.” If every sexual experience a man has had for the last ten years has been without a woman, then his only experience of sex is with a male (himself).

[Host: “So in your mind, if a politician was able to say boldly and robustly, abortion should be abolished, homosexuality is evil and debauched, but we can't get that right now, but we [can?] get this... if we had a whole Republican Party [that] was full of people like that, you think that would be a significant move?”] Oh, I think it would be a major step forward.

Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.

▶Watch from 5:31

And so consequently, Christians need to understand that the judgment of God is not simply something that's out in the future, you know, at the end of history, although the judgment of God is going to be manifested there. In Romans 1, the wrath of God, the judgment of God is seen in history where Paul says, "Therefore, God gave them up. God gave them over." So when you're looking at pride parades in our major cities or you're looking at this [Obergefell?] decision, this is not a bad deed that the Supreme Court did that's going to incur the judgment of God down the road. This bad deed by the Supreme Court is the judgment of God... So, consequently, we are under judgment.

Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.

▶Watch from 20:21

[Pamela Brown: “And what about banning transgender military members?”] Oh, that’s great… That’s absolutely great.

▶Watch from 11:00

If the Lordship of Jesus is denied, then the only alternative, since our god is now our belly (Phil. 3:19), will be to confess the crown rights of the lower reaches of that belly, and to begin to leave bizarre and unnatural offerings on that altar. Those offerings might include the sexual organ of another, or it might be fecal transplants. Whatever. Regardless, the solution is to turn back to Jesus—not simply in our hearts, although it must begin there, but to do so on the steps of the county courthouse. When it comes down to it, there is fundamentally a basic choice. Either we will have a nativity set there, with Joseph, Mary, the baby Jesus, two cows, a goat, and a drummer boy, or we will have two (or more) homosexuals holding up their marriage license for the photographers.

What’s wrong with being used? It is the great sin of homosexual men that they abandon the natural use of the woman. Is it not?

But the central problem here is one of sexual laziness. A woman does not respond sexually in the same way a man does. Another man, on the other hand, responds in exactly the same way. […] A lazy man wants a partner who is just like he is. When it comes to sexual encounters, this is only possible with women who are willing to pretend they are not women for a fee—the women in porn or whores. But there is another kind of sexual partner who does not have to pretend; he is just the same way because he is another man.

The sacramentalists, I believe, are too careless about letting everything grow together, until eventually, like the Episcopal Church, they think that morning glory is wheat. And why shouldn’t we ordain this morning glory as a bishop? His relationship with the ragweed is a mutually affirming and caring relationship.

Please note where we actually are as a nation—just a few weeks away from the full faith and credit clause of the mangled Constitution, courtesy of Massachusetts, being used to impose homosexual marriages on Alabama, Virginia, Idaho, and all the cities of the plain. [...] [I]f a state were able to successfully secede from the Union rather than have such an abomination imposed upon them, it would be entirely noble. Not only would it be worth doing, it would be obligatory.

This is not just a rejection of sodomy, but also a contemptuous rejection of it. The price of a sodomite is described as the price of a dog. This is the probable reason for the apostle John’s exclusion of “dogs” from the New Jerusalem, which is to be understood as the Christian Church

So when I'm counseling someone who is struggling with this and wants out, one of the places I start is with that person's relationship with his father, that person's relationship with his mother, that person's upbringing. "Do you have a healthy relationship with your father? Do you hate your mother?" You know, it's not like, "What do you do when you're horny?" If you just start there, you're healing the wound lightly, basically.

▶Watch the video

But they fail to note that such frank displays of deranged yearnings would not have flown in 1958 America, which was a truly open and free society. All freedom necessitates restraint and, for those who have been following this, the question has to do with who is restrained, and how.

In fact, when the pride of life in a codpiece swanks out in front of us all, I am now required to applaud like a North Korean at a missile parade. If I don’t applaud the courage! the courage! I am guilty of hate. And, come to think of it, I am. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13).

He did this by creating us male and female. Any attempts to reconfigure this arrangement are therefore explicit assaults on the image of God.

The liberals of the 1920's did not anticipate the bizarre harvest we can now see in the mainstream denominations. If they had been warned about it, their only response would have been a confident laugh. The foolish alarmist who warned them of the eventual arrival of lesbian choir directors and Buddhist Presbyterian pastors would have been dismissed as a nutcase. But, right on schedule, here we are.