Is Homosexuality a sin?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Voters for option one are more likely to be trolls, but oh well.

[Del Tachi]

The second option.

Homosexual attraction isn't a sin anymore than any other type of sexual lust, but I think that its pretty clear that sodomy falls under the new testament definition of fortification.  So, homosexual attraction =/= sin while homosexual behavior = sin.

Of course, its the same deal with heterosexual acts outside of marriage.   

[bedstuy]

It depends on how you interpret the particular religious text.  Homosexuality is certainly not wrong in any ethical or moral way.  It's just based on how you interpret the text in whatever religion you're talking about. 

Here's my basic textual argument against saying homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity:

We know there's no ethical problem with homosexuality.  It's perfectly healthy and normal.  So, it would absurd to read the Bible as condemning all gay people, if you hold the Bible to be divinely inspired.  So, what would those passage in the Bible mean?  I would surmise that text is not referring to all gay sex, rather it is referring to something akin to prison rape.  That's probably how people would have understood homosexual behavior in general back in ancient times because there was nothing akin to a gay community.

The second option.

Homosexual attraction isn't a sin anymore than any other type of sexual lust, but I think that its pretty clear that sodomy falls under the new testament definition of fortification.  So, homosexual attraction =/= sin while homosexual behavior = sin.

Of course, its the same deal with heterosexual acts outside of marriage.   

The two dudes have to be pretty built to call gay sex a fortification.

[afleitch]

The idea that homosexual attraction is 'sexual lust' like 'any other type' begs the question; what is the other type/s? One would assume that the comparative act to a man sleeping with a man would be a man sleeping with a wo-man. One would therefore assume that the comparable act to a man sleeping with a woman is a man sleeping with a man. Therefore it would be logical, even with a conservative interpretation, to treat such matters as the same.

The problem for many Christians is that no homosexual acts can ever be moral or be removed of 'sin' by being within the context of marriage. Neither can love. So to some there is no way whatsoever that those sexual acts can ever be okay. Of course there are various degrees of disagreement over what sexual acts are okay within an opposite sex marriage; is it purely for procreation, can it be romantic, can it be carnal. Can it be be touch, and kiss, and breath and holds and heart racing? Can it be kink? We know what has been okay in the past within the context of Christian marriage and indeed is still acceptable in some circles today; marital rape for example. I make no apologies for being blunt but it is perverse to take an act of force and violence and make it and acceptable behaviour within the context of a religious marriage yet condemn even light sexual bonding, based on consent and love between two men or two women.

And this is where Christianity really struggles. Many strains evidently do not understand love as it is. Not love as they would like it to be, but as it actually happens between two people. They of do not understand where there is deep love or even where that love has receded.

When you fall in love with someone, what is it about them that you fall in love with? The answer that we should give; the ‘right’ answer is that you love them because of who they are; for their faults as well as what makes them special. That love should pay no attention to how people look, or what other people think of them. Love should be about the essence of that person and the joy that you bring each other. Sex should be secondary.

And that is a very key part of human relationships. A relationship built on love and pair bonding should be sexual, it is healthy to be sexual, but that is always secondary to love. The idea that same sex couples are somehow more carnal or experience lust over love is a complete and deliberate blindness to what people are actually experiencing.

What traditional Christian understanding of sexual love does inadvertently is be over sensitised or predisposed to the physical even when it illicits a prudish attitude to what is carnal. ‘Love can only exist in marriage; marriage is about procreation. Only one man and one woman.’ You cannot get more ‘physical’ or more base than statements such as these being rooted as they are in sex, gender and physical acts of reproduction. Love, actual love is almost secondary to sex.

When confronted with the love between two men, then that love is charged as being lesser on the basis of their physical 'incompatibility', the very fact that they have a specific sex or gender or on the basis of not being able to have children. By extension, there is an underlying assumption and an often neglected one, that the merit of a man or of a woman is in having their own children, not in being responsible for raising or supporting the children of others. In this mind-set, there is little scope for acknowledging the love of the ‘person’ as opposed to the body. Or the familial love of people who do not come from a union of those two bodies. Furthermore, amongst opposite sex couples within the traditional Christian understanding of love and marriage, the physical takes prominence over the person in matters concerning the relationship itself.  Within the context of what happens when the physical compatibility remains in that they are one man and one women perhaps with children, but the personal compatibility is breaking down, this has led to a rather unsympathetic and intrinsically unhealthy view towards separation and divorce.

I do not consider that the secular and permissive response to sex and relationships  is unhealthily concerned with matters of sex. Quite the contrary, I think those responses are broadly healthy. It is the traditional Christian view of which I would say is not fully formed; of sex, relationships, men and women that is overly concerned with the physical and the carnal even within the mandated confines of marriage.

[politicus]

Option 4 is a problematic mix. At least one of Pauls references is to something else (child prostitution), and the other might be interpreted to be about something else (a general condemnation of orgies and sexual debauchery), but Moses was obviously condemning sexual relations between men.

[Maistre]

Of course.

[GaussLaw]

Option 2.

I am very surprised by these results.

This subforum is by no means a microcosm of the whole forum.

[eric82oslo]

[Vern]

Number 2

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why are we having this thread?

[GaussLaw]

Why are we having this thread?

Why not?  If one believes in a religion, isn't it important to discuss what one believes is right and wrong according to said religion?  If one takes the Bible seriously, then this is certainly a topic worthy of discussion.


As for my two cents, here's my take:
1) Homosexual attraction would be loosely a sin only in the sense of Jesus saying "If you even look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery in your heart."  The same would apply for homosexuals, but this is hardly on the same class of sins as others.  Temptation may even be a better word, in my opinion.  Jesus Christ's Gospel is the fulfillment of the Law, which prescribed punishments for full-blown actions rather than just thoughts. Jesus indeed "raised the bar" (in addition to hating your brother = murder) and thus this would be applied to homosexual relations as well, but again, having a crush on a woman is not vehemently condemned by anyone, so for a Christian to do the same is pure hypocrisy and self-righteousness.  This basically takes Option 1 off the table, unless one is using a very literal definition of "sin" as something completely all-encompassing.
2) If one consider's Paul's works canonical, then the injunctions against homosexual sex are fairly clear, though context can be debated.  I think there are a few verses about being given over to unnatural affections [Romans 1:26] that hit home.  If one doesn't consider Paul's works canonical, in part or in totality, they are treading on dangerous ground with regard to scripture. 

After all, 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives."

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I voted option 2; all sexual lust, as noted, is a sin. But all humans, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sinners. Homosexual love is just as wonderful in God's eyes as heterosexual love.

[bedstuy]

I voted option 2; all sexual lust, as noted, is a sin. But all humans, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sinners. Homosexual love is just as wonderful in God's eyes as heterosexual love.

I don't want to get too graphic, but isn't sexual lust required for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman?   Does God want humans to slowly die off?  Or, is it that God will be angry if you don't have a big old Christian family, but he's also going to be angry whenever you have a boner?  That's a tad Kafkaesque, isn't it? 

If you ask me, the real sinners are the people that make people feel guilty about sex and emotionally abuse gay people.  You can have these weird religious beliefs in theory, but imagine if you had a gay kid.  Would you tell them they can never have sex, because the bible?  That's a truly horrible thing to say.

And, that goes back to my point.  You shouldn't create these fundamentalist beliefs based on scripture.  Rather, religious texts should be like the Constitution, a living document.  So, when you realize as a society that homosexuality is not morally wrongful, change how you interpret the Bible.  It's a process that has been done many times before.  On this issue, it's time for Christianity to get with the times.

[DemPGH]

No, not at all. If anything is socially constructed, I would say "sin" is.

Now, does the Bible think homosexuality is a sin? Sure it does.

[The Mikado]

If anything is socially constructed, I would say "sin" is.

Does "socially constructed" mean "nonexistent" now?

[DemPGH]

If anything is socially constructed, I would say "sin" is.

Does "socially constructed" mean "nonexistent" now?

Hmm. Well, I don't accept the authority of religious texts and I don't think that God's law as it were (assuming a god exists) can be ascertained by human beings, which rather makes the endeavor pointless to me. So "sin" as defined as "a transgression against divine law" - no, I suppose I don't think that exists or else cannot be determined.

But morality is a little trickier and varies culture to culture and even within cultures, and morality is certainly one place where ideas come from about God wants or does not want. I think that, like ritual, is very socially constructed.

[DC Al Fine]

I voted option 2; all sexual lust, as noted, is a sin. But all humans, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sinners. Homosexual love is just as wonderful in God's eyes as heterosexual love.

I don't want to get too graphic, but isn't sexual lust required for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman?   Does God want humans to slowly die off?  Or, is it that God will be angry if you don't have a big old Christian family, but he's also going to be angry whenever you have a boner?  That's a tad Kafkaesque, isn't it? 

I don't see how its any different from a variety of other vices. Do you think it's Kafkaesque to like food and condemn gluttony? We may disagree on the line, but the idea that there should be a line isn't very controversial IMO.

[bedstuy]

I voted option 2; all sexual lust, as noted, is a sin. But all humans, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sinners. Homosexual love is just as wonderful in God's eyes as heterosexual love.

I don't want to get too graphic, but isn't sexual lust required for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman?   Does God want humans to slowly die off?  Or, is it that God will be angry if you don't have a big old Christian family, but he's also going to be angry whenever you have a boner?  That's a tad Kafkaesque, isn't it? 

I don't see how its any different from a variety of other vices. Do you think it's Kafkaesque to like food and condemn gluttony? We may disagree on the line, but the idea that there should be a line isn't very controversial IMO.

Sexual lust is not akin to gluttony, lust IE desire for sex is comparable to being hungry IE desire for food.  Sex addiction or nymphomania is the comparison to gluttony.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Wow, so the results of THIS poll are troubling.  I'm a 100% sure that it is not a sin, and even if there's turns out to be a deity that condemns it, I would consider the deity to be in the wrong.  Unjustified totalitarian rule over one's sexuality is unjustified, no matter the source. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

PAPOY is the strongest evidence in favor.

[© tweed]

Richard Hays gives a good treatment of the topic here.  http://www.presbyterymiddletennessee.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hays-article.pdf

[AndrewTX]

Sure is, and I love living in it every minute!

[Del Tachi]

Sure is, and I love living in it every minute!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Sure is, and I love living in it every minute!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure is, and I love living in it every minute!

Do you also love theft, murder, slander, etc.?  To think something is a sin and to love doing it is truly depraved and in this it also confirms the worst opinions of those who are homophobes.