Homosexuality = Sin? (Read OP before posting please)

Firstly, this thread is geared mainly towards Christians, Jewish Orthodox, and Muslim posts, since to the best of my knowledge the answer for most everybody else would be ‘no’.

In my opinion, which is bolstered by some religious knowledge, the judgement of this issue in relation to Gay Rights does not apply. A citizens of the U.S. (Those that are. . .) homosexuals are protected by the constitution and would be afforded all rights under the law which would apply to anyone else, including the right to marry.

Secondly, as a Christian I find the tendency to try and enforce a law(or laws) that is based on a belief that I hold is repellant, given that without a clear committment to Jesus it would not matter how good a life you had lived.

The concern that a proliferation and acceptance of homosexuality might possibly influence young children and cause them to also become homosexuals falls into the same category as the arguments against the increase in vulgarity and sex on television, and it’s wide acceptance among much of the American population. In terms of social stigma, homosexuality may hold a greater penalty, but if it is sin, then it certainly will do no more harm than consentual premarital sex between members of the opposite sex.

On the nature of sin(Finally), I have found that there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory that sexual preference has a genetic link. On this, given the primal needs for attraction I find a great deal of possibility. On the subject of transgender children(hermaphrodites), I clearly see a possibility that lacking any physical definition of sexual tendency(Having genitalia for each.) would create a problem in determining just what would be homosexual(And heterosexual). As I tend to reject the fallacy of God’s creation, or the idea that an individual does not somehow fit into the universe which God has created, I cannot accept the possibility that this was unplanned.

If such a genetic link were to be found, it would place homosexuals squarely into the area of God’s grace as created beings, and remove them from a category of the sexually misguided.

In the context of the Bible, I have found that the OT refers to the Hebrews as Gods chosen people, his creation. Biblical law applied to the Hebrews alone, as no other nation of people was required by God to obey, presumably because they were not included in the group of the chosen. Under this context, homosexuality might well have been considered a sin for the Hebrews.

It can be well ascertained that the Hebrews were not the only race of men upon the Earth, as evidenced by the selection of the line of Abraham as Gods Chosen people.

As the death of Jesus Christ opened the door to salvation for all mankind, all those in addition to the Hebrews, one could possibly draw the conclusion that this would include a homosexual, if they are genetically inclined, as a race of man.

Not being a homosexual myself, I have not placed much thought in this, as it falls outside the realm of my concerns as a Christian(Read: I have enough issues to research that impact my own behavior, without including everything else). Any thoughts would be appreciated greatly.

I’d like to refer you to my post here, as the best answer I can give at present.

I have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. This does not mean that it would be right for me to be an alcoholic. I also have a genetic predisposition towards reproducing. This does not mean that it would be wrong for me to reproduce. In other words, I’m not sure what genetics would have to do with this discussion at all.

Polycarp, I think you’ve got a very well thought out post, in essence we seem to agree, so I won’t refute :).

Super Gnat, the genetic predisposition(And you counter well, BTW) and perhaps hormonal influence that precipitates homosexuality is probably (At least Gay people have told me so.) as strong as the urge which I have to have sex with women(I’m a man.). By imagining a world wherein I must sleep with another man in marriage, or remain celibate in order to follow the word of God, I might have a great deal of difficulty. Certainly, however, I would not dispute that a genetic predisposition to killing might place me on the wrong side of the bible. However, taking the genetic imperitive a step further, is a hermaphrodite multiple choice in the eyes of God?
BTW, you didn’t answer the most important question, sin or no? Or the second most, gay rights under the constitution?

For what it’s worth–I’m part of the psychiatric inmate’s liberation movement. (As many on the board may be tired of hearing :slight_smile: )

Our civil liberties (particularly pertaining to our right to make our own medical decisions unless found incompetent according to the same standards that would apply to non-psychiatrically-labeled people) have generally been threatened by the allegation that we have a difference setting us apart from other people which is biological in nature and concerning which we have no choice.

So, as many supporters of gay rights and advocates for social acceptance of gay lesbian and transgendered people are trying to secure their goals in part by noting that sexual preference may be genetic and biological rather than an issue of choice, here we are, trying to establish that often our differences are matters of volition and choice and are not necessarily biological and biochemical!

Just a heads-ups in case you’ve never thought about it that way: having your difference ascribed to built-in differences does not necessarily protect you from discrimination and social oppression and political programs designed to do you in. (Nor, reciprocally speaking, is it necessarily safe to establish that you have chosen your differences voluntarily as an expression of taste and interest).

An interesting point, AHunter3! I’ve not thought of it from your perspective - though the following is similar, I guess.

I often hear the nature vs nurture argument and refuse to use either to argue my case. I mean: If you’re gay because of the way your parents brought you up then its “bad parenting” and can be corrected. If you’re gay because of genetics, then its an aberation and can be corrected. Pffffffbbbbbt!

I also disagree with the argument of ‘choice’. I did not choose to be gay! When other guys started noticing girls, I started noticing guys. I know this has all been said before but it needs to be reiterated: I’m gay because I’m gay. Duh!

As for biblical arguments against homosexuality, they are the easiest to refute. The majority of arguments come from the old testament right along such statements as stoning to death any who blaspheme or curse (Lev 24). Also, fundamentalists tend to be very disappointed in that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality (unless someone can show me otherwise).

First off, Copaesthetic, I’d like to thank you for a well-reasoned and compassionate OP. You may say you haven’t put much thought into this, but it’s apparent that you’ve done your homework.

I would like to warn you about getting caught up in the genetic/environment debate, however. Whether homosexuality is inborn or not, there is no justification for denying someone their civil rights because of who they love.

Trying to prove where the orientation comes from is about as productive a pastime as straining at gnats, and only serves to distract from the central issue, which is that there is a whole class of people who deserve to be treated as equals in our society, at long last.

I would like to thank you for putting the time and consideration that your OP took to think out and write, and for whatever you see fit to do within the context of your church to help correct this situation.

Fortunately, here in Western Australia we have just had a huge change in several pieces of legislation. The age of consent for homosexual sex has been brought in line with that of heterosexual sex (16), and discrimination against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation is now illegal at both state and federal levels.

All other laws that previously discriminated against us have pretty much fallen by the wayside.

…ah progress!

Wow.

How tough are the Australian immigration requirements?

If homosexuality is not a sin (in absolute terms), then the concern about it’s influence on children evaporates.

Well, that seems to depend on whether the good people in immigration are having a happy day or not…

But seriously, I should additionaly have mentioned the new laws also cover ‘gender history’.

Our state had some of the most discriminating and oppressive laws in the country a few years ago and now we have some of the best. This gives everyone cause for hope, I believe.

I agree with Ahunter3 regarding choice vs. biological cause for homosexuality. What about a bi-sexual person who “chooses” to be with members of the same sex? Should they be held to a different set of rules because they chose a particular expression of sexuality? I think not.

The government has no business dictating our personal lives, particularly in matters of love and sex. It’s wrong and, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

Wow, these are all great posts, and I can’t even quote man. I’ll have to line item again:

TheArchmage: That’s a big part of my concern. According to my beliefs, and my understanding of the Bible, a person would not be born to sin. I believe that God genuinely cares about people, and would not design a person to fail.

Mr.Visible: I agree constitutionally, which I reflected on in the OP mainly to ensure that this doesn’t turn into a Gay bashing thread. By my understanding of Christianity, whether it is a sin or not would make no difference, because we all sin. Trying to limit the sin in someone’s life would have no effect religiously. According to the Bible, God created man with a free will, and He gives everyone a choice. As Christians, we must reflect this in our lobbying, and in our voting. I strongly follow the doctrine of “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Mangetout: Either way, the concern of the potential influence of homosexuality on children is a small one. Since most Christians agree that no sin carries more weight than another, the fact that there are influences of all manner of sin on children really negates this in and of itself.

Kalhoun: It’s not really unconstitutional in your opinion, it actually is unconstitutional. You can’t be descriminated against for sexual preference, and many states are discriminating.

As a Christian, I’m far more concerned about a potentially false viewpoint excluding people from the church. If my kids were Gay, I would want them to go to church, and to love God, and certainly to marry. If I were Gay, presumably I would still love God, and believe in the divinity of Christ and his guidance in my life. The importance of Christian people on this Earth is to bring people to Christ, Jesus can, presumably, handle things from there.

you’re just trying to get His4ever back posting, aren’t ya?
:wink:

I suppose an argument (an argument, not my argument) against that would be that homosexuality involves patterns of behaviour and repetitive sin (if indeed it is a sin) and therefore although each act of homosexuality is no more serious than, say, coveting your neighbour’s ox, there is a tendency for repentance to be omitted entirely.

I’ll stop now, lest I create a ridiculous strawman, suffice it to say that I try to keep my opinions away from other people’s hearts and genitals.

Mangetout: I get where you’re coming from(Or where people you have heard speak of this are coming from), but, my argument points to sex with whatever you have sex with as a naturally repetitive behavior. If we are to say that this(Outside the bounds of marriage) is a sin regardless, then the Gay influence would be inconsiquential. On top of that, I would still find it morally(If not constitutionally) wrong to dissallow marriage for homosexuals on that same basis.

I’m surprised there aren’t more takers on this. Nobody in the throng of posters thinks this is a sin, and yet we are still blocking legislation? I don’t buy it. I’d like for someone to explain why it’s a sin, and cite examples.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Oh yeah, and Genesis 19 (Soddom & Gomorrah)

Copaesthetic, and any others who may have been wondering why the push to identify homosexuality as a scientifically-identifiable construct (as opposed to a social or chosen construct, such as race or the color one dyes one’s hair), consider this: many who call themselves Christians define “free will” as the ability to sin against God/choose what they want to do. If their sexuality is a choice, then the argument above can be used to display how they are deliberately going against God’s will, and as such they are sinning.

It’s an inherently fallacious argument, IMO (we choose to eat food and drink water, after all, and we choose to drive to Church … I don’t think anyone’s going to argue for those choices being sins…), but one that is all-too prevalent.

As is, coincidentally, DrChuckie’s. But sometimes you get what you pay for here, and we didn’t pay.

Hi, DrChuckie, and welcome to the boards.

In regards to your Adam and Steve comment, could you please clarify what the relevance of that statement is? God didn’t create Chunky Peanut Butter and Grape Jelly until quite late in the game either, but that doesn’t imply that the combination of the two is abominable.

As to the second sentence fragment, what moral lessons are we to derive from that passage? God rained fire down upon Sodom and Gomorrah, but his reasons for doing so remain pretty vague; there is some discussion as to translation issues here. What fascinates me about the passage is that the man whom God judged to be worth saving was the one who offered his virgin daughters up to an angry mob. Here’s the verse:

You may also note that he doesn’t say “…unto these men do nothing; for homosexuality is icky.”

Also, in the same chapters, those same virgin daughters get Pop Lot drunk, and shag him. Both of them. From their union were born the Moabites and the Children of Ammon. Should we take this as a sign that God approves of incestuous date rape?