Is Homosexuality a sin?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

You just have to use your common sense.  Society will always change and hopefully improve and progress, but we'll never have any information about what God wants or even whether God exists.  So, it makes sense to just make your religion fall in line with being a decent human being, or else just keep it to yourself.  It's the same with how Christianity in the civilized world has moved past the idea that witchcraft is a thing.  Maybe God is super, super pissed at America for not burning witches.  That's doesn't mean we should set middle aged women on fire or mistreat gay people just to be sure. 

That's the thing about religion.  It's not about these specific rules, it's about spirituality and the ritual aspect.  So, when the rules are clearly wrong, just change them for crying out loud.

[bedstuy]

You just have to use your common sense.  Society will always change and hopefully improve and progress, but we'll never have any information about what God wants or even whether God exists.  So, it makes sense to just make your religion fall in line with being a decent human being, or else just keep it to yourself.  It's the same with how Christianity in the civilized world has moved past the idea that witchcraft is a thing.  Maybe God is super, super pissed at America for not burning witches.  That's doesn't mean we should set middle aged women on fire or mistreat gay people just to be sure. 

That's the thing about religion.  It's not about these specific rules, it's about spirituality and the ritual aspect.  So, when the rules are clearly wrong, just change them for crying out loud.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the "common sense" and "decent human being" are incredibly nebulous things.

I don't understand what you mean by that.  Secular ethics or reasoning isn't black and white like reading a hadith and saying, alcohol is haram.  But, it's in no way nebulous.  Spirituality is the more nebulous things actually, because it's all based on individual's feelings.

That's the problem with being too religious.  You're looking to a religion for black and white answers because it's comforting.  But, there's a very dark side that kind of fundamentalist thinking, which is when your black and white answer is wrong, like it is about gay people.  I don't see what so hard about this one though, sexuality shouldn't be the focus of your religion anyhow.  Couldn't you just take the tact that sexuality isn't your business to make these judgments about?

[bedstuy]

The problem is that without God, it can be difficult to truly say what is right and wrong.  Many secular scientists advocated eugenics in the early 20th century, while those "backwards Bible thumpers" like William Jennings Bryan and those in the Catholic church opposed it.  Advocates of eugenics thought they were acting in people's best interests by preventing the birth of 'defective' children. 


The bottom line is that the Bible has multiple verses against homosexuality, in the Old and the New Testament.  Furthermore, even if someone is "born" gay, that is OK; rather, it is the act of homosexual sex that is sinful.  Gays can still marry the opposite sex, as sexual preference is generally  not truly binary.  Furthermore, homosexual sex is a mockery of God's design for procreation, if one takes the Bible to be the truth of God's word.  Because I do, I believe that homosexuality is wrong.  And while secularists may love to keep making their own moral code, I'll stick with my old time religion, and it's good enough for me.

EDIT:  The idea that a religion must change their views to meet society's changing whims flies in the face of anyone who takes that religious text seriously.  Both the OT and the NT are very critical of the whims of the world; believers are exhorted to trust God and his word, not the capricious views of mankind.

This is a good example of how you shouldn't be a fundamentalist. 

You have this situation, a kid realizes that they're gay.  They feel worried about it because it's not the "normal" way to be and it can feel very isolating and scary.  Your answer for that person is to pretend that they're heterosexual, marry someone of the opposite sex and ruin two lives with one horrible decision.  Your alternative is, never have sex or any intimate romantic relationships.  That's one life ruined.  My solution is come out, have sex and relationships with someone of the same-sex and be who you are.  That's the right answer.  Anyone with actual life experience with gay family members knows that I'm right.

So, just make that moral insight a part of Christianity.  It's not that big of a deal.  All religions constantly change with society, because they're as surely a part of culture as anything else.  After all, these religious texts were written by people.  They reflect their gaps in knowledge and their often primitive culture.

[bedstuy]

Look, I want to first say that I don't think that Christianity should dictate a nation's laws, so I am not forcing gays to accept these 2 options.  Rather, I am simply saying that the religion of Christianity, as religions are based on their respective Holy Text, which in this case is the Bible, would give these 2 options.  This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people.  As I recall you being critical of prohibitions against premarital sex, you likely would call those lives "ruined" as well for straight people who don't want to marry.  And to this idea that scripture just becomes outdated, Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love me, obey my commandments."  2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 

While Christians can and do quibble about specific verses, the broader message seen in much of the Bible is that Christians should not march in tune with the world.  There are many, many Bible verses about this, and this would thus apply to people in modern day. 

If you don't agree with Christianity, that's fine.  I'm just making the case for why homosexual sex is a sin from a Bible-believing Christian point of view.

It's just foolish to make religion so dependent on these details and rules.  Religion ought to be this more individual spiritual thing where you don't make these sweeping specific claims.  These texts were all just written by people. And in all likelihood, the Christian God doesn't actually exist.  It's certainly a meme or a concept that exists, and people can care about their feelings towards this concept, but it's not useful to make these sweeping statements about what "God thinks."  God is just an idea that was created by human beings.  The point of religion rather is just to practice it and hopefully it makes you happy and teaches you about being a good person.