Homosexuality.... starting a debate I may live to regret....?

Question

On the subjetc of homosexuality: I am a Christian and have no problem with homosexuality at all:

Leviticus 18:22+Leviticus 20:13

These passages are the most explicit regarding the bible’s attitude towards homosexuality. They are ququoted time after time as being the reason Christians should condemn gay men and women or at the very least to encourage them to “heal themselves”.

But surely this is about context.

A sexual act involving two men was regarded as an "abomination" for the simple reason that it could not result in the pro-creation of children. Indeed, female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament A tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.

Romans 1:26-27

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has no choice, and sexual behaviour, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding that sexual orientation is genetic (and therefore decided by God). For Gay men and women, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them. This interpretation would mean that God is angered by people trying to go against what nature intended. He chose people’s sexual orientation and that he did that for a reason.

Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual activities that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.

What should concern us is maybe the following:

Love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other.

I didnt mean to leave out any of teh quotes.... just this question was gewtting tooooooo big!

Courtney:

It's not bad logic. Sex between two women does not 'spill seed' - that's why it isnt condemned as strongly in the bible.

Answer 1

Sigh. "Can open," as Chandler used to say, "worms everywhere."

Answer 2

Reading through your question, and the subsequent answers, I was not surprised to see that the ones who disagreed with you received numerous thumbs-down. So I'm prepared for the same treatment.

Now, I would like to be clear on something before I share my opinion. I do not hate anyone. I have friends who are straight, bisexual, homosexual, non-Christian (including atheists, Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus), and Christian. I don't limit myself, and I love them all the same.

That said, homosexuality IS wrong according to Christianity. The passages which speak of sexual immorality (which homosexuality is categorized as) are VERY clear on this.

We are all born with sinful urges. It does NOT mean they're natural! Sin is NOT natural!

People can try to justify it all they want. But the Bible, which is the basis of my beliefs, is VERY clear on what is a sin, and what is not.

For the record, it's true that there was no word for homosexuality in Hebrew, or even in Greek. However, in Leviticus 18 when it speaks of "men laying with men," it's very clear that "laying" refers to sexual relations. The Hebrew word for that is שׁכב or shâkab, which means "to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)."
In Romans 1, homosexuality is only implicitly mentioned, as being "unnatural." But many times throughout the Bible, ALL sin is considered "unnatural." The implications of this are very strong.
In 1 Corinthians 6, the word that was later translated as "homosexual" was originally "effeminate." In Greek, it's μαλακός or malakos.

Just because the word was not "created" until the 19th century does NOT mean that the concept has not existed longer. And the concept is ONLY ever mentioned in the Bible as being an abomination, whether by male or female.

And no, homosexuality was not condemned just because it can't lead to procreation. If that was true, the Bible wouldn't say anything about incest or adultery.

You can lend your own interpretation to it if you want. You're entitled to your opinion. However, I don't agree with you at all.

Answer 3

Yes, I suspect you will live to regret it.

Face it, most Christians are not going to be able to change their thinking to that extent. And the ones who can already have. So what you are bound to get is a long list of people telling you that you are not really a good Christian if you believe this, and probably some of them being pretty rude about it.

Thank God I'm not a Christian, and don't have to worry about all this. To me, sexuality as a choice versus something which is in the genes is the interesting debate. I believe there are people who consciously made the choice, there are those who made the choice but do not admit to themselves that they had a choice, and there are those who knew from the time they were very young that they were not like the other kids, did not fit the pattern for their gender, and probably have some physical reason why. Whether that it genetic specifically or something more subtle probably depends on the situation. A man with a relatively small penis, for example, may quite rationally decide that he's only going to get grief trying to chase women, and is more accepted in the gay world. Is that genetic (the size of his penis) or is that a decision?

Answer 4

A healthier exchange of ideas can happen if people distinguish between pure logic and reasonableness. Anytime a person thinks about something, they are using reason, but not every time a person uses reason are they being logical. Logic can only arrive at information that is already contained in the premise(s). For example, if a person does not believe in God, then no logic can ever arrive at a statement that includes the existence of God. However, a person who doesn't believe in God could have their thoughts changed by statements that are reasonable and vice versa. It is unreasonable to believe that the world was created six thousand years ago, but it is not unreasonable to believe that whatever created the universe might have been an intelligent Being beyond our comprehension. It is unreasonable to believe that humans can control or even know the intentions of such a Being, but it is reasonable to believe that that Being is motivated by "lawfulness" and some sort of "justice" - one might even argue for "benevolence". It is unreasonable to believe that science can answer all of our question, but it is reasonable to believe that science is an excellent way of knowing things with greater certainty. It is unreasonable to believe that science and religion are enemies, but it is reasonable to believe that religion and science do not deal with the exact same questions - how the world operates is one thing, whereas "why" the world operates is quite another.

Answer 5

Actually, this is not about "context" as you so eloquently put it. The verses you quoted from Romans called homosexual acts abominable not because it couldn't produce children, but that it simply wasn't what God ordained! Why would God BOTHER putting Adam and Eve together as the examples of what sexual relationships were intended to establish if He were perfectly OK with homosexual practices? I hate to break out the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument, but it's as plain as the nose on most people's faces! He didn't ORDAIN homosexual practices AT ANY TIME! Remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? If He were OK with homosexuality and it WAS "genetic", He'd have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah and allow their inhabitants free passage into Heaven! I don't have a problem with homosexuals either; only the PRACTICE of homosexuality.

Answer 6

I didn't get any further than
"A sexual act involving two men was regarded as an "abomination" for the simple reason that it could not result in the pro-creation of children. Indeed, female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded"

Sexual acts between 2 females isn't gonna produce a baby either.
Now don't get me wrong here- I am not homophobic I just don't like bad logic. I don't think that gay men should be treated less fairly than gay women. I think everyone should be equal.

Answer 7

No.

Homosexuality is a sin. We are all, by our very nature, inclined toward sin. It is “natural” to us. This does not mean it is okay to sin. We cannot say…”we are made this way” and therefore, it must be okay.

Sin is degenerative. It gets worse the more we give in to it and justify it. We always tend to be very forgiving of our own shortcomings…and then we try to paint God into a box that is comfortable for us. We think…surely a loving God would not condemn something that makes me happy, something I cannot help doing or desiring to do. But the fact is he does. We are not to be comfortable and happy with our perversions.

St. Paul came down hard on the men…because they are the ones who carry the seed. They are to be the spiritual heads of the family, and stand in the place of Christ within our homes.

Pornography is a sin as well…but society has accepted it. This does not make it less of a sin…it is still offensive to God and we, as Christians, should still avoid it.

Pedophilia is also a sin…against man and against God. Pedophiles could claim the same (and do claim it) that they are born this way. They cannot help their desires. What of them?

Homosexuality is not just another way of expressing love for each other. It is an abomination against nature and therefore against God. Those who have that cross to bear, need to offer it up to God and ask for his help. They are called to celibacy. In this society that is not a popular statement…we are so free and easy with sex that no one can imagine not “having sex.” But salvation and God are infinitely more important then the earthly comforts.

Answer 8

I understand your position and what you are trying to do. However, I would like to point out several things to you:

A) I believe very strongly that mere humans have absolutely NO authority to explain away any of God's commandments. What God's motivation may (or may not) have been when He chose to describe male homosexual behavior is His business alone. Remember, His ways and thoughts are higher than ours, NOT the other way around. Whenever we believe we understand God better than we actually do and push aside His commandments, we vear into apostacy.

B) I disagree that God didn't address the issue of lesbianism. God commanded women to be chaste until marriage to their husbands; thereafter, women were to refrain from adultery. In setting forth these commandments, God implicitly prohibited women from engaging in fornication before marriage (heterosexual OR homosexual) and adultery after it. Period.

C) Jesus expanded upon these OT commandments when He upheld the definition of marriage (1 man + 1 woman) and prohibited adultery and fornication for women AND men alike. Again, it's pretty clear that Jesus taught, in His gentle yet direct way, that sex should be between married partners of the opposite sex ONLY.

Answer 9

God ultimately has the last say in how we have lived our lives this side of heaven.I have chosen to love people,I cannot make any judgment on others choosing.If asked I would be a truth teller,as far as what God has said about homosexuality.But I as Christ has commanded me will love people,I in no way find any judgment beneficial in drawing people to a living God who desires us in spite of our sinful nature.Gods love will draw people to Him and change our nature and unnatural desires.I have discovered that while people act in ways God is not pleased with,they live in intense guilt,which becomes and makes one much more compulsive to the acts they are so guilt ridden about.Jesus came to set us free,hopefully when anyone walks into my life I only desire to be the heart of Christ towards them.

Answer 10

ah, the problems modern, liberal christians will face with their book of moral guidelines that has been unaltered for hundreds of years and which is rapidly becoming more and more out of tune with society at large. I wonder what will be the next bone of contention? (since society will obviously change, and your book will still say the same things)

I don't envy you your position at all. You are an intelligent person, and a compassionate one, and you are trying to resolve the words of that book with what you personally know to be just.

Thing is, there IS an awful lot of gay-bashing going on in the bible, not just in the OT but also in the NT: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
Paul of Tarsus was a complete homophobe. Interestingly enough, Jesus doesn't really mention it at all.

While I could buy your 'struggling tribe' story for the OT, how would that work in NT times? And I think lesbians are not even mentioned as women more or less had the status of lamp posts in OT times.

Answer 11

~sigh~

I agree with acid zebra in that I don't envy you in your position. You're going to be taken to task (indeed you already have) by your co-religionists.

What is bewildering to many of us non-Christians is that there is this selectivity in which rules from Leviticus (or Deuteronomy, or any OT book) are still considered to be in effect and which are not. From an outsider's perspective it does seem that there are a lot of your co-religionists who feel quite justified in ignoring most of those rules and judgments when they apply to themselves (two kinds of cloth, etc.), but maintain that *some* of them still apply, and their choices about which are still in effect seems to us to be....well, hateful.

I had truly thought that what mattered, to Christians, is what JESUS said and did. But I guess Jesus didn't allow enough room for judging and condemning others.

And that's one of the big reasons that there are so many ex-Christians around.


In any case, kudos to you for taking a more compassionate view. Personally, I'd just chuck out the entire OT if I were you, and concentrate on Jesus' message of love.