# Why is homosexuality considered a sin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2000, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070 "2000-05-10T02:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/61 "2000-05-15T09:52:27Z")
I always use the KJV. Altho there are later, perhaps better translations, none have better language. And, when most fundamentalists start thumping the Bible, it’s the KJV they thump. You asked where it said that in the Bible–I have, then quoted THE Bible, at least the most popular Bible. And Paul never says sex is “good”, he allows for it during marriage, as better than fornication, and thus acceptable. But only if you can’t be “as him”. Ie, Holier than thou & celibate. He had anothe rreason to preach against sex, he believed that the Second coming was SO near, you would not have time to raise the kids. But in any case, “fornication” is “natural”, also. Every animal except Man does it and Man did it for 100000’s of years before there was marriage, and there are still, and were many many societies that did not practice it. “Marriage” is thus “un-natural”. But we don’t have to model ourselves after the “lower” animals, we don’t have to do what they do. So we can have marriage, and/or if we like, Gay sex. ---
**Author:** ![Harkenbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@Harkenbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harkenbane)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/62 "2000-05-15T09:55:36Z")
Spoofe: I am curious as to what you (and others) have to say about the merits of various Bibles. I’ve never heard of the NAV (“New American Version,” I assume) but I of course am familiar with the NIV and KJV. Actually in looking at the front of this older bible of mine I find that it is not the NAS as I claimed, but rather the “Revised Standard Version” which is apparently a revision of the “American Standard Version” which is a revision of the KJV. Can anyone illuminate as to what all of this boils down to? And as far as Daniel referring to celibacy by choice, I was perfectly aware of that; I get the impression from him that celebacy is not natural when it goes against a natural urge for sex. I do not think that this is a good way of defining what is natural at all, as human beings are constantly repressing and controlling various desires. For people to refuse to act on their instincts is, I believe, quite natural for them as human beings–anyone who has sufferred through potty training can attest to this. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/63 "2000-05-15T15:22:15Z")
> [@](#): > > … I will say that homosexuality is most certainly unnatural. Simply because something exists in nature doesn’t make it “natural.” Tumors, gangrene, and congenital retardation must be accepted as “natural” according to this view. Uh, from a Nature point of view, those things are natural, as they occur in Nature without man-made assistance. To wit, from [http://www.merriam-webster.com](http://www.merriam-webster.com): > [@](#): > > Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral > Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l > Function: adjective > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature > Date: 14th century > 2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature > [@](#): > > Becoming aroused by members of the same sex is comparable to salivating at the sight of rocks… Mmmm… rocks… 😃 Esprix ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/64 "2000-05-15T15:35:28Z")
\*\* Specifically, warriors back in the day were all men. During most conflicts, when the men were away from home, there arose a disparity between the ratio of men and women. In other words, men were away for months or years or as was often the case they never came back at all. With this in mind, it doesn’t really help your village’s population if all of the few remaining candidates for inseminating women are instead enjoying the company of other men. \*\* Look at the other side of the equation. You have all these warrior men away from home with no women around. It was not untypical for these army men to have relationships with one another. Some even argue that it was good for morale. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/65 "2000-05-15T17:41:57Z")
The Biblical passages can always be argued over. Check out : [http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/7608/intro.htm](http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/7608/intro.htm) for an interesting take on things. For example, the Leviticus passage is taken as a prohibition based on the need for culutural separation and cohesion, not as a condemnation of the act itself. I’m also a big fan of: [http://www.internetdynamics.com/pub/vc/bibles.html](http://www.internetdynamics.com/pub/vc/bibles.html) for Bible-type stuff. A more interesting question might be: Why are only Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions against homosexuality? I’m unaware of any large-scale, say, Buddhist, dislike. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/66 "2000-05-15T18:11:36Z")
Danielinthewolvesden: > [@](#): > > Umm, you DO know that Deuteronomy was written AFTER the Temple. ie about 700Bc for some sections & 950 bc at the earliest. Pure speculation. As far as I and other Orthodox Jews are concerned, it was written in 1272 BCE. > [@](#): > > The later section (blessing of Jacob) would seem to be odd if actually written at the time of the Exodus, as the Tribes of Joseph, Ephraim & levi are given the most glowing blessings, and thus appear to be written after 700 BC, but in any case after Israel split off from Judah. Note thatthe tribe of Judah is given rather short shrift, which as if it was written PRIOR to the Davidic Kingdom, would be odd. The blessing at the end of Deuteronomy was by Moses, not Jacob. And granted, Judah didn’t get as many words as Joseph and Levi did, but so what? He got a pretty darned good blessing. Since when does size determine the effectiveness or importance of a blessing? > [@](#): > > The Book was “discovered” in 621 BC, after the Temple had been in place for nearly 400 years. Presumably you’re referring to the story in which King Josiah discovered a Torah scroll after cleaning the Holy Temple and the Land of Judea from the idolatrous excesses of Kings Manasseh and Amoz. However, it’s clear from the books of Kings and Chronicles, in which that story is recorded, that the Torah was not unknown to those times, and there were many who could interpret it. There’s some question amongst the sages as to the significance of the Torah-finding story, but anyone reading the books of Kings and Chronicles in context (rather than taking that single story as a stand-alone) would see that. > [@](#): > > And, besides, Joshua decided the Tabernacle should be set up at Shiloh, and he is considered a prophet, not to mention a Voice of Y_HV_H (I’ll respect your faith and delete the vowels). Samuel agreed & decided on it’s later home, after capture, and he is also a Prophet. Not everything decided by a prophet is necessarily a prophecy. There is no statement by Joshua or by Samuel commanding that an altar (or sanctuary) be built on a specific spot. There was one by Gad (to David). > [@](#): > > And that verse in Deut does not say the temple can’t be moved, just that there be one, and only one. I can’t find the Prophesies of Gad. It says “the place that G-d will choose.” The prophet Gad appears in the book of Samuel (and, according to the Talmud, he wrote much of it). The specific prophecy regarding the spot where to build an altar is in II Samuel, Chapter 24, Verse 18-19. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/67 "2000-05-15T19:16:37Z")
cmkeller: I knew they were the Blessings of Moses, I was comparing them to the Blessings of Jacob, but deleted the wrong bits when editing. However, I say that “…Hear Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his land be suffient unto him: and be thou an help to from his enemies.” is a pretty unexciting blessing/prophesy for the greatest Kings of Israel/Judah ever, the high point of Jewish history. Compare that to the Blessings of Jacob, and it appears odd. If you look at the state of the Tribes in about 700BC, the blessings match that state. Simeon is not mentioned at all, and of course by then it had dwindled to nothing. The blessing of Reuben seems to show that is about to join Simeon (which it did). The blessings (of Moses) do not match the state of the tribes prior to the Temple. But, OK, it is your faith. Now as to all those saying Homosexuality is “not natural”, it has been shown in Populations studies, that many animals (I used mice for my study) when the space runs out, but there is lots of food & water, begin forms of “birth control”, including killing young, allowing only the Alphas to breed, and yes, turning to homosexual sex. So, it seems when animals are overcrowded, it is perfectly “natural” to turn to gay sex. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2000, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/68 "2000-05-16T00:07:53Z")
The argument that homosexuality is “not natural and therefore bad” is pretty weak, it seems to me (Daniel, I’m not accusing you or anything, I’m just sayin’). After all, it’s not “natural” to build big ol’ cities and live in ‘em… it’s not “natural” to fly to the moon… it’s not “natural” to have a big ol’ Straight Dope discussion board over the Internet where we discuss what’s natural and what’s not 😃 People are sentient, which means that they are capable (or, they should be) of overcoming their inherent nature. So while I agree that homosexuality isn’t natural, I don’t think that makes it bad. However, the “unnatural” angle may have a lot to do with why religious authorities believe homosexuality to be bad. (By the way… the NAV is the New American Version… I got familiar with it during my time at a private school run by Marianists, an offshoot of Catholicism. It’s basically just a step down from the NIV. But I’m mostly familiar with the KJV, it being the only Bible version that I’ve read through completely. Of course, that was a couple years ago, maybe it’s time to read through it again). And lastly… Chaim, you’re amazing. I used to consider myself a semi-biblical scholar (I guess I _sorta_ am, for my age), but you, sir, deserve props for your knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/69 "2000-05-16T14:20:38Z")
**cmkeller** is truly amazing. I bow to his superior intellect in matters religious. {bow bow bow} 😉 **SPOOFE** wrote: > [@](#): > > After all, it’s not “natural” to build big ol’ cities and live in ‘em… it’s not “natural” to fly to the moon… it’s not “natural” to have a big ol’ Straight Dope discussion board over the Internet where we discuss what’s natural and what’s not 😃 > > People are sentient, which means that they are capable (or, they should be) of overcoming their inherent nature. So while I agree that homosexuality isn’t natural, I don’t think that makes it bad. Um, since homosexuality occurs among all higher primates in the wild, how is it _not_ natural? And while no chimpanzees have gone to the moon, what about the ones that flew in orbit around the earth? 😉 (Sorry, that was just for humor.) Esprix ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2000, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/70 "2000-05-16T20:38:02Z")
Danielinthewolvesden: > [@](#): > > However, I say that “…Hear Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his land be suffient unto him: and be thou an help to from his enemies.” is a pretty unexciting blessing/prophesy for the greatest Kings of Israel/Judah ever, the high point of Jewish history. I don’t know; I think that for G-d to be a help against one’s enemies would be an especially appropriate blessing for a king, who’s likely to lead his nation in war. > [@](#): > > Compare that to the Blessings of Jacob, and it appears odd. Not really, because they serve different purposes. Jacob’s blessings were intended for his individual sons, the tribal progenitors. Moses’s blessings relate to the tribes and their roles in the nation they are about to build. > [@](#): > > Simeon is not mentioned at all, and of course by then it had dwindled to nothing. That is your conclusion, based on the idea that Deuteronomy was compiled much later. It also fits quite well into the context of its proper place in Israelite history: the leader of the tribe of Simeon had recently been killed for publicly consorting with a Midianite princess and inspiring similar sins which caused the deaths of 24000 Israelites. When Joshua divided up the land, rather than give the tribe of Simeon its own territory, he gave them a few cities within the territory of Judah. SPOOF Bo Diddly and Esprix: Thanks. I’ll strive to keep up that standard. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/71 "2000-05-17T03:56:24Z")
CMK: thanks for your reply. Although this has been fun, I am afraid we have hijacked this thread. I would love to continue any reasonable arguement Re Old Testament, but we should start elsewhere. (eg, how did the prohibition of seething the meat of a kid in its mother’s milk derive into separate dishes, and was this reasonable, or Biblical?) or we could continue this. I agree you are ahead on points, but you have SDIM in your corner, and there’s no KO yet. I ain’t doing half bad for a Goy, if I say so myself. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/72 "2000-05-17T04:48:55Z")
Esprix, I think we need to work out a better understanding of what’s “natural” and what isn’t, buddy-boy. But that’s the argument for another thread, a thread that I don’t feel like starting 'cuz it’d probably go nowhere. What I mean by “natural” (for this example, anyway) is referring to the basic instinct in an animal to pass on its genetic material. By other definitions of natural, however, you’d be right, as well. On the other hand, it can be argued that, since humans have the natural tendency to use tools to alter their environment, huge slabs of concrete covering the planet and toxins in the air and water are “natural”. But I don’t care WHAT definition one uses… there’s NO WAY that Pauly Shore can be “natural”. ---
**Author:** ![Harkenbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@Harkenbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harkenbane)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/73 "2000-05-17T07:39:00Z")
Spoofe–That was, in my haughty opinion, the most salient post which this thread has thus far seen. You impress me. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/74 "2000-05-17T08:29:10Z")
> [@](#): > > That was, in my haughty opinion, the most salient post which this thread has thus far seen. Aw, crap, I was trying to be playful. What’s more playful than bashing Pauly Shore? ---
**Author:** ![Harkenbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@Harkenbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harkenbane)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/75 "2000-05-17T08:59:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Aw, crap, I was trying to be playful. > \*\* Surely not throughout the entirety of the post… > [@](#): > > \*\* > What’s more playful than bashing Pauly Shore? > \*\* Lighting him on fire, perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/76 "2000-05-17T14:18:02Z")
> [@](#): > > What I mean by “natural” (for this example, anyway) is referring to the basic instinct in an animal to pass on its genetic material. Explain, please, why homosexuality occurs among all higher primates in the wild. I will not, however, ask you to explain why Pauly Shore got more than his allotted 15 minutes of fame and I haven’t yet. That’s just plain wrong. 😉 Esprix ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/77 "2000-05-17T14:42:16Z")
Sorry, **Daniel**. \*\*Me: > [@](#): > > Actually, it [forbidding sex with a menstrating wife] jibes quite well with both biology and the OT’s views on sexuality… > > During her period, a woman is infertile. Thus, intercourse with a menstrating woman is, by definition, non-productive, as are masturbation and homosexual sex. > > Seems like a solid, “natural” reason to me. You: > [@](#): > > …that is if you believe the only “natural” sex act ends in children. In that case it would only be “natural” when a woman is fertile, about 1 week a month. And if the Man was infertile, or the woman could not have babies, then ANY sex act would be unnatural? \*\* You’ve misunderstood my point. I was responding to the assertion that the OT’s ban on sex with a menstrating wife was not based on any “natural” law. It is based on a natural law - the one I described. As far as what kind of sex is “natural” or “unnatural,” I would have to go along with the general consensus that pretty much anything is OK as long as Pauly Shore is not involved with a giraffe. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/78 "2000-05-17T14:50:54Z")
I hadn’t opened this thread 'til now, because I thought it’d be rants. Shows what I know. Very impressed across the board. Esprix has singled out cmkeller, I’ll single out **sdimbert** : hugely impressive, well researched, intelligent posts. Thank you Now, to reply to the OP with my crudest economist’s hat on: 1. Religions codify and add a supernatural dimension to common morality. 2. Successful ones extract money from believers whilst leaving them wealthy enough to breed new believers. 3. Until recently, few avowed homosexuals bred. Most religions did not have to go after the gay market, since they did not supply new customers. picmr ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/79 "2000-05-17T15:08:18Z")
**picmr** , I’m not sure if you meant your post to be funny or not, but I’m ROTFL! Follow the money, my friend, follow the money! BTW, thank you for your kind words. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070/80 "2000-05-17T18:17:23Z")
Danielinthewolvesden: > [@](#): > > Although this has been fun, I am afraid we have hijacked this thread. I would love to continue any reasonable arguement Re Old Testament, but we should start elsewhere. (eg, how did the prohibition of seething the meat of a kid in its mother’s milk derive into separate dishes, and was this reasonable, or Biblical?) Yeah, you’re right. I’ll start a new thread to anser the question you’ve posed there…but I’ll start it in GQ, rather than GD, because it doesn’t sound like a debate topic. Chaim Mattis Keller [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-homosexuality-considered-a-sin/19070.md?page=5)