Are homosexual actions a sin?

[Alcon]

If sin does exist, then God is an asshole and I don't want anything to do with it. 

Typical immature teenager.

Perhaps his phrasing could use some work, but in base, I agree.

Since I cannot agree that homosexuals are sinful simply by virtue of being homosexual, I also do not believe that any reasonable God would believe this.  Of course, I may be wrong.  But that is part of faith.  You must believe that what you believe is correct, and take responsibility for it.  Everyone does.

[PBrunsel]

I'm always reluctant to speak in threads such as these in dear I will ignite a fleame war (no pun intended). Being a Quaker I beleive in a forgiving God, so I do beleive there is sin in the world for which he is to forgive us for.

My answer to this silly question I will keep to myself...or you could probabaly guess it.

[angus]

I just told my girlfriend what Preston said

You'll slip up one day and say "he" instead of "she" and everyone will know.  Why not just come clean with your family now, and avoid the stress?

[Joe Republic]

I just told my girlfriend what Preston said

You'll slip up one day and say "he" instead of "she" and everyone will know.  Why not just come clean with your family now, and avoid the stress?

Nope, I already solved that one.  I made my boyfriend dress up as a woman permanently, and made sure to refer to him as 'she' and 'her' as well.

Nice try, buddy.

[dazzleman]

If sin does exist, then God is an asshole and I don't want anything to do with it. 

Typical immature teenager.

^^^^^^^

I think one of the biggest things wrong with our society, and the root cause of much of our most intractible and serious problems, is the erosion of the concept of right vs. wrong.  Sin definitely exists, and much of our lives are a test of how well we use the abilities and gifts that have been given to us.

The ability to enjoy sexual pleasure is a great gift, but it must be used properly.  Sex is like fire and water.  Control it, and it is a great enhancer to your life.  If it controls you, it brings pain and misery.  The concept of sin is intended to keep us from the pain and misery that is caused by destructive behavior.

I don't think of sin mainly in sexual terms.  And truth be told, in the past religious types have oversold the concept of sin, and expanded the definition of sin ridiculously to the point where many people now reject the whole concept.  I think that's a real shame.

As far as homosexuality goes, I don't know whether it's a sin or not.  If two people are consenting and committed to each other, then it's hard for me to see it as a sin, whatever the church may say about it.  On the other hand, if a sex act is effectively being used by one person to hurt another, then it is sin, and that goes for heterosexual sex, too, as well as for non-sexual behavior.

[A18]

Ultimately, some thing have to be sinful just because they are, or nothing can be sinful.

[Emsworth]

Ultimately, some thing have to be sinful just because they are, or nothing can be sinful.

And how does one determine whether something is sinful or virtuous? I can think of no rational means of making this distinction, which seems to be completely arbitrary and subjective.

[Joe Republic]

According to that one subjective perspective, yes.  Many others may take a different view.

[Joe Republic]

Once again, your views are subjective.  What you believe the general concept of 'sin' to be may be vastly different to many other people.  There is absolutely no way of saying who is actually correct, and any such judgement would be completely arbitrary.

[nclib]

No. If sin does exist, something would have to hurt someone else (or have the potential to hurt someone else) to be a sin.

[Emsworth]

It is determined from what is said in the Bible; the rationality lying in that it is the Word of God.

With all due respect, how do you conclude that the Bible is the Word of God?

Ultimately, acceptance of the Bible is a result of faith. One cannot "prove" that the Bible is correct. A Christian accepts the Bible not because he can prove its validity, but because he believes in its validity. Determining morality on the basis of the Bible is just as arbitrary and subjective as determining morality on the basis of any other source.

[dazzleman]

Once again, your views are subjective.  What you believe the general concept of 'sin' to be may be vastly different to many other people.  There is absolutely no way of saying who is actually correct, and any such judgement would be completely arbitrary.

I happen to think that much of what is presented as religiously based morality is actually rooted in practicality.

For example, sex outside of marriage is presented as immoral.  The issue is not so much the sexual act, per se, but the potential results of it.  Careless and indiscriminate sex leads to serious problems, so it is not a good idea as a practical matter.

I don't agree with you Joe that definitions of sin are completely arbitrary.  Reasonable people can have a range of tolerance that may differ to some degree from others', but anybody with a semblance of a moral compass can discern right from wrong, at least on the extremes, based upon the ultimate effects of certain actions.  

If I take a gun and indiscriminantly fire into a crowd, I don't think it would be arbitrary to determine that that is wrong.  So I really have to reject your characterization of right/wrong and sin as arbitrary.  I understand that you wish to look deeper for your reason to declare something as wrong than "it says so in the bible" but much of what is deemed sinful in the bible can be linked to painful and destructive results in the real world, whether a person is religious or not.

[dazzleman]

No. If sin does exist, something would have to hurt someone else (or have the potential to hurt someone else) to be a sin.

I think lesbian sex is not sinful at all, but in male-female sex, the man is committing a sin, though the woman is not, because she is the one being violated.   I can't even comment on male-male sex since that involves 2 soulless beasts who don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Did I capture the NOW position correctly?  I'll call it the position of the born again segment of NOW.

[Emsworth]

I don't agree with you Joe that definitions of sin are completely arbitrary.  Reasonable people can have a range of tolerance that may differ to some degree from others', but anybody with a semblance of a moral compass can discern right from wrong, at least on the extremes, based upon the ultimate effects of certain actions.  

If I take a gun and indiscriminantly fire into a crowd, I don't think it would be arbitrary to determine that that is wrong.  So I really have to reject your characterization of right/wrong and sin as arbitrary.

The problem with that line of reasoning, in my opinion, is this: It assumes some sort of common notion of rightness or wrongness.

The argument accepts the premise that indiscriminately harming people is sinful or wrong. But why is that the case? Because that is the manner in which you have chosen to define "sin" and "wrong." Others, however, might define it in a completely different way.

Thus, you might ask: does the action tend to harm other people? Someone else might define "wrong" in a completely different way--for example, he might base his views entirely on religion: does the action violate the Bible? A third person might define "wrong" based on a utilitarian approach: does the action help more people than it harms? A fourth might take a natural law approach: does the action violate the natural rights of others? And so forth.

Different people applying different approaches will reach different conclusions. Someone who bases his morality entirely on Leviticus will conclude that enslaving heathens is not sinful. Someone who bases his morality on utilitarianism might conclude that torture is not sinful. Someone who bases his morality on the philosophy of natural law will conclude that abolishing the minimum wage is not sinful.

Thus, sin, right, and wrong are not really clearly defined concepts. Whether something is right or wrong depends on how one defines these terms--and different people have defined them differently.

[Joe Republic]

Once again, your views are subjective.  What you believe the general concept of 'sin' to be may be vastly different to many other people.  There is absolutely no way of saying who is actually correct, and any such judgement would be completely arbitrary.

I happen to think that much of what is presented as religiously based morality is actually rooted in practicality.

For example, sex outside of marriage is presented as immoral.  The issue is not so much the sexual act, per se, but the potential results of it.  Careless and indiscriminate sex leads to serious problems, so it is not a good idea as a practical matter.

I don't agree with you Joe that definitions of sin are completely arbitrary.  Reasonable people can have a range of tolerance that may differ to some degree from others', but anybody with a semblance of a moral compass can discern right from wrong, at least on the extremes, based upon the ultimate effects of certain actions. 

If I take a gun and indiscriminantly fire into a crowd, I don't think it would be arbitrary to determine that that is wrong.  So I really have to reject your characterization of right/wrong and sin as arbitrary.  I understand that you wish to look deeper for your reason to declare something as wrong than "it says so in the bible" but much of what is deemed sinful in the bible can be linked to painful and destructive results in the real world, whether a person is religious or not.

Your last paragraph actually sums up my basic belief, pretty much.  I view morality as completely based on pure common sense, and not what it might say in the Bible.

But that of course is also a subjective belief, and I'll readily admit that.

The reason for this disparity is that people do often have completely different views of what is morally right or wrong from the accepted norm.  I could take an example of somebody more extreme than Opebo, who might believe that to not commit murder, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. is actually sinful.  As bizarre as it sounds, this is still a viewpoint.  A subjective one of course, but then that is the central point.

There is simply no possible way to judge who is actually correct in their beliefs.  Therefore, any such judgement is arbitrary.

(I typed all this up as Emsworth posted his reply.  His view pretty much matches mine.)

[Keystone Phil]

If sin does exist, then God is an asshole and I don't want anything to do with it. 

Typical immature teenager.

Perhaps his phrasing could use some work, but in base, I agree.

Since I cannot agree that homosexuals are sinful simply by virtue of being homosexual, I also do not believe that any reasonable God would believe this.  Of course, I may be wrong.  But that is part of faith.  You must believe that what you believe is correct, and take responsibility for it.  Everyone does.

His point was that God is an "asshole" if sin exists. He didn't specify that God is an "asshole" if homosexual acts are sinful.

[Alcon]

If sin does exist, then God is an asshole and I don't want anything to do with it. 

Typical immature teenager.

Perhaps his phrasing could use some work, but in base, I agree.

Since I cannot agree that homosexuals are sinful simply by virtue of being homosexual, I also do not believe that any reasonable God would believe this.  Of course, I may be wrong.  But that is part of faith.  You must believe that what you believe is correct, and take responsibility for it.  Everyone does.

His point was that God is an "asshole" if sin exists. He didn't specify that God is an "asshole" if homosexual acts are sinful.

Oh, I thought he said "that sin."

In that case, I do not agree with what he said.

[MODU]

If you believe/follow the Bible, then yes, homosexual actions are sinful.

[afleitch]

I go away for the weekend and theres ANOTHER poll on homosexuality! Give it a break guys, the same argument always gotes on anyway. To answer the question, I don't give a damn if it is a sin or not. In a modern western democracy we should be following the word of law not just the law of god.

[MODU]

I go away for the weekend and theres ANOTHER poll on homosexuality!

hehehe . . . that should tell you something.    Stick around next weekend.  hahaha

[afleitch]

I go away for the weekend and theres ANOTHER poll on homosexuality!

hehehe . . . that should tell you something.    Stick around next weekend.  hahaha

What should that tell me?

[MODU]

I go away for the weekend and theres ANOTHER poll on homosexuality!

hehehe . . . that should tell you something.    Stick around next weekend.  hahaha

What should that tell me?

It tells you not to go away for the weekends. 

[??????????]

Yes of course it is. But that doesnt mean gays should be kicked around like dogs for their sins. They need to be helped just like any other sinner.

[angus]

Here's a great song that was popular when I was in the twelfth grade.  Times were so simple then.  We didn't worry about STDs and whether or not the music we were listening to was too gay.  And having sex in a moving car with a chick named Scooter was just something to do on the way to the A-ha concert.  Anyone that's ever seen the "Hunting high and low" album cover would call it very gay, but it just seemed very 80s at the time.


"Talking away
I don't know what I'm to say
I'll say it anyway
today's another day to find you
Shying away
I'll be coming for you love O.K.

Take on me
Take me on
I'll be gone
in a day or two

So needless to say I'm odds and ends
But that's me, stumbling away
Slowly learning that life is O.K.
Say after me
It's no better to be safe than sorry.

Take on me
Take me on
I'll be gone
in a day or two.

The things that you say
Is it live or just to play
My worries away
You're all the things I've got to remember
You shying away
I'll be coming for you anyway

Take on me
Take me on
I'll be gone
in a day or two..."


Ah, good old sex orientation-neutral 80s pop music.  Such a simple time.  ("We begin bombing in five minutes.")  Here's another great lyric from the Hunting High and Low album:

"Touch me
How can it be
Believe me
The sun always shines on T.V
Hold me
Close to your heart
Touch me
And give all your love to me
To me...

I Reached inside myself
And found nothing there
To ease the pressure of
My ever worrying mind
All my powers waste away
I fear the crazed and lonely looks
The mirror's sending me
These Days
Please don't ask me to defend
The shamefull lowlands
Of the way I'm drifting
Gloomily through time

I reached inside myself today
Thinking there's got to be some way
To keep my troubles distant

Touch me
How can it be
Believe me
The sun always shines on TV
Hold me
Close to your heart
Touch me
And give all your love to me"

[MODU]

Ahhh  . . . good song.  Remember listening to that and "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" while at sea.  hahaha