Is Homosexuality a sin?

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Seems pretty easy to reconcile to me. Follow along:

1) I accept that some people have need for a category of actions they label "sinful".
2) To them, homosexuality falls into that category.
3) There is some overlap between what they would consider "sinful" and what I would call "wrong", but that overlap is not complete.
4) Homosexuality is not in that overlap.
5) Therefore I can accept that homosexuality is "sinful" (a category which means nothing to me) while not thinking it morally wrong, and enjoy it as I will.

Bleh.  Playing with semantics doesn't in the least affect the point you perfectly well knew (or should have known) that I was making.  It doesn't matter what you call it, sin, wrongness, blameworthy, etc.  To think that something is something that should not be engaged in is nevertheless something you enjoys doing is completely depraved.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I didn't see the mild humor in this bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The humor depends entirely upon the contrast between a theocentric definition and a anthropocentric definition of sin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll concede that some people use "sin" to refer exclusively to actions deemed wrong by a deity, but I've always used it in a more generic sense, and I think my quote made clear I was using it in that sense, albeit with a bit of mild humor concerning the contrast with the theocentric sense, humor that apparently got lost and by now has been totally obliterated.

There's really two ways to think of those quips

1) Doing something one knows is wrong
2) Sticking a thumb in the eye of the socons

I think everyone was doing the latter, which is a bit immature, but not nearly as bad as the former option.

Meaning?

Meaning they're immature like that in-law of yours who insists on bringing up certain subjects to get a rise out of you.

But if your in-laws want to get a rise out of you because you keep telling them that their very lives are inherently sinful, maybe it's past time to re-evaluate whose actions are more offensive here.

Yeah.  There's a difference here.  People can stop being homophobic or change what you think your God thinks about homosexuality, but gays and lesbians can't become heterosexual.  Or, just keep it to yourself.Honestly, you should get crap about saying hateful things about gay people or saying homosexuality is a "sin."   

And, bringing up these societal "rules" that supposedly have the imprimatur of the Christian God is dumb anyway.  Society changes so it's just going to drive people away from religion and bring up the idea that God is a fictional concept.  It's like with Mormons, it looks kind of bad that God suddenly allowed black people into heaven in the late 1970s.  If you back the wrong horse on a political "social issue," you're going to piss people off and eventually discredit your religion when you tell everyone that homosexuality is perfectly fine in 50 years or whenever that happens.

OTOH, if it be a sin in the eyes of God, a lot of people are going to have some explaining to do, and the same goes for lot of activities that a strict literal reading of the Bible would indicate are sins yet are considered acceptable in today's society.  The major difference between homosexuality and those other activities is that only a small minority of people want to engage in it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2nd point, Anal sex and oral sex -if they are wrong in any way- are equally 'wrong'
if done heterosexually. I'm not saying that they are wrong, but only what's the difference
between homo vs hetero?

First off, there are multiple passages in Song of Songs that are descriptive of oral sex, and otherwise the Bible is essentially silent on the topic, so I don't think any serious Bible scholar could argue that oral sex per se is bad.

Now to play devil's advocate on the anal sex part of your point, let me point out that while the Bible can be interpreted as having the viewpoint that the purpose of sex is procreation, it doesn't state that every single act of sex may only be undertaken for that purpose alone.  As the Song of Songs makes quite clear, the Bible acknowledges that sex is a way of strengthening personal bonds, so it isn't deed but the intent. Hence if one were to hold the view that homosexual love be a sin, it is not because of the physical act itself but because one has taken the intimacy intended to be shared with someone of the opposite sex as a means of strengthening the bonds of procreative matrimony and used it for illicit purposes.  In that viewpoint, adultery and fornication are just as bad as homosexual relations, but consensual anal sex within a heterosexual marriage would not be considered a sin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If God is Love, would God put any human being in such a stressful conundrum?

Read the Book of Job.

More generally, each of us is placed in stressful conundrums during our life, many of which are beyond our ability to resolve.  Yet since God is Love, why does he allow that to happen?  The argument against a loving God ever allowing us to be placed into unpleasant circumstances depends upon the false presumption that God's omnipotence means that he can do the impossible.  It's a simple exercise in basic to logic to construct a set of statements in which it is logically consistent for any two of the statements to be true, yet impossible to make all three statements be true.  Not even God can do the impossible.

If one is going to argue the impossibility of sexual orientation being a sin, one needs a better argument than mere logic.  Logic is silent on this topic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So?  Your argument is based upon the premise that a loving God must give each human an equal shot at happiness and self-fulfillment.  It's a wonderfully egalitarian premise, but frankly it is illogical to assume as you have that it must be a premise that God uses to maximize either human happiness or universal good.

If one is going to mount a valid argument against the legitimacy of Bible-based homophobia, it isn't going to be made by attacking the logical results that one gets if one starts with premise that the entire Bible is both inerrantly received and the infallible word of God.  Nor do the homophobic results of Leviticus by themselves create any sort of logical contradictions.