Is Being Gay a Sin?

Sexuality is a little different than telling a lie or killing someone or cheating or what have you. You really cannot help who you are attracted to. That is not something that you can will to change. For instance you could will yourself to stop lying, if you were once a murderer you could stop killing. If you were once adulterous you could, I don't know quit cheating. But you cannot just change your sexuality. This saved friend you speak of may have stopped having sex with other men but I'm sure that he is still gay. I'm sure he's not out with you now saved and saying "lets go get some chicks man" "Lets go get some chicks dude". He may have stopped having homosexual relationships to please God, but is he sacrificing his happiness? Is he going to stay single for the rest of his life? Or is he going to marry a woman he cannot really love?

This is a difficult subject. But being that the majority of the people on ProgressiveU probably don't have theology majors, all we have to offer to you are our opinions. Here is mine:

Just as murder, and adultery are all sins, the sin of being homosexual is the same--every one has their faults, and that is just theirs.

I say this because, as you said, the Bible clearly is against homosexuality. However, as an individual, I do not see a problem with that sexual preferance. Just as a side note, this has been a struggle with me and my religion.

"Then where do you set the line? What if somebody's sexual tendency is for a certain animal, or say even small children. I know thats terrible, but if your saying that whatever makes you happy is fine than basically anything goes and there is no line to cross."

Good point.

Anti-Love Phobia.

The question is why is this a sin. Why is it a sin for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in a relationship? The thought that allowing this is equivalent to letting adults have sex with children is absolutely insane.

This line of reasoning is really rather silly. The obvious "line" for anyone who views the subject objectively is the line of informed adult consent, referred to legally as the "age of majority." Neither a child nor an animal can can give their informed adult consent to engage in sex with ANYONE, gay OR straight, and there is no RATIONAL reason to suggest that this already existing limitation would suddenly evaporate just because someone is attracted to the same sex.

As for the original blog, I would suggest that perhaps if modern christians were more informed about the ACTUAL contents of the bible, and had studied the original languages instead of having their doctrines spoon-fed to them, they might realize that the bible really doesn't say all that much about homosexuality. Heck, Jesus never even mentions the subject, and many of the verses that are commonly thought to refer to it are the result of poor translations* (at best).

I also never cease to be staggered by the way that modern christians obsess over the perfectly natural sexual orientation of their brethren, and of the utterly hypocritical way that this issue is filtered out of the literally hundrends of OT commandments. If you've ever worn a poly-cotton blend, you've committed a "to'ebah" (the same word that is used to refer to homosexuality in leviticus).

percivale

* If anyone is interested, I can elaborate on the translation issue at length.

The difference is the fact that they are consenting adults. Animals do not have the ability to consent, and under the law, neither do children. That is the difference.

Gayness is not in any way whatsoever equal to bestiality or child molesting. Two consenting adults of the same sex who love each other cannot possibly be compared to a person who likes to have sex with animals (they aren't even human... seriously...) or to an adult who rapes or molests a child who is not able to give any kind of consent (for that matter, an animal cannot give consent either, although that is hardly the issue with bestiality). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that they are equal, but I'd like to hear the logic.

Furthermore, the issue of whether being gay is a sin has to be restricted to religion (particularly the part about the Bible). Let me say that having a belief system or religion is fine as long as you don't project your own rules onto other people. If you believe your god doesn't like homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. They are rules that YOU choose to live by, not other people. Some people are athiests, and some people are religious but do not follow the Bible completely (lying, stealing, cheating, disobeying parents, eating meat on a friday, not going to church every week, etc. etc. etc.). It's not your job to decide what is "normal" or "natural" for other people, especially since homosexuality has been going on since the beginning of human history.

I don't think being gay is a sin at all, but even if someone does think that, they have no right to try to control or judge someone else.

-JP

> The male homosexual act along with other sexual acts like
> excessive promosicuity (gay or hetero) are unhealthy.

There are a lot of "homosexual acts," and as you say, both gay and hetero promiscuity can lead to certain health problems. But, not all sexual practices are unsafe, and to suggest that gay sex in all of its myriad variations categorically leads to poor health is just plain ignorant. One's sexual orientation isn't determined by which sexual acts you engage in, and there aren't any particular sex acts which are unique in practice to gay people.

Anyone can be unwise in their sexual practices, and I think that to suggest that gay people are somehow "more" unwise in this regards than the rest of the population is a pretty untenable position. It doesn't make sense to me to argue that someone of a particular sexual orientation is "sinful" because of a sexual practice that isn't unique to that orientation, and which they may not even engage in.

> They lead to the spread of disease. Even
> after all of the publicity and public education
> something like 60% of all new AIDS cases in
> America are found and directly traceable to
> homosexual activity. And there are many other
> diseases that are more prevalent in the gay
> community. The unhealthiness of sodomy
> and particularly when it is combined with
> promiscuity is obviously true now and it is
> was true when the Bible was written and the
> people who wrote the Bible knew it was true.

First of all, sexually transmitted diseases tend to follow patters of close association within a specific population. It makes sense if you think about it. HIV is a disease that has had a serious impact of the gay community in the U.S. But, there are other STDs (like HPV, for example) that are found in a higher regularity in the heterosexual population (almost 1 in 4 heterosexuals in the U.S. are infected with it), than in the gay population. So, if STDs are your measure of morality, perhaps you should be looking in the mirror.

I don't really believe in "gods," but I do believe in making logically sound arguments. Ultimately, your comment is based on a logical fallacy. Using the U.S. in isolation to argue your point is known as taking an unrepresented sample, since when you view the epidemic world-wide, the vast majority of infections (both existing and new) are primarily found in heterosexual patients who contracted the disease through heterosexual contact. More than 50% of all new HIV infections world-wide are in heterosexual women.

It is interesting (though not surprising) that you focused your comments on male homosexuality. It is also true that exclusive lesbians have the absolutely lowest identity-group related level of HIV infection of all (nearly a 0% transmission rate). So, if HIV infection statistics are your guide to morality, then lesbians must be the holiest of holies (no pun intended).

> I don't doubt that homosexual persons can't
> help who they are attracted to. But they can
> make choices about whether they act on those
> impulses. The ability to make conscious rational
> choices is a uniquely human characteristic and
> not surprisingly free will gets a lot of airtime in
> the Bible. The Bible directs people to make the
> right choices. One of those is to not eat pork
> and another is to not engage in homosexual
> activity.

That is a rather irrationally punative point of view to take, I think. To condemn a whole segment of the population to romantic lonliness strikes me as being both capricious and cruel. This is the path of sexual repression, and it leads to all manner of actual psychological dysfuntions. You imply that you value the ability of people to make conscious, rational choices, but your position doesn't seem to apply that value consistently.

Take for example your mention of the eating of pork. You would be hard pressed to find a modern christian who would agree that it was "sinful" to eat pork today. In fact, of the 613 commandments supposedly given to Moses by "god," less than half are still considered to be even remotely relevant to modern christians and jews. It is unrefutable that many of these commandments are considered irrelevant by most modern christians. Killing children who curse their parents, burning prostitutes alive, ritual animal sacrifice, observing various feasts and festivals, executing people who curse, are all commandments that few christians would be willing to abide. These commandments also prohibit sex with a woman on her period, havesting the corders of fields, taking fruit from young trees, cross-breeding livestock, planting more than one kind of seed in a field, cutting your hair, getting at tattoo, allowing a disabled person to become a priest, charging interest on loans, collecting firewood on Saturdays, wearing clothing made from blended fabrics, and eating non-kosher foods (like shrimp and pork).

So, the question becomes what is the criteria by which a modern christian should judge the commandments of the old testament in order to make a conscious, rational choice concerning the relvance of those commandments to adherents living the modern world.

The "sin" of male homosexuality as it discussed in the Old Testament is categorized by the Hebrew term to'ebah, which is often translated as "abomination" or "detestable." It is interesting (and I think ueful) to note some of the other "sins" that are similarly categorized. Eating dinner with an Egyptian is to'ebah. Eating shrimp, lobster, snake and similar meats is to'ebah. A woman wearing pants is to'ebah. The list goes on and on.

The absolute manner in which many modern christians insist on the "sinfullness" of homosexuality strikes me as being little more than a little hypocritical. If you really study the texts in their original language and context, there isn't any justification for applying a rigorous interpretation to the anti-gay commandmens, while arbitrarily ignoring most all of the others which are similarly categorized.

> The Bible also recognizes that people are
> inherinently sinful. It knows we will sin and
> mainly only requires that we repent and strive
> to keep from repeating the sin. The concept of
> repentence is key. Nobody is without sin and
> everybody struggles with some sort of temptation
> but when people do sin they should feel the
> need to repent.

The temping quetion is to ask if you had a girlfriend or a wife, would you feel the need to "repent" for your love of each other? But that question allows for a dodge, so I will instead ask if you feel a need to "repent" for eating a ham sandwich? Do you think that one should beg forgiveness, if you find out that the guy sitting at the end of the of the lunchroom table is Egytian? If the rationale behind the prohibition is found to be lacking, then so too does the idea that one should "repent" for violating it. The lack of consistency merely adds to the problem, since makes the judgement seem arbitrary and hypocritical.

> As far as love goes, and that seems to be
> the thrust of many of the arguments in this
> thread, there IS a difference between love
> and sex. It is perfectly possible and very
> common for people to have sex with people
> they don't love or barely even know.
> I think there is some validity to those who
> are arguing that the Bible would be OK
> with a loving committed gay relationship.
> But there is a lot less validity to the
> argument that it is OK as long as they
> are consenting adults.

Those are really arguments for two different things. Whether or not a loving, committed realtionship between two men or two women is "sinful" is a philosophical question. But, the argument that such relationships are between two consenting adults is more accurately directed at the legal question of whether or not it is appropriate to make those relationships illegal. There are a lot of things that various religious folks think are "sinful," that clearly cannot be made illegal in a country that respects the right of citizens to make thier own religious choices as part of its fundamental system of Laws.

> The Bible teaches that our body is a
> temple created in the image of God. It
> seems pretty straight forward that it
> would be sinful to defile the temple
> with an unhealthy act. If twinkies had
> been around when Leviticus was written,
> the consumption of twinkies might be
> considered sinful too.

You may be right, but if that was truly the motivation behind the modern christian taboo against homosexuality, then why are there not more churches that are preaching against the "sin" of eating twinkies? (I'll let the obvious joke there pass unsaid). Again, it comes down to consistency, and as you say the ability to make "rational, conscious choices." Most christains (and even you, I suspect) could easily be convinted of performing acts that are undeniably unhealthy for them, and few of those same christians would accept that restraining those same acts with a religious taboo is rational or even appropriate.

> Being pretty much agnostic myself, I am
> very sympathetic to "themeanesthags"
> argument that "Let me say that having a
> belief system or religion is fine as long as
> you don't project your own rules onto other
> people. If you believe your god doesn't like
> homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual.
> They are rules that YOU choose to live by,
> not other people.".

I am sympathetic to that argument myself. If someone decides that they want to constrain their own life, I have no objection to them doing so, even if I feel that their reasons for doing so don't make a lot of sense.

> But that argument cuts both ways.

Indeed it does, though not I think in the way that you suggest.

> People who do choose to be homosexual
> should not force their belief system and
> lifestyle on others who disagree.

Aside from the fact that there is no real objective evidence that would suggest that people "choose" to be homosexual, I don't see how my being gay, or as a gay man my exercise of the rights that are guaranteed to me under the Constitution, are in any way "forcing my beliefs" onto you. Our Constitution protects the rights of all citizens to make certain, fundamental choices about their own lives and to exercise certain rights as an expression of those choices. The rational context of the expression of individual rights includes and inherent requirement that people give each other enough "room" to live and let live, even when their personal opinions do not precisely align.

It is one thing to say "I will make my own choices," and quite another to say "I will not allow you the same freedom to make that same choice for yourself." I challenge anyone who wishes to try their hand at demonstrating any way in which my being gay, or my relationship to my husband somehow "forces" my beliefs onto them in a manner that is inconsistent with they way that their sexuality and their relationships intrude into mine.

> The rules of Christianity regarding homosexuality
> are fairly clearly defined in the Bible.

I disagree. There is significant disagreement on this point even within the realm of major christian denominations. The fact is that if you study the cannonized texts in their orginal language and contexts, the idea of a broad-sweeping condemnation of all homosexual people is not as clear as you might think. For example...

DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY, by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of California, Berkeley

Moreover, as pointed out by my erstwhile student, Dr. David Stewart, both occurences of the prohibition (18: 22; 20: 13) contain the phrase "as one lies with a woman" (lit. "lyings a woman"), an idiom used only for illicit heterosexual unions. Thus one could argue that carnal relations are forbidden only if their correlated heterosexual unions would be in these lists. For example, the Bible lists the following prohibited relations: nephew-aunt, grandfather-granddaughter, and stepmother-stepson. Thus, according to this theory, nephew-uncle, grandfather-grandson, and stepfather-stepson are also forbidden. This implies that the homosexual prohibition does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within the limited circle of family. However, homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized.
. . .
Thus, from the Bible, we can infer the following: the female half of the world's homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned. Over ninety-nine percent of the remaining gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of Jewish gay men subject to this prohibition. To those who argue that the Bible enjoins homosexuality, a careful reading of the source text offers a fundamentally different view. While the Bible never applauds homosexuality, neither does it prohibit most people from engaging in it.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html

> People who profess to be Christian strive to
> follow those rules, usually fail and are then
> expected to be repentent.

This then begs the question once again for the reason that some of these "rules" are completely ignored, while others are arbitrarily treated as immutably relevant.

> The Bible is the framework for a common
> belief system shared voluntarily by hundred
> of millions of people and homosexuals should
> respect that. Homosexuals are probably born
> with particular urges and attractions but if they
> want to unrepentedly act on those urges they
> probably should be calling themselves
> something other than Christians. Why not start
> their own religion with a different belief system?

There are several fallacies in this argument. The first and most obvious is that the system of sects and denominations demonstrates easily that suggesting that all groups that call themselves "christians" are likely to aggree on any particular point of theology or scripture is an unlikely propostion at best. Every single sect and denomination within the social body of "christendom" disagrees with every other on at least one point of theology, doctrine or practice. The import of the taboo against homosexuality is no exception, and even some (though admitedly a minority) of the major denominations disagree rather fervently on this point. No particular individual or sect has any "ownership" of the term "christian." And gay people who identify themselves by that term have just as much right to do so as do you.

> Then Christians could be tolerant of their
> religion like they are of Budists and Muslims
> and the Gay Religion could politely return
> the favor.

Being gay isn't a religion, and saying that christians would be tolerant "like they are of buddhists and muslims" isn't a very promising possibility, if you think about it. I my experience, modern christians aren't very tolerant at all of other relgions, beyond the hard and fast line that the Law in this country requires of them.

The bottom line is simple. Either your concept of sin is based on reason or it is based on tradition. If you argue from the former position, you would need to demonstrate that there is something unique and broadly applicable to homosexual people, but not to heterosexual people. I doubt seriously that you could do this. If you argue from the latter, then the taboo cannot be justified, since there is no consistency in the way that this taboo is applied in a modern context to the many similar taboos that are completely ignored in modern christian theology. Niether argument seem to me to be particularly convincing.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.