Why is homosexuality considered a sin?

Great Debates
41

Daniel:

You said:

**

Umm, you DO know that that is speculation, not fact, and disputed by many, many people?

The origins of the Bible are off-topic in this thread anyway (I saw another floating around GD about that). Suffice it to say that, for a debate like this to work, we’ve all got to work with a common set of assumptions and definitions. TheOP asked a question about “religious” views of homosexuality. Trying to undermine the authority of the most primary source in such a debate is counter-productive.

Carry on!

42

okay, this is my first post, so hope i don’t disgrace
myself completely.

i am a born again christian.

when Jesus died on the cross, he became the sacrifice
for our sins. after that, we became ruled by the law
of love and no longer needed to follow all the laws in
the old testament. if you accept His sacrifice and
ask Him to BE your savior, although you still sin, you
are forgiven because He has already paid the price for
your sin. this does not give you carte blanche to sin
all you want, it just means you are forgiven when you do.

now–as to the homosexuality question–no sin is worse
than any other in God’s eyes. if homosexuality is a sin,
it is no worse than telling a lie, or being a hypocrite,
or judging other people. all of which are sins that are
(unfortunately) practiced every day by christians who
should know better.

so here is the thing–in my opinion, it is between you
and God and none of anyone else’s business.

43

What then, do you have to say about this passage from the first “chapter” of Romans, as quoted from the NIV Bible?

“…Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were enflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

(Note Paul’s usage of the words “unnatural,” “indecent,” and “perversion.”)

Also in defense of Paul (which is incidental, considering my dubious attitude towards his writings in general) 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.

Speaking biologically, the vagina was meant to accept the penis, and the penis was made to pierce the vagina. Attraction exists between men and women so that the penis will enter the vagina; sex was made pleasurable for the same reason. This prolongs the life of our species. For similar reasons, food was meant to be swallowed, and eating was thus made pleasurable to encourage it. Becoming aroused by members of the same sex is comparable to salivating at the sight of rocks. It prolongs nothing.

Whether homosexuality or homosexual sex is immoral is certainly up for debate; it could easily be considered a “creative” use of one’s sexuality rather than a blasphemous one. But it is definitely not natural.

44

Welcome, welcome, welcome, Scotticher, the more the merrier, I say (I know, I ain’t Uncle Cecil… but I DID claim to be his evil twin who knew nothing once). Anyway, you bring up a fine point… every sin is a horrible sin.

But that still leaves us wondering… why is homosexuality a sin?

I suppose it’s because such intimacy between two people is sacred to Christianity. Homosexual sex has nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pleasure (but, hey, I’m not complaining… just explaining). So, in the eyes of God, that’d probably be seen as a mockery.

Any Christian authority figures out there? Maybe even a priest… or even the Pope? (Wouldn’t it be odd if we got His Holiness running around here? Then we could set up a confrontation between him and Satan).

45

Harkenbane… well said. (Sorry… your post went up while I was writing mine).

46

SDIM: sorry, did not mean to offend. ( but did you evr hear that joke I mentioned?-- it’s not racist) :smiley:

SCOT: well said man, you are proof that not all "born again"s are hypocritical bigots.

Harker: Well, I have covered this repeatedly, but I’ll do it again. Yes, Paul DID condemn Gay Sex, but he also, in that same chapter, condemns (KJV) ROM1:29-31 fornicators, the envious, DEBATERS (sounds familiar, H?), despiteful, proud,
boasters, and those ‘without understanding, implacable, unmerciful’. Which last 3 pretty well covers those Christian hypocritical bigots who hate Gays.

Later, in 1Cor6:9-10, Paul condemns “effeminates”, but he also condemns “abusers of self”, fornicators, and drunkards. Plus loads of other things. So yes, PAUL (never Jesus) condemns LOOOONG lists of things, including, gay sex. Do you fit into any of these on Paul’s list? I bet you do, as you already come under “debaters”, and I’ll bet a few more. “Let those who are without sin cast the first stone”. Get that 2x4 out of your eye, before you complain about the splinter in others, bucky.

Oh, and in 1Cor7,Paul also says having any sex AT ALL, even with your wife, is not good, it is best to NEVER have any sex. He was really weird about sex, and I would say getting advice about sex from him is not the best source, and I am glad you are “dubious”. Try the words of “the boss” Himself-- see much “condemning” there?

47

I’ve always seen religious belief just a product of that society’s prejudices. The homosexual goes completely against the traditional male-machismo and is usually easy pickings as they’re always a minority. The oft-quoted scriptures are simple the rationalization of hate.

48

Wading in awfully late into this…

The prohibition against homosexuality in the Christian faith ultimately rests on the primacy of Scripture. Taken as a whole - that is, not drawing a line between the Old Testament and the New - it is quite clear that homosexual acts are explicitly condemned. So if you’re a “Bible believing” (read: fundamentalist) Christian, you’ve got your answer.

As to why? Well, it does come down to a “natural” argument, but on a level that most people don’t realize. It’s not just about the physical, it’s about the emotional and spiritual as well. Meaning that male-female complementarity (is that a word?) is the key here. Traditional language has always cast God in patristic terms, but if you actually study the Bible you’ll see it’s chock full of female imagery, too. There are certain traits that are generally found in males, and certain traits that are generally found in females. Sexuality integrates the two into one “complete” (yet still piss-poor) reflection of God.

That’s a somewhat more traditional understanding of why God prohibits homosexual acts.

My personal belief is that the male-female relationship is closest to the ideal. However, I’m bisexual (and quite happy with it), so obviously I think there’s validity in other expressions of sexuality, too. The problem arises, I think, when people think that the only complementarity is male-female, and that the traits that are (again) generally found in one gender or another are automatically limited to that particular gender. This is not so. I’ve known men and women who would “complete” me.

Then again, I’m an Episcopalian who places authority in the Sacraments and the Creeds, so I can pretty much do whatever the hell I want.

49

Spoof-Thanks for the welcome

Daniel-Well, I think there are good people and bad people in every faith, in every profession, and so on. Some would question if these bigots you refer to are actually christians, as theoretically they should be convicted to change their evil ways and attitudes. I am not qualified to judge them-as I tried to make clear in my last post, only
God is. Oh, oh, upon re-reading this I sound JUDGEMENTAL,
which I think I stated earlier is a SIN. “sigh”

I like Scotti better

50

Although the Torah does condem homosexuality, it does encourage sex for pleasure to. It’s a good thing to have sex of Shabbat, and to have sex in general (that is, when you are married). Additionally, my synagogue is pretty religous, but is also very libral and we have several gay couples, so although many people in my synagogue are very observant in the teachings of the Torah and other writings, they CAN think for themselves on what’s right and what’s out dated.

51

I don’t think I can contribute anything based on reference that anybody hasn’t already posted, but…

Religious historians think that many of the rules against homosexuality that are in the Christian/Judaic/Islamic religions derive from certain societal aspects of ancient times. 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.

Just a thought.

52

Jezebel & others: you are agueing the Bible prohibits Gay sex as it is “not natural”. It also prohibits fornication & masturbation, which you cannot argue are not “natural”. The prohibitions in the Bible are not based on “nature”. In the case of the NT, ie Paul, his prohibitions are based on the fact he believed ALL sex, even that between man & wife, was not good. THAT is VERY “unatural”. Based upon that I would have to say Paul is far more “deviant” than Homosexuals.
And if you go soley on the OT, sex between man & wife during her period is banned. That is not based on any “natural” law.

53

Actually, it 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.

54

Danielinthewolvesden:

Since I did not claim that the bible prohibits gay sex I’m not certain that you are arguing with me at all, but I am suspicious of your assertion that masturbation is prohibited biblically. I’m no Bible scholar; a reference of any kind would be appreciated.

I am however familiar with Paul’s writings, and while he is not especially pro sex, I highly doubt that he ever stated that sex is inherently “not good.” He was clearly unhappy about his lack of success in past relationships, but he did say that it is “good to marry, and better not to.” Since marriage is nothing more than an agreement to cohabitate, copulate monogamously, and raise offspring, this seems a striking contradiction to your assertion that Paul is anti-sex and in any way “deviant.”

55

**
Not to stick my nose in here, but the Bible’s views on the wasting of seed are clearly stated… I can’t get you a specific reference yet - give me time. For now, see my “seed wasting” posts earlier in this thread.

This is blasphemous! (lousy choice of words :wink: )

The Bible (Gen. 2) calls Eve Adam’s “Ezer Kinegdo,” usually translated as “helpmeet.” Isn’t that helpful? :rolleyes:

What the words really mean is “am opposing helper.” To say that marriage provides only the few things you list above is to ignore the entire concept that, without a spouse, humans are incomplete ina spiritual sense.

56

**
During her period, a woman is infertile. Thus, intercourse with a menstrating woman is, by definition, non-productive, as are masturbation and homosexual sex.
**

[minor nitpick]
Actually, a woman can still get pregnant during her period. However, the chance of infections is increased during menstration. So even today, sex during periods is not generally recommended.
[/minor nitpick]

Carry on.

57

HARKEN : Try 1Cor6:9 (List of those that shall not inherit the Kingdom of God) '…nor abusers of self…"

Then for Pauls antisex views I give you 1Cor7:7 “for I would that all men were even as myself” (ie Celibate, this is in the middle of his rant re marriage) and 1Cor7:8 “I say therefore to the unmarried & widows, it IS good for them to abide even as I”. Or even better 1Cor7:1 “…It IS good for a man not to touch a woman”. and 1Cor7:25-26 “now concerning virgins…I say that it is GOOD for a man so to be”. and 1Cor7;32-33, where he notes that married men care not for God, but for his wife. Now, he DID say here, if you MUST it is better to marry than sin, but only if you must.

It is NOT “natural” to be celibate. Sex is good, sex is natural.

SDIM: 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?

58

Daniel…

A lot of stricter religious beliefs beleive that sex for any reason other than to make a baby is a sin.

If you’re not a member of a religion that believes that, it shouldn’t bother you.

Can that be made any clearer? :smiley:

59

Daniel:

  1. Your quotes sound KJV. I checked 1Cor6:9 in both the NAS and NIV and there’s no mention of masturbation or anything rermotely like “abusing” one’s self. Numerous problems in earlier translations of the Bible have been discovered and “fixed” in the later versions, and I’m inclined to believe that this was one of them since my two different Bibles disagree with yours.

  2. None of those quotes say anything about Paul claiming that sex is bad, only that celibacy and chastity and restraint are good, or better.

I looked over the passages; Paul clarifies many times that he can’t say sex is bad or a “sin,” and you and I both know that no sane person could while maintaining a shred of credibility. So he wishes more people would stay celibate; big deal. He makes his case for it without sounding even slightly repressed to me; he keeps talking about how the Christians are supposed to focus on God and not each other or their carnal passions. Just because he doesn’t take the same pro-sex stance that you do doesn’t make him repressed.

And how is it not natural to be celibate? Is it unnatural to be marooned on a desert island? Is it unnatural to be surrounded by ugly old women? I myself am celibate. I haven’t found anyone yet; it’s as simple as that. But what if I were ugly and obese or had some other problem and would never be able to find anyone else? I would be celibate for life–celibacy is nature’s way of weeding out negative genetic traits. It is not unnatural.

60

Daniel…

Yeah, what version are you using? I prefer the King James version myself (more accurate, in my opinion… the NAV and NIV dumb things down and try to make stuff too PC).

Harkenbane…

I think what Daniel was getting at about “it’s unnatural to be celibate” thing was that it seems to be a tendency in nature to try to pass one’s genetic material on to offspring. Just about every normal (i.e.- no physical defects, no neutering, etc.) animal seems to attempt copulation at some point. By restraining oneself for a reason as seemingly silly as some omnipotent being decreeing it to be so isn’t “natural” under this idea.