Although numerous threads have included discussion of this topic, I am not sure there is one devoted solely to this question, and there is not one in this particular Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.
As per the purpose of this forum, we are assuming the Bible is authoritative. However, it is fair for posters to make their own cases for their particular interpretations. By placing the thread in this forum, the obvious result is that it is harder to make the case that homosexual sex should be accepted as 'on par' with heterosexual sex.
However, I am also adding the following condition:
It is to be assumed that homosexuality, defined to be the condition of being naturally sexually attracted to people of one's own gender, is an innate characteristic, and one that cannot be changed, even if a given homosexual person wishes they could be changed.
I am also including a poll with some options. The last option is intended to parallel the rule that many Christians would apply to heterosexuals. No sex outside of marriage.
To conclude this OP, the questions for debate are:
Is homosexual sex a sin in all circumstances?
If not, under what circumstances should it be considered sinful?
Is homosexual sex a sin in all circumstances?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
In the god gene and gay gene thread, there was the following exchange.
Easyrider refers to two of the 10 commandments. These appear in Exodus, Chapter 20.
Notice at the end of this chapter that the Lord is commanding the Israelites to make altars and perform sacrifices. Has anyone here ever witnessed Christians following this command?
Chapter 21 and following goes on to say:
. . . and it goes on with even more laws from there for several chapters.
Clearly many of these are "moral laws" and would be considered so even today. Many deal with how to deal appropriately with others, to take responsibility for one's actions, to make restitution when you hurt someone or their property. This all sounds very moral to me.
No where does it make any distinction in these passages between what is a "moral" law and what is not. According to the text, God is saying the Israelits must follow all of these laws. If the ten commandments are "moral laws", then so is the whole rest of this lengthy passage.
Now, I see several laws that Christians in general today do not feel they are obligated to follow in these chapters.
THis law implies that seducing a virgin is at least not a grievious sin. The perpetrator must marry the woman and pay a bride price. Are there any Christians anywhere who are following this practice, or insisting that it must be followed? Is so, please cite.
Which Christian denominations support the death penalty for sorceresses?
Which Christians support the death penalty for those who follow other faiths?
Which Christians forbid the charging of interest when money is lent to a poor person? Are there examples of Christian bankers which follow this principle? Are there bankers who do not follow this principle? (I think we can answer this second question yes)
Now, I am all for civil discussion. But if a North Korean curse Kim Il Sung, would we say he or she is acting imorally? Did Christians who cursed Bill Clinton or George Bush sin? Perhaps so. If so, there is a fair amount of sinning going on in this regard.
How many Christians give up their first born sons when they are 8 days old? Are those who don't sinning?
Probably not very many people do this. Still, no Christian or denomination that I know of insists that this practice be followed.
Christians do in general consider Sunday the Sabbath. However, there is no hard requirement that 'no work be done' in most denominations. Those who work on Sunday are not considered to have sinned or acted immorally.
No Christian farmer I know feels compelled to follow the fallowing law, although many might practice variations of this because they feel it is good farming practice. Clearly those who do not, however, are not considered to be acting imorally.
Again, Christians do not celebrate the traditional Jewish festivals described here.
I submit that it is clear that Christians choose which OT moral laws they wish to follow. They are given license to do so by the NT. As long as Christians are following the larger "laws of love", they need not follow any particular law of the OT. Clearly murder, for example, is followed because murdering someone is about the most egregious example of not following the law of love that one can think of.
See for example:
If he is justified, that means he does not stand in sin before God.
See also:
Paul is explicitly saying that believers need not follow specific OT laws, in this case those related to eating. I cited one of these very laws above from Exodus!
How much clearer can you get!??
I submit that two homosexuals having sex in private in a committed relationship, and who respect the scruples of those around them by not 'flaunting' their activity are not acting sinfully. They are in no way harming anyone, and they are not violating the laws of love.
Easyrider wrote:micatala wrote:IMV, OT law is irrelevant, since almost no Christians follow it in general or feel that they have to.
Not quite. We're talking about moral laws, not some of the other kinds of OT laws. The moral laws have never been abolished. Adultery remains adultery, murder remains murder, etc., etc.
Easyrider refers to two of the 10 commandments. These appear in Exodus, Chapter 20.
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
20 Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning."
21 The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was.
Idols and Altars
22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'
Notice at the end of this chapter that the Lord is commanding the Israelites to make altars and perform sacrifices. Has anyone here ever witnessed Christians following this command?
Chapter 21 and following goes on to say:
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
Hebrew Servants
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
. . . and it goes on with even more laws from there for several chapters.
Clearly many of these are "moral laws" and would be considered so even today. Many deal with how to deal appropriately with others, to take responsibility for one's actions, to make restitution when you hurt someone or their property. This all sounds very moral to me.
No where does it make any distinction in these passages between what is a "moral" law and what is not. According to the text, God is saying the Israelits must follow all of these laws. If the ten commandments are "moral laws", then so is the whole rest of this lengthy passage.
Now, I see several laws that Christians in general today do not feel they are obligated to follow in these chapters.
16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
THis law implies that seducing a virgin is at least not a grievious sin. The perpetrator must marry the woman and pay a bride price. Are there any Christians anywhere who are following this practice, or insisting that it must be followed? Is so, please cite.
18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live.
Which Christian denominations support the death penalty for sorceresses?
20 "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.
Which Christians support the death penalty for those who follow other faiths?
25 "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. 26
Which Christians forbid the charging of interest when money is lent to a poor person? Are there examples of Christian bankers which follow this principle? Are there bankers who do not follow this principle? (I think we can answer this second question yes)
28 "Do not blaspheme God [f] or curse the ruler of your people.
Now, I am all for civil discussion. But if a North Korean curse Kim Il Sung, would we say he or she is acting imorally? Did Christians who cursed Bill Clinton or George Bush sin? Perhaps so. If so, there is a fair amount of sinning going on in this regard.
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
How many Christians give up their first born sons when they are 8 days old? Are those who don't sinning?
31 "You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs.
Probably not very many people do this. Still, no Christian or denomination that I know of insists that this practice be followed.
10 "For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.
12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.
Christians do in general consider Sunday the Sabbath. However, there is no hard requirement that 'no work be done' in most denominations. Those who work on Sunday are not considered to have sinned or acted immorally.
No Christian farmer I know feels compelled to follow the fallowing law, although many might practice variations of this because they feel it is good farming practice. Clearly those who do not, however, are not considered to be acting imorally.
14 "Three times a year you are to celebrate a festival to me.
Again, Christians do not celebrate the traditional Jewish festivals described here.
I submit that it is clear that Christians choose which OT moral laws they wish to follow. They are given license to do so by the NT. As long as Christians are following the larger "laws of love", they need not follow any particular law of the OT. Clearly murder, for example, is followed because murdering someone is about the most egregious example of not following the law of love that one can think of.
See for example:
Paul, in Romans 3:28 wrote:For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
If he is justified, that means he does not stand in sin before God.
See also:
Paul in Romans ch. 14 wrote:The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
Paul is explicitly saying that believers need not follow specific OT laws, in this case those related to eating. I cited one of these very laws above from Exodus!
How much clearer can you get!??
I submit that two homosexuals having sex in private in a committed relationship, and who respect the scruples of those around them by not 'flaunting' their activity are not acting sinfully. They are in no way harming anyone, and they are not violating the laws of love.
Post #12
Well, so far we have 1 vote for "in all circumstances" and 3 votes for "in no circumstances". I don't see that anyone has spoken for either of these positions, though.
I am disappointed no one who believes homosexual sex is a sin in all circumstances has chosen to engage the issue.
I am disappointed no one who believes homosexual sex is a sin in all circumstances has chosen to engage the issue.

- Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #13
You would think for the anti-gay bible believer it would be a no brainer.micatala wrote:Well, so far we have 1 vote for "in all circumstances" and 3 votes for "in no circumstances". I don't see that anyone has spoken for either of these positions, though.
I am disappointed no one who believes homosexual sex is a sin in all circumstances has chosen to engage the issue.
Just toss out a few bible verses and yell victory.
Maybe it is a good sign.
Post #14
THis is, of course, how such debates sometimes go. My hope for this thread is that we could take a more comprehensive view, looking at the overall message of the Bible, particularly the NT, as that is the most relevant for Christians.Cathar wrote:You would think for the anti-gay bible believer it would be a no brainer.
Just toss out a few bible verses and yell victory.
Certainly if one wanted to 'throw out a few verses', we could do that as well and easily and victoriously claim that anti-gay Christians are also arguably 'anti-Christian'.
Here is a question to think about.
If you were there instead of Jesus when the crowed dragged in the woman caught in adultery to stone her, would it have been appropriate for you to act in the same way as Jesus? If you recall, this is the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" scene.
If you had acted in this way, persuading the crowd not to stone the woman, would you not have been explicitly acting against God's Law? COuld not others legitimately claim that you were promoting immorality?
None of the above.
Post #15Amen. (I took "None of the above." as my answer also.)I would consider homosexual sex a sin in the same place I would consider heterosexual sex a sin. When it USES people as things (ie, tools for orgasm) rather than as people.
There are those who will take anything, any quality or attribute about themselves and use/hurt others with it. They don't care one iota about the negative effects they have upon others. I don't have a problem seeing that such people are clearly wrong (whether it's about "sex" or practically anything else). I've pretty sure we've all met/known someone who matches that description in at least a few ways. At times, it has likely been ourselves, but I have learned that those who are blessed learn to steer away from being that way (overall).
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
- Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #16
Even if the adulteress story was a later write in as many scholars belive because it is not in the earliest manuscripts it is still a good story.
I would like to see one of these threads on this subject stay sane. Grumpy started one that had promise but like others it was closed down do to hostilities. I went for none of the above also.
I am a hertosexual that has not been laid in over a decade so I am hardly defending homosexuality because of my decadent life style.
As a friend once said to me over 27 years ago "with the little love displayed in the world, who are we to complain about how two people display affection and love"? I can hardly see how God would mind.
I would like to see one of these threads on this subject stay sane. Grumpy started one that had promise but like others it was closed down do to hostilities. I went for none of the above also.
I am a hertosexual that has not been laid in over a decade so I am hardly defending homosexuality because of my decadent life style.
As a friend once said to me over 27 years ago "with the little love displayed in the world, who are we to complain about how two people display affection and love"? I can hardly see how God would mind.
Biblical Interpretations Will Surely Vary
Post #17That reminds me; much of how people answer the survey, is a matter of how some do INTERPRET the Bible period.You would think for the anti-gay bible believer it would be a no brainer.
Just toss out a few bible verses and yell victory.
Maybe it is a good sign.
I don't think that there will be agreement between those who read it, especially when a given subject (like human sexuality) is controversial. And here in America (where human sexuality is so often handled like a "deadly" or "bad" thing), I don't see how people's religion WON'T get mixed in with anti-gay attitudes. Things can get better, but it will certainly take some time.
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
Post #18
We are now up to 3 votes for homosexuality is a sin in all circumstances, but no one is willing to actually defend the position, nor address the comparisons with other OT laws cited above.
This is certainly the crux of the matter. I claim a comprehensive reading of the NT, especially if one emphasizes the words and actions of Jesus, allows at the very least that God will not judge all homosexuality as sinful. He may very well judge some anti-gay activitists much more severely than homosexuals.melikio wrote: That reminds me; much of how people answer the survey, is a matter of how some do INTERPRET the Bible period.
Yes, it is commonly acknowledged the story is a later addition. I have never heard fundamentalists or anti-gay activists claim it is less than authoritative, however.Cathar wrote: Even if the adulteress story was a later write in as many scholars belive because it is not in the earliest manuscripts it is still a good story.
Me either. The least we can do is let Him decide when the time comes, and stop discriminating against them now.Cathar wrote: As a friend once said to me over 27 years ago "with the little love displayed in the world, who are we to complain about how two people display affection and love"? I can hardly see how God would mind.
Another Viewpoint
Post #19Yep!! That would be the best thing to happen.The least we can do is let Him decide when the time comes, and stop discriminating against them now.
However, one major problem with "Christendom" (referring to many of the human beings who wear the "Christian" label), is that they don't fully regard the difference between living what they believe, vs. attempting to control the lives of others in the wake of their own "beliefs" (interpretation of the Bible).
Somehow, many believe that they are "right" to bear down as heavily as they do upon homosexual people; even hating them while somehow twisting it in their minds in order to call it "love".
At the point in time I'm writing this, the 12 responses to the "survey", have indicated that people DO see the answers as being different, and some like myself understand that unless somene has a more traditional/fundamental biblical interpretation of homosexuality, that the first answer listed isn't as cut/dry as it may seem.
I welcome the day, when what I've shared in thousands of posts on the internet, can be shared without extreme "emotion" and/or "bias" amongst reasonable people (especially "Christians"). And while some of the most reasonable people obviously answered the survey, I realize there are those who simply go along with the problematic view that just about ANYTHING "homosexual" is wrong.
Perhaps it may be interesting to some, to realize that most homosexual people aren't as sexually unrestrained or uncontrolled as many heterosexual people happen to be. Even so, the overly-broad designation of "evil" many Christians place upon anyone or anything "homosexual", is something that does need to be questioned (even in the "biblical" sense). It has certainly fostered more problems than solutions in whole cultures, The Church and the world itself.
Really, the idea that "religion" or someone's "beliefs" should/would control another person's actions or choices, is something that should be questioned/examined period. And while I'm not liberal about everything, I do know that the undue emphasis and attempted restrictions of homosexual people (especially in the name of God/religion), is one of the MOST hypocritical and damaging campaigns which man has ever embarked upon; and the evidence is all around to show that I'm not speaking from my imagination.
More simply put, people (especially a large number of Christians) have NOT learned to treat homosexual people with the love/respect they obviously treat other sinners and themselves. What we have are MASSIVE numbers of so-called "moral" people faking sexual purity (according to standards they claim are of God), ignoring and denying their own sexual faults/weaknessess, and worst of all the typical (uncoscious) notion that homosexual people are [inherently] more "evil" than anyone else who lives on this planet.
Perhaps so MANY have struggled with homosexuality (and failed to change it), that they are more comfortable with the neurotic belief, that hating it or shunning it may actually be a "cure" (or fix) for it. And to see so few exhibit any faith, hope or kindness (love) toward the troubles mny homosexual people face in this life, is disheartening at best and at worst leads to a type of "hatred" and "confusion" which typically accompanies nearly all the societal problems associated with "homosexuality".
Not to emphasize that homosexuality MUST be seen as right/wrong (per se) in anyone's eyes, but that fewer and fewer homosexual people be targeted by those who THINK (or believe) it's their main job or duty (especially as a "Christian") to somehow restrict or change them. I understand affecting and controlling "crime" associated with any given sexual actions; but the notion that all the "straight" people should be in charge of controlling the "gay" people, is something that needs to be questioned as much as anything (historically and into the present) has ever been.
We may all have our views of what is right/wrong (sexually speaking), but there is (and always should be) some real, tangible "limits" when it comes to imposing those views upon other human beings. The Bible addresses the very things about thoise limits I'm saying (really, it does), but depending upon one's interpretation and mental conditioning concerning that same book, different emphases and conclusions can be entertained.
So I say that LOVE is the key; not the overbearing religious views which have so many times in history been shown to be in error (as illustrated by even a cursory view of the many problems which have surely been contributed to by certain "religious" views or mindsets). Not that any/all secular views aren't complicit in some (significant) ways, but that the religious views and/or attitudes I'm pointing out cannot be perpetually disregarded.
Jesus gave mankind (as a whole) the best clues (examples) the world has likely ever seen. And one doesn't even have to take the Bible LITERALLY, to see the real value of LOVE as Jesus showed it (to ALL SINNERS). The scapegoating of homosexual people, will backfire upon those who have exploited it (in due time). For even IF homosexuality is as "wrong" as so many believe it to be, it still doesn't speak to (address) the evil they who have sought to "handle" or "affect" it have literally injected into countless lives and the situations surrounding those lives.
I WISH I could say that numerous were the times I've seen a "Christian" literally help (console, encourage, empathize with or aid) a homosexual person; but I really cannot, for it is a relatively RARE thing to witness.

(Is there ANY WONDER, why most homosexual people have decided that they must learn to stand apart from religious fundamentalism and others who want little more than to CRUSH them under whatever "weights" they deem approriate to apply?)
I've never been "proud" to be gay; I haven't had that luxury. But I have become stronger in many ways certain people don't really understand, because of being gay; go figure.

-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
12 Reasons why GAY is WRONG ;)
Post #20Something more to consider: (Why "gay" is wrong.)
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/gaymarriage.pdf
-Mel-

http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/gaymarriage.pdf
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-