Is Homosexuality a Sin?

There has been no shortage of controversy as gay people assume increased roles as parents and married couples in our society, but almost nowhere has this conflict been more intense than in the church. Many religious leaders have condemned homosexuality, calling it a sin or even an abomination, but for millions of gay people around the world, there is nothing inherently sinful about their sexual preferences.

Next question in Religion in Society

You are seeing 67 Comments on this Argument. See all 401 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexuality?

- From Exodus International

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Yes is it a sin. (not my words)

Taken from the Bible Romans 1 vs.26-31.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

The Bible said it not my words.

- Tamara September 5, 2008 9:17AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- It helps to understand the historical context.
  
  All scripture is given in a particular historical context. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. The particular historical context of Romans 1:26-27 is shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
  
  In the first century AD, the Cybele cult was one of the most powerful in the Roman Empire. Cybele worship included orgiastic sexual rites and ritual bloodletting by priests and priestesses, similar to the practice of Baal worshipers in the Old Testament.
  
  “And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.” I Kings 18:28.
  
  In first century Rome, religious festivals honoring Cybele were celebrated in one of the five Cybele temples or in the streets. Castrated, long haired priests of Cybele preceded the image of the goddess, beating drums and cymbals, showing off their colorful clothing.
  
  The priests of Cybele were called galli, referring to their castrated eunuch status. Female priestesses and castrated, male eunuch priests functioned as representatives of the goddess, offering themselves sexually to male worshipers. These religious practices flourished in first century Rome and this is what Paul prohibited in Romans 1:26-27.
  
  http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
  
  - Rick Brentlinger September 5, 2008 11:02AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (4) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Context and situation
    
    Though it is the Word of God is it not? Was it to just those people that God was speaking to? The act is pagan in nature. God created us to go forth and multiply. The only reason why we would be have a sexual relationship is to create that life. What about that life in the seed that you are wasting, do you want to be responsible for the killing of lives because your to selfish to think that God might have better things for you and that kid?! Think about it
    
    - Timmy September 11, 2008 2:22AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Yes it is!
    
    It is not clear your claim that the context in which Romans was written has to do exclusively with the Cybele cult. Paul wrote that letter to explain his view of the gospel to the romans, and not as a corrective to specific problems as he did on the epistles to the corinthians. He begins explaining how idolatry and pride, led humanity to other sins when their hearts separated from God, including homosexuality.
    And I think you're being imprecise too in the other passages you quote in the arguments:
    1. With respect to Adam and Eve, he created them as sexual beings who could fulfill his purpose of 'filling the earth and increase in number' (and the problem of over population doesn't invalidate the command, it was caused by not managing sexuality as God established it) And though later came poligamy, it occurred after fall, and then on the new testament is explicit that godly people should be married to one woman.
    2. When you quote Lev 18:22 as referred to the cult of Molech, is not precise. When you read the whole chapter, Moses writes a series of sins that include unlawful sexual relationships, amongst homosexuality is found. The fact that the previous verse condemned the parents who offered their sons to Molech, doesn't mean the next verse is related. In fact on every mention of Molech in the bible is related to the child sacrifices (which, by the way, also violate the command to fill the earth and increase in number).
    Is so clear that two chapters ahead he repeats the command in Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." and in this occasion there is no sign it is directly related to the cult of Molech.
    
    I think the people at Exodus, as well as you, share the same general goal: to bring those with wanted or unwanted same sex attraction close to God. But in that path the means are as important as the ends. And sadly, one of both positions is wrong, and therefore is sinning (if it were Exodus, in not accepting that is God's will that people have same sex attraction; if it is you and the churches that accept homsexuality as normal, the sin will be of encouraging people to accept a sin as a way of life).
    I stay with the side that it is a sin.
    
    - oveja September 11, 2008 8:21AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Shrine Prostitution is NOT Homosexuality
      
      Oveja wrote:
      
      "When you quote Lev 18:22 as referred to the cult of Molech, is not precise. When you read the whole chapter, Moses writes a series of sins that include unlawful sexual relationships, amongst homosexuality is found. The fact that the previous verse condemned the parents who offered their sons to Molech, doesn't mean the next verse is related. In fact on every mention of Molech in the bible is related to the child sacrifices"
      
      As Christians, we focus on what the Bible actually says.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
      
      God links the qedeshah, shrine prostitutes and zanah, street prostitutes because what they share in common is a type of prostitution.
      
      “I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, zanah, prostitution, nor your brides, daughters in law when they commit adultery, naaph, idolatrous worship: for themselves are separated with whores, [zanah], female prostitutes, and they sacrifice with harlots, [qedeshah], female shrine prostitutes.” Hosea 4:14.
      
      “And there were also sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes [shrine prostitutes] in the land: and they did according to all the abominations, towebah..." I Kings 14:23.
      
      The Holy Spirit links the abomination-towebah activity of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and I Ki 14:23-24 to shrine prostitution.
      
      The Holy Spirit, in I Kings 14:23-24 uses the Hebrew word towebah to describe the abominations of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 and I Kings 14:23-24.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
      
      This Links the sexual activity to shrine prostitution, not homosexuality as we define it today (a committed, faithful, non-cultic relationship between two men or two women).
      
      “And he took away the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes out of the land.” I Kings 15:12.
      
      “And the remnant of the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes...” I Kings 22:46.
      
      “And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, [qadesh], male temple prostitutes [shrine prostitutes], that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove, asherah, sacred poles set up to worship the goddess.” II Kings 23:7.
      
      The Holy Spirit, in II Kings 23:5-10, links qadesh/sodomites with Molech worship
      
      II KIngs 23:5-20 provides another undeniable Link between shrine prostitutes and Molech worship. Leviticus 20:5 also Links Molech worship to shrine prostitution, twice using the Hebrew word zanah (prostitute) to describe the illicit sexual worship of Molech.
      
      The bottom line is this. No matter how you slice it, the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is pagan worship of the fertility goddess and same sex shrine prostitution, not committed, faithful, non-cultic partnerships between same sex couples.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Abomination.html
      
      - Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 10:10AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - the action not the context.
        
        The context is important, I am not denying that, but we must ask ourselves what is actually condemned. The Leviticul condemnation is not of prostitution, although the Scripture also condemns that activity both in the context of idolatrous worship and street prostitution, but of any sexual actions between two people of the same sex. It is an abomination because it flies in the face of God's intention for sexuality. As previously stated this command is given in a list of commandments that condemn other sexual perversities, that distort the original intended in the sexual gift.
        
        - Periannath September 14, 2008 5:06PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Romans
    
    Probably what you say about the cults in and the way they worshipped is true (I haven't done research about that yet) However, there are things that stand out to me in Romans 1:24-26
    
    "24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other."
    
    One of them is that it says, God abandoned them. Even though He loved them, His prescence wasn't dwelling with them so there was no sense of truth or conviction.
    
    Second it says that they were abandoned to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired and that because of that they did vile things regarding their bodies. Then it goes on to say that they exchanged the truth for a lie and so they started to worship idols rather than God. Now this is where he addresses homosexuality. Notice how it says that homosexuality is not normal in verse 26 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other."
    
    By looking at the beginning of verse 24 and verse 26 we can see that before idolatry and homosexuality are addressed, both verses explain that God left them so that they would follow their own desires. I feel like this part is repeated to address separate(even though they could go together) issues.
    
    verse 27 shows the following
    
    27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
    
    This part directly addresses lust and homosexuality. ("And the men, INSTEAD OF HAVING NORMAL SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN, BURNED WITH LUST for each other ")
    
    - ecs119 September 11, 2008 11:55AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Okay but historical facts contradict you.
      
      I offer these helpful free resources which do a great job of explaining the cultural, historical and religious situation Paul addressed in first century Rome.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
      
      Remember that Romans addressed a real historical situation in the first century. Cybele, the fertility goddess, had five temples in her honor in first century Rome.
      
      http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
      
      There is no logical or thoughtful way to divorce our modern understanding of Romans 1 from the cultural, historical and religious situation in the first century.
      
      I know it goes against what you've been taught but facts are facts.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
      
      - Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 12:11PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - How do they contradict me?
        
        I understand your point. As a matter of fact, I would have no problem believing that Paul would address that particular issue(with the cybeles). However I also strongly believe that not only is Paul pointing out idol worship and homosexuality, he is also exposing homosexuality as another issue too.
        
        - ecs119 September 11, 2008 12:21PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        This is the contradiction
        
        The problems with your view are manifold.
        
        1. Committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships are not prohibited in the Old Testament, in Sodom or anywhere else.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html
        
        What the OT prohibits is shrine prostitution. Therefore there is no prior scriptural basis for Paul to prohibit same sex relationships, except for prohibiting shrine prostitution.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Pagan-practices.html
        
        2. Since lesbianism is never condemned in the OT, it is entirely out of context with Paul's argument about idolatry to suddenly inject a one verse condemnation of lesbianism (Romans 1:26) into his idolatry argument.
        
        3. Early Christians understood Romans 1:26 as a reference to non-procreative sex as being unnatural. It was hundreds of years later (around AD 330), when John Chrysostom decided Paul might have been referring to lesbians.
        
        4. If you'll take the time to read the information at the Links in my previous comment to you, you will discover that early Christians DID understand Romans 1:26-27 as referring to shrine prostitution instead of homosexuality.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexuality-Wrong.html
        
        5. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
        
        If Romans 1:26-27 was a reference to shrine prostitution then, its a reference to shrine prostitution now.
        
        That doesn't change simply because someone in the twenty first century decides to take the verses out of their historical context.
        
        - Rick Brentlinger September 11, 2008 2:40PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Romans 1 a Chronology not an explicit commandment.
    
    In the opening chapter of Romans the Apostle Paul is not listing a command of "do's and don'ts" but a listing of chronology of the falleness and depravity of mankind. St. Paul is going back to the early history of man's rebellion in turning a way from the true, one and only living God and to the worship of created things and other types of idolatry. Because of this God gave them over to a depraved mind. A chief sign of this rebellion is the inappropriate sexual actions between women and men. It is clear in this homosexual action a high abomination is occurring because it is going directly against the created design of God as revealed in Genesis. It is a rejection of God and his way and an embracing of a counterfeit. This is why prevalent homosexuality in a society is a sign that a society is moving away from God and his truth in open rebellion. It may seem extreme to the modern person but not anymore extreme than the call of all disciples to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him. Jesus makes a way out. As someone who has and does struggle with homosexuality this is something I can attest to that the walk is not fun or easy but it is what is truth and what God calls all sinners too, repentance.
    
    May God lead you by his grace to the freedom and changing power that grace brings,
    Peace,
    Spencer
    
    - Periannath September 14, 2008 4:58PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Complementarianism is private interpretation
      
      Spencer-
      
      I appreciate your honesty. It speaks well of your character. That being said, the basis of your viewpoint is Complementarianism - that God intends everyone to be heterosexual, that God is adamantly opposed to every intimate human partnership except those which replicate the Adam and Eve model.
      
      Of course, the Bible never takes that position. That is something which the scripture does not say but which Complementarians read into the Bible. In plainer words, it is a private interpretation.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Complementarity.html
      
      By taking the clobber passages out of context and insisting they refer to homosexuality and lesbianism when no human author of the Bible ever linked Sodom and homosexuality (let alone lesbianism) in any of the 48 passages where Sodom is used, the Ex-Gay industry has convinced you to believe a lie.
      
      http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
      
      - Rick Brentlinger September 14, 2008 7:06PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - God bodly affirms love in all human relationships...
        
        but we must be careful when we use the word love because as you and I know they mean very different things in different contexts. The Bible is full of examples where people love eachother and are not married. However, this love is not sexual. Do not then presume (please) that I mean that no intimate human partnerships or relationsihps should occur outside of marriage- that is simply not Biblical or true. In this case, according to definintion of complementarianisim you offered, I am not a complementarian. Beyond the possibility of marriage great emotional and social needs and longings are met through parents, siblings, family, best friends, friends, partners, groups, classmates, co-workers, the church, small groups and so forth. All kinds of human relationships can develop the capacity for intimaciy and in more extreme circumstances partnership. This is all good and decent granted the realtionships have a realtive level of health; i.e. not subject to co-dependency, violent, or otherwise harmful to the people invovled in those relationships. What is reserved for marriage though is the fullness of sexual union as embodied in sexual union. That is, although intimate partnerships and/or relationships happen between people they are not open to sexual union because that specific gift to humanity is reserved for the covenent and relationship of marriage. There is a difference between what I am advocating, from the Bible, than what you are claiming I am saying. Unfortunatly I must make a leave now so I will not be able to give a more adequate response to your comment at this time although I did read the two articles you linked and will respond at a later time.
        
        God's peace be upon you,
        Spencer
        
        - Periannath September 15, 2008 2:08PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Complementarianism and the Bible
        
        Spencer-
        
        I should have been more precise in my language. By intimate human partnership, I meant committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex marriages.
        
        Dr. Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader, summarizes the Complementarian position in his 520 page, anti-gay book, The Bible And Homosexual Practice. He says that the creation story in Genesis authorizes only heterosexual union, but never homosexual union.
        
        Gagnon asserts that the Genesis account of creation leaves no room for legitimizing same-sex unions. That is the classic statement of the odd hermeneutic Complementarians use to buttress their position.
        
        Gagnon even insists that homosexual unions can never be legitimately described as loving. His remarks can be found on pages 194, 291, 297, 327, 339 of his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
        
        I don't see any real difference between your position and Dr. Gagnon's position and the position of Joe Dallas and Exodus. All are anti-gay. Here are your words.
        
        "although intimate partnerships and/or relationships happen between people they are not open to sexual union because that specific gift to humanity is reserved for the covenent and relationship of marriage."
        
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/family-values.html
        
        - Rick Brentlinger September 15, 2008 5:41PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - response part 2
        
        About complementarianisim:
        Although there seems to be a simillarity between the Platonic account of origins and the account given in Scripture but when actually read in the context of the "Symposium" it is quickly realized that simillarities actually fall because the story is so grossly different from the acount given in Genesis. The accuasation that "anti-gay" thearpists are basing their "complementarity" views of of Plato and not Scripture is not substantiated. Those who affirm that homosexuality is sin would find Plato's story in disfavor because it seems to support homosexuality as a natural inclination of some humans. Those who disfavor a text because of its anthetical argument would not use that text to base their thesis unless they were attacking it. Therefore the therapits written about in this article are not basing their views off of Plato's "Symposium" but off of some other source, a source that would not affirm homosexuality is natural or permittable. Plato himself, however, reveals his own opinion about homosexuality later in life. He accounts that it is both against nature and originated when men, because of their lack of self-control, induldged in their passions. I have found this to be true in the experiances of some homosexualities and especially more common in bisexual men.
        
        Only one section of the "clobber" passages are used to connect homosexuality to Sodom and Gomorah so your argument that they are not linked, even if true, does not account the vast majority of Scriptures that deal with homosexuality. Although traditinoally the story of Sodom and Gomorah has been attributed to the sin of homosexuality I wounldn't disagree that it is not the strongest arguments. Other Scriptures, however, are much more clear.
        
        And at last, a response to the arguments of the final argument:
        
        Argument 1: The Bible does not contain the teaching of complementarianisim and therefore that belief is unbiblical and therefore has no clout. It is not God's intention, then, that sexual union must occur in heterosexual, monogomaus relationships within the covenent of marriage.
        
        This is false because in actuality the teaching is in the Bible. It is right in Genesis where this is truth is supressed in the wayward search for loophole for homosexual practice.
        
        "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place." (Gensis 2:21, NASB)
        
        The Hebrew word we get "deep sleep" from is tardemah and even suggests a trance and a type of ecstasy that Adam went under as God made woman from him. It is suggestive of the reality that whom God made for him would be as promised, a suitable helper for him (since none was found previous to that). It is of particular interest that God not,,, make another man but made a woman.
        
        - Periannath September 15, 2008 4:37PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - response part 3
        
        "The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.The man said,
        "This is now bone of my bones,
        And flesh of my flesh;
        She shall be called Woman,
        Because she was taken out of Man."
        
        For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
        
        And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:22-25, NASB)
        
        Here we see that the one flesh union (which is sexual union, 1 Co 6:16) has an intrinsic desgin between the one man and one woman. This also is the design and beginning of marriage for we see that they are now husband and wife. No marriage in Scripture is never anything but heterosexual and although at times polegomy is practiced by peoople in the Bible that does not mean it is God's favor. We see here from the begining and from the teachings of Jesus and the church that clearly practices were tolerated because of hardness of heart, not because God favored them. As for complementarianism, it is supported by St. Paul- or should we accuse him of basing his view off of Plato too?
        
        "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9, NASB)
        
        Also notice that prior to woman being taken from man man is always reffered to as Hb. Adam, man as in mankind, human kind. However, as the man declairs that woman is taken from man he no longer uses the word Adam, as Adam no longer sufices as a description of himself becasue he is no mankind in this sense without woman who is taken from him, he is (Hb.)'iysh, that is, man, male, husband, servant in contrast to the female.
        
        Earlier in the first chapter we can also see that marraige is connected to procreation (which is obviosly not possible in a homosexual context). Plato and the Bible actually agree on one point, homosexuality is against nature as it is against God's created design both for marraige and for the nature of marraige which is built in the complentary aspects of the male and female, masculine and femminine.
        
        argument 2: God doesn't mention in Scripture that he will only bless heterosexual marriages.
        
        Actually it does. Since marriage by nature is heterosexual and God only blesses sexual union in the context of marriage this is taken for granted. In any case, where does it say he will bless a homosexual union? It doesn't, rather He calls it an abomination (not a blessing).
        
        - Periannath September 15, 2008 4:38PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - response part 4.
        
        argument 3: Pologmy in the Bible proves that the complementary theory is not how God sees it.
        
        There is murder in the Bible, there is rape, there is theft but does God look favorly on any of these things? No! Just like homosexuality all of these things are condemed as sinful. Just because it is in the Bible does not mean it is blessed by God or favored, that is terrible reasoning.
        
        - Periannath September 15, 2008 4:38PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - response part 5.
        
        argument 4:Because the theory is not in the Bible it is based on what one wishes to see in the Bible, not a good foudation for belief.
        
        What a case of projection. It is just flipping the reality, supressing the truth. The complementary nature of man and woman is clearly in the Scritpure just as it is that homosexuality is sinful. What is really happening is that men are suppressing the truth in their wickedness and gathering around them all kinds of teachers who will teach only what their itching ears want to hear, since they will no longer put up with sound doctrine. I have struggled wtih homosexuality since I hit puberty (6+years) and in the past identified as gay, homosexual, a Christian walking out of homosexuality, ex-gay and at last I can say that I am so glad I shed the false identities the world and the enemy of my soul wanted me to believe because he who is free in the Son of God is free indeed. Although I still struggle with homosexuality at some level it is nothing compared to what it used to be and I have developed attractions for woman (something I never, never in my wildest imaginatinos thought would be possible no matter how many times I quoted all things are possible with God). This article claims that homosexuals interperate the Bible differently because they approach it with their own suppositions (private interpretation) and then accuses those who actually believe what the text says of doing it. It is falid and a satanic deception to those struggling with their gender and sexual idnentity. I say satanic not just to bad mouth it but because satan is the father of lies and when he lies he speaks his native toung. This article and website is about lies and perverting the truth (though be it with whatever peceived good intentions).
        
        - Periannath September 15, 2008 4:39PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- It does not actually say homosexuality was the indecent thing
  
  This passage, while it discusses homosexuality somewhat, does not actually say that homosexuality itself is wrong. "Men committed indecent acts with other men" does not specify what those indecent acts actually are. If myself and a male friend go out and destroy other peoples property, I would have committed an indecent act with another man. Also, lust is considered a sin, whether it be heterosexual or otherwise. This reference, while it may convince some that their beliefs are justified, doesn't explicitly make any statement about homosexuality in general.
  
  - roy1167 September 5, 2008 11:24AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Not quite...
  
  Tamara,
  
  This scripture has been so misused over the centuries that it's not even funny.
  
  If you read the context of what is being discussed here, it is about temple sexual rituals that were performed by mostly otherwise straight people who would have sex with anyone to please their foreign god. It doesn't even come close to speaking of a loving, committed, covenanted relationship between two people of the same sex.
  
  Sharone
  
  - mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:44PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- "Because of this"
  
  Because of their blindness to God, He gave them over to shameful lusts. He gave them over to sin and sin they did, and in every way possible. Yes your right, it is a sin, but should we try and stop them doing it or should we be leading them out of sin by sharing our faith?
  
  My pastor has a saying "They know what were against, but not what were for!"
  
  Brian Greenaway was an Hell's Angel. He murdered, beat people up for fun, slept around and many other things, without caring about the sins he was doing. One day he turned to Christ with the help of caring christians. Is he more deserving then gays?
  
  You can say "It says in the bible " that they are wrong, or you can support them and lead them to Christ and let them discover for themselves that they need turn their hearts around.
  
  I'd like to add . I know a pair of male christians who love each other and live together, but they claim that they have been celibate since believing. I cannot know if they ever backslide, but who can say that they never slip back to their old ways once in a while.
  
  Would you condemn them for still living together? All I know is that their faith is shown in their lives and that is all I care about as I know that I could have a long list of faults that I should look at in my life.
  
  - mickeyb June 30, 2009 5:54PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False quotation of scripture

The list provided in this argument is quite blatantly padded, as the Genesis and Judges passages do not even approach the issue of homosexuality. Shame on you.

- roy1167 September 5, 2008 11:40AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Other points about Bible passages

We need to also remember a couple of important things about passages from any Bible. First, even if they WERE Divinely inspired, they've been translated many times over thousands of years. So you have mistakes, misinterpretations, and even the infusion of personal opinion.

Think about this...1000 years from now if someone attempts to translate an English document, they may not realize that the words "man," "men," and even "mankind" have traditionally referred to all human beings regardless of gender. Think about the misinterpretations that would create in translation.

Second, and this is important... the Bible was written during times when human beings weren't as enlightened and educated as they are now. People didn't understand the underlying psychology and science of metaphysics. So Bibles were written to cater to those more ignorant times. They are full of allegories and simplistic rules and laws in order to control behavior during times when reason wasn't as evolved.

So anyone who still views these simplistic and modified writings as the ultimate law of human behavior, is still living in ignorance.

Two more comments:

1. If someone is going to quote the Bible as a guide to behavior, then they need to take heed of the entire teachings of the Bible, including the admonishment to NOT JUDGE others. If you're going to quote the Bible, you lose all credibility if you pass judgement on another person....you're immediately refuting yourself and you look ignorant and foolish. If you truly understand and adopt the teachings as a GUIDE to living, then you will never utter a word against another human being, but instead take care to treat others with compassion and respect. Those of you who quote portions of the Bible out of context of the entire missive (if you believe it to be such) are showing ignorance.

2. Any credible psychologist knows that people often speak up against and condemn things that they don't like within themselves. Almost all homophobic opinions and behavior stem from the speaker's difficulty accepting those feelings within themselves. Homophobic behavior simply reveals a lack of adjustment to homosexual inclinations.

- Lagschnapps September 6, 2008 10:22AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- We can judge
  
  Quoting the passage that we can not judge is taking a text out of context. The Bible states that in order to judge you have to take the speck from your eye in order to judge correctly. And does not Paul state in his letter to corinthians: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"
  I know many people that has changed his homosexual behaviour. Maybe they continue struggling with the attractions, but their acts state they want to change. Another one may be tempted to use drugs or abuse of alcohol. But if he doesn't use them, can we say he is an addict of a drunk? The same is for people with unwanted homosexual desires which live a heterosexual life. Encouraging those who live a homosexual lifestyle doesn't help them.
  
  - oveja September 11, 2008 8:32AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Again, misinterpreting scriptures
    
    This is another example of misinterpreting the scriptures. The "speck in the eye" is an allegorical reference to the fact that no human being is without fault, therefore not qualified to pass judgements. All human beings have specks in their eyes.
    
    And since when is a saint considered to be a normal human being?
    
    This forum is about homosexuality being a sin. If a homosexual cannot accept his or her feelings and wishes to suppress and ignore them, that is their choice. But that does not make it a sin. JUDGING homosexuality is a sin.
    
    Also, comparing homosexuality to drugs or alcohol is ignorant. It's like comparing a fish to a bicycle.
    
    Again, I point out that using the Bible as the basis for a viewpoint like this is unsound reasoning. It is an allegorical piece of literature, a text translated many times, colored by personal opinion, open to countless interpretations of the same passages depending on a person's viewpoint, and not shared by all humankind. Those who view homosexuality as a sin simply have no concrete basis for their viewpoint. In fact, the most enlightened spiritual teachings refute the concept of "sin" as presented by the christians.
    
    - Lagschnapps September 11, 2008 9:52AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Narrow Values ...

Homosexuality or any sort of human sexual expression is a "sin" only in a narrowly-focused set of values. The real question to ask is, assuming you love your own individual life, would homosexual behavior on your part be a "sin", "immoral" or "unethical" according to your own set of values?

Nothing genuinely factual and no consistently logical argument thus far leads to the conclusion that homosexual behavior among human beings is objectively and universally sinful, immoral, unethical. The question must always be, what does the individual value? Why? According to what factual information? According to what reason?

The Judeo-Christian philosophies and religions have a long tradition, however, and despite the claims of their adherents, they have never and never will reflect anything resembling authentically objective and universal values. They therefore cannot speak in universal terms in relation to their own group value sets, nor can they rationally compel their values on non-members of their respective groups.

Whatever rights one has derives from the fact of one's own life and from nowhere else. Your own right to your life cannot be factually and logically extended to justify any "right to the life of another". Due to circumstances, one may be a liberty to compel the life of another, however, one cannot have the right to do so. No such right exists. One's own values must reign supreme in one's own life - even if those values are in some way borrowed from the values of others, however, one's own values, again, cannot be factually and logically extended to become the involuntary values of another.

That homosexuality is universally a "sin" in the narrow view of Judeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs is debated even among members of those philosophies. Those beliefs, those values are not universal and cannot be argued as such. Yes, homosexuality is a sin ... to some. No, it isn't to others. If there is an ethical struggle on the issue, it is this - does one individual have any right to compel their values onto another, whether they be in support or against human homosexual behavior?

Facts and logic suggest the answer to that is - no.

- Naumadd September 6, 2008 3:48PM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes it is a sin and will always be.

The Bible says in Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9-10.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled) neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality.
Nor cheats ( swindlers and thieves,) nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners, and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God."

Corinthians Chapter 6 vs. 18
"Shun immorality and all sexual looseness (flee from impurity in thought, word, or deed). Any other sin which a man commits is one outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."

The Bible is not out dated and it always confirms itself it is the greatest predicter of human behavior.
Everything that a scientist or philosopher may be a fact or an opinion may last for a moment but the truth stands forever. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
If any who reads these words wants to continue to delude themselves or seer their conscience go ahead because you have been warned.

John 3 vs 16-17 says
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He (even) gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in ( trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish ( come to destruction be lost) but have eternal ( everlasting) life.
For God did not send the Son into the world in order to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him."

John 3 vs. 20
For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the Light, and will not come out into the Light but shrinks from it, lest his works ( his deeds, his activities, his conduct) be exposed and reproved.

Jesus is the way the truth and the life. He is also Light of the world.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a gay Christian that's an oxymoron.

- Tamara September 7, 2008 10:08AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- No - Homosexuality is not a sin.
  
  η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι [malakoi] ουτε αρσενοκοιται [arsenokoitai]- I Cor 6:9 in Greek, from the Textus Receptus.
  
  The problem with saying arsenokoitai means homosexual is that, in ancient times, arsenokoitai was never used with our modern meaning of homosexual.
  
  Conservative evangelical New Testament scholar, Dr. Gordon Fee (he's heterosexual) says that arsenokoitai is rarely used in Greek literature,
  
  “especially when describing homosexual activity.”
  
  The quote is from p. 244 of his commentary, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987, by Dr. Gordon D. Fee.
  
  Dr. Fee still believes I Cor 6:9 refers to homosexual activity but he is honest enough to admit that his opinion is nothing more than "a best guess."
  
  I am not willing to be silent when Christians attack gay or lesbian relationships with faulty "best guesses" while ignoring actual historical usage of arsenokoitai. When we factor in actual usage of the word, arsenokoitai, honesty compels the conclusion that arsenokoitai does not mean homosexual.
  
  Some Christians admit that the word arsenokoitai was never used to mean homosexual. Then they insist that arsenokoites means homosexual anyway, since arseno means man and koite is a euphemism for sex. Their reasoning is that when the two parts are combined into one word, it must mean homosexual.
  
  Famous British scholar, Dr. James Barr, (he was heterosexual) 1924-2006, was called by the Times Online obituary,
  
  “probably the most significant Hebrew and Old Testament scholar in Britain in the twentieth century.”
  
  Here is what Dr. Barr said about the etymology of words.
  
  “The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history...
  
  ...it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.”
  
  James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford University Press, New York, 1961, p. 109.
  
  The way arsenokoites was actually used in the ancient Greek language must be our guide as to its meaning. In ancient times, arsenokoitai was never used with our modern meaning of homosexual.
  
  http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
  
  - Rick Brentlinger September 8, 2008 12:27PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I'm one!
  
  Sorry, Tamara, but you can't judge whether someone is a Christian or not by whether they are gay or not. Just like I can't judge if someone is a Christian or not by whether or not they are fat. God said gluttony was a sin too, didn't He?
  
  Sharone
  
  - mmmmysharona September 8, 2008 6:46PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - null
    
    People who are gluttons are not necessarily fat (e.g., bulimia) and people who are fat are not necessarily gluttons (e.g., transplant recipients, people who don't exercise, etc.)
    
    - Christian Mom September 10, 2008 7:05PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- A sin but...
  
  I believe that homosexuality is a sin. But it is impossible for us to determine who is a christian or not. There is a story that my pastor tells: "Two german missionaries weep on their beer glasses because they saw two fellow women american missionaries wearing jeans." For some drinking beer is a sin. For others women wearing pants are sinners.
  I know homosexuality is not a cultural sin. But haven't God dealed with people that allow sins in their lives and still save them. The part of convincing them that is a sin lies on the Holy Spirit, not on us. But I agree church has the responsability to have a clear view of what is and what is not a sin.
  
  - oveja September 11, 2008 8:39AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- A sin is a sin is a sin
  
  Jesus is the way the truth and the life. He is also Light of the world.
  
  Therefore, there is no such thing as a gay Christian that's an oxymoron.
  
  Your right in that there is no such thing as a gay christian, there is only a christian. Jesus loves us for who we are, if we love him. It hurts Him if we swear, if we curse, if we sex out of marriage, if we murder , if we..... I could go on.
  
  The thing is, He will always love us and forgive us. He will also lead us to walk a closer walk with Him. If a gay turns to Christ, Christ will lead him on his path. As fellow christians, it's not are job to condemn but to build up and love as Christ loves us.
  
  If a prostitute with a habit handed their lives to Christ, I wouldn't expect them to stop earning a living in the only way they know how, even if it is sinning. They would need our support and understanding to help them move into a new and productive career over a period of time. They would also need to be taught (with love) the message of the bible and help to understand how to accept His unconditional forgiveness.
  
  Why do you seem to have difficulty with showing His love to fellow christians on their path?
  
  - mickeyb June 30, 2009 6:39PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Base on Scripture.

This is what Christ say about marriage relationships & sexual immorality.
Mark Chapter 10 vs. 6-9
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: So then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Romans 1 vs 25-32.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. A-men. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, maliciousness; full of envy murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whispers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

This is how you know you belong to God.
I John 1 vs 8-10
If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts]. If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just ( true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [ dismiss our lawlessness] and [ continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action]. If we say ( claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [ the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts].

1John Chapter 2 vs.3-4
And this is how we may discern [daily, by experience] that we are coming to know Him [ to perceive, recognize, understand, and become better acquainted with Him]: if we keep (bear in mind, observe, practice His teachings (precepts, commandments).
Whoever says, I know Him [ I perceive, recognize, understand, and am acquainted with Him] but fails to keep and obey His commandments (teachings) is a liar, and the Truth [ of the Gospel] is not in him.

- Tamara September 8, 2008 11:16PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Jesus Affirmed Gay People In Matthew 19:11-12
  
  Let's examine what the companion passage to Mark 10, says, since Matthew 19 is the major passage used to clobber gay people on the topic of marriage.
  
  Matthew 19:3-12 deals with God’s view of heterosexual marriage and natural exceptions to heterosexual marriage as Jesus intended His followers to understand them. Jesus says some eunuchs are born that way, from their mother's womb. Jesus does not say born eunuchs enter the world with genital deformities.
  
  Instead, He makes a distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who have been physically castrated (suffered genital deformity) by illness or by men. Jesus also makes a clear distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who make a choice to voluntarily abstain from marriage, for the kingdom of heaven.
  
  In Matthew 19, Jesus cites Adam and Eve as the norm for marriage but carefully makes exception for people called eunuchs. According to Jesus, a eunuch is one who cannot receive His teaching about heterosexual marriage according to the Adam and Eve model.
  
  Jesus informs us that of the three classes of eunuchs, the first class is born that way. In other words, born eunuchs are not physically castrated and born eunuchs are not required to abstain from marriage with an orientation compatible partner.
  
  They are born eunuchs from their mother’s womb, unable to receive Jesus’ teaching about the Adam and Eve marriage model yet Jesus differentiates between them and castrated eunuchs and them and metaphysical eunuchs (eunuchs who make a personal decision not to marry).
  
  History demonstrates that what we call gay men today, were called eunuchs by our spiritual ancestors. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus very clearly says born eunuchs, what today we call homosexuals, were born that way.
  
  In case you doubt that born eunuchs were gay people, please note that Dr. Robert Gagnon, the leading anti-gay crusader of the twenty-first century, admits that:
  
  "Probably 'born eunuchs' in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined..."
  
  When even Dr. Robert Gagnon, our most vociferous opponent, admits this historical fact, our argument is largely won.
  
  http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
  
  - Rick Brentlinger September 9, 2008 11:17AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pure Bible

I notice that you like to draw from a lot of reference pertaining to psychologists, philosophers or, scholars and if taken from the Bible not in its true context.

1 Corinthians 1 vs. 20, 25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 3 vs 18-20
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.

Psalms 18 vs. 30
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.

2 Corinthians Chapter 11 vs. 13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Goodbye on this topic.

- Tamara September 9, 2008 3:43PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ARSENOKOITE - I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10; I TIMOTHY 1:9-10

In both of these passages, Paul uses the Greek term arsenokoite in reference to male homosexuality. The conventional understanding has been that Paul is specifically addressing homosexuality within this passage.

The pro-gay theological stance is that Paul is extremely concerned about prostitution within I Corinthians 6 and is mainly referring to male prostitutes. This word is only used within I Corinthians and I Timothy but nowhere else in the literature of the period.(1) John Boswell states that there were other words for “homosexual” in the Greek language so there was little need to use this term.(2) Also the word arsenokoite is a term that Paul has created from the words arsenos (man) and koite (couch or bed) and is specific to him. Therefore, Paul is condemning sexual immorality in general and not referring to committed homosexual relationships.

While it is true that the term arsenokoite appears to be of Paul’s invention, the context in which it appears is not nullified because of Paul’s originality. In fact, Paul coined 179 words throughout the New Testament. The words arsenos and koiten are taken directly from the Holiness Code of the Septuagint.(3) Because arsen is Greek for “man” and koites means “bed”, the connotation of sexual activity is predominant. The Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 places the words arsenos and koite in close proximity to each other and is suggested by Martii Nissinen that Paul is creating a neologism based upon the Septuagint.(4) These are the previously referred passages in which homosexual behavior is expressly forbidden. This further complicates the position that another meaning other than homosexuality is implied. In I Corinthians 5:1, Paul begins by addressing sexual matters with the general term porneia, ‘sexual immorality’. This is applied to a case of heterosexual immorality in verse 1 regarding a man’s stepmother. In the following verses there are initial references to porneia referencing heterosexual immorality followed by arsenokoitai which references the homosexual contrast.(5) In this context, one must consider the intent of arsenokoite in its perceived application to prostitution. Arsenos signifying ‘male’ is a clear emphasis on gender. Koite meaning ‘couch’ is listed only twice in the New Testament in a sexual connotation. There is nothing within these words that would implicate a trade or bartering.
__________________________________

1 Rev. Elder Don Eastman, "Homosexuality: Not A Sin, Not A Sickness," Metropolitan Community Church, 1990, http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality_Spirituality&Template =/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=629#Part1/ (accessed August 5, 2007).

2 Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2007), 209.

3 Joe Dallas, A Strong Delusion (Eugene: Harvest House, 1996), 198.

4 Gwen B. Sayler, "Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality through the Lens of Theological Anthropology," A Journal of Theology 44, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 86.

5 Ed. L. Miller, "More Pauline references to homosexuality?," Evangelical Quarterly 77, no. 2 (2005): 130.

- J Buchanan September 10, 2008 12:07PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God condemns abuse and exploitation, not homosexuality

Exodus International has put out a call to its membership to come here and support Jeff Buchanan's position that homosexuality is inherently sinful and that the Bible condemns it.

Sorry, but I can't support those concepts. Much of what I would like to say has already been covered in the excellent posts above, but I'd just like to add that the handful of Biblical passages which have been historically misused to condemn gay relationships have nothing to do with same-gendered persons engaging in loving, faithful and committed monogamous relation to one another. Rather, they have to do with heterosexual people (men, in all but one instance) engaging in practices such as adulterous behavior with another man in their own wife's bed; sexual intercourse and orgies with temple prostitutes in service of false gods; buying and selling of sexual slaves; males raping other males by way of showing conquest and domination.

These are most certainly vile and hideous practices. But they have nothing to do with homosexual persons engaging in committed, loving relationships. In a paraphrase of an unknown author, "These are not homosexuals behaving badly; they are heterosexuals behaving attrociously."

God does not condemn loving, committed, supportive partnerships which display and represent God's love for humanity. God condemns those who abuse and exploit and do harm to their fellow human beings, regardless of gender.

- Babaroni September 10, 2008 4:41PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biblical Interpretation or Proclivity-Serving Interpretation?

I had lesbian attractions for years before embarking on a series of lesbian relationships. I was out and I was proud. After coming to know Jesus, I read Romans and realized that I could not be a Christian and a lesbian. It wasn't God's intention for human sexuality and if I truly loved God, I would be obedient to His word. I didn't need a tortured interpretation of the Bible to convince me to follow my own proclivities. Instead, a common-sense, historically sound reading of the Bible convinced that God didn't need to change, I did. It was then that I began the journey of transformation and sanctification. Never have a I regretted and never have I looked back. I always enjoyed being a lesbian, but never did I have the joy and peace that I do now.

Praise the Lord!

- Christian Mom September 10, 2008 7:03PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hubris and Picking & Choosing

I'm genuinely astonished that people seriously:

1. think it is rational that a book written by human beings could actually represent the views of God, and reasonable to use the Bible as a literal supernatural rendering of right and wrong. All religious texts are an expression of human values, specifically those of the authors.

It is a noble endeavor to engage questions of morality. I think it is hubris if people aren't deeply troubled about using a book written by human beings as the basis for claims about God.

2. I'm also astonished by people who use the Bible as an expression of God's will so easily ignore the things that don't trouble them, like Paul's instruction that women should cover their heads in church (and keep their mouths shut, by the way), while being so certain that homosexuality is a sin and going to great lengths to shame, stereotype (in many cases, commit false witness against - intentionally, or, through their lack of education about these issues, unintentionally), and discriminate against gays and lesbians.

I pray for the day when it is no longer acceptable for people to deny responsibility for their beliefs or actions by saying "well, that's what the Bible says, that's what I was taught is true." We can and must do better than this for the sake of humanity.

- Christine September 11, 2008 5:51AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- People choose what is closest to them
  
  Good points, Christine. I think people usually narrow their focus on only what affects them the most. It's a fact of human psychology that people most often condemn the things in themselves that they find most hard to accept. Most homophobic people are either fearful of some of the feelings of affection for the same gender, which upsets or confuses them, or they're closeted and can't face it. So they find whatever they can, wherever they can, to somehow counter the confusion. Literature like the Bible gives people ample material to quote in order to deal with their own problems. They are attacking what they dislike the most in themselves, and looking for the best ammunition they can find.
  
  Of course, every time I say this to a homophobe, they get outraged and defensive...which is also explained in basic psychology texts. That's why you'll never win an argument with a religious fundamentalist about a subject like this...not until they accept themselves and their feelings. I have to admit that although I find their views offensive, I do feel sorry for the conflict that goes on inside them.
  
  - Lagschnapps September 12, 2008 5:56PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Spirit and the Letter - Bill Consiglio

Turning to the Bible as a guide to determine whether homosexual behavior is viewed as sin, there can be no denial that there are some ten or more biblical texts which clearly reference homosexual practices or behavior in one form or another in the combined Old and New testaments. Further, there also should be no denial that every one of these texts describes homosexuality in a negative light, as unacceptable to the people who believed they understood the mind and will of their God. People who lived across many centuries and cultures!
As Christians for whom "sola scriptura" is important, we believe we can go to the Bible for guidance and counsel. We have believed it is a reliable and inspired source for truth, assistance and direction. When we do, we find ourselves in the company of many who are engaged in an intense scrutiny of these ten scripture passages in the Old and New Testaments which focus on this issue. Both traditional biblical interpreters and so-called revisionist biblical interpreters have engaged in extensive analysis of these passages to find evidence, which supports their respective positions.
Unfortunately the scriptural debate about homosexuality often only focuses on these ten passages and their historical, cultural meanings. In doing so, it neglects the larger worldview which the Bible teaches about holiness, godliness, sin and self-discipline. It misses the forest for the trees. The debate has been often argued from the particular to the general. The Bible is much more than the sum of it’s parts. The Bible is the book of inspired writings which embodies a godly spirit or worldview because it embodies the Spirit of God.
In the Book of Leviticus (RSV) for instance, there are two passages which have received much attention: Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The other is Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
These prohibitions in Leviticus are representative passages concerning this issue. They are especially useful for grasping the biblical worldview of which these verses are specific examples. I contend that it is this biblical worldview from which we are able to best grasp an accurate perspective about same-sex attraction and sexual behavior. It is a biblical worldview which God asks His followers to adopt. It is His point-of-view which God asks us to adopt. He asks us to get the Spirit of his mind and heart.
Bible-believing Christians don’t live on the basis of one or two or twenty verses of scripture. We live within a worldview of principles, standards, morals, values and ideals which the Bible teaches from Genesis through Revelation. Taken as a whole, this worldview represents the mind and heart and will of a loving Father God.
This is obvious from the people who come for Sexual Orientation Resolution Therapy (SORT). No one has ever come into therapy saying, "Hey, you know what, I just read Leviticus 18:22 and I don’t want to be abominable anymore!" Everyone who has entered resolution therapy or come to our support group, and who has been successful at resolution does so because they understand the Bible generally and have grasped the heart of their Father God. They understand the Word cumulatively as a worldview in which same-sex sexual behavior is unacceptable to God. The biblically faithful SSA Christian client in therapy understands that in the biblical context, a God-view of homosexual behavior is sinful.

- Will828 September 11, 2008 11:25AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sin... God defines, man defines?

First off I want to thank you for being faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ in the very difficult walk many people, including myself, who struggle with homosexuality face. As much you want to argue around the teaching of Scripture it is very clear that homosexuality IS mentioned and IS called sin. The good news is that, like all sinners, in Jesus Christ we have the hope of salvation. In Jesus Christ a new word is spoken, a word of freedom, a word of healing, a word of restoration, a word that calls us back to move forward, to become who we already are in the dreams and love of God. It is not a freedom that permits sin but rather frees us from it to be the people of God, the people of the church, followers of Christ, Christians. Thank God I have found this freedom. Leaving the crippling false identity of the "homosexual" has been a breath of fresh air as deep as the breath God put in me when he nit me together in my mother's womb. Know my identity is shaped in and under the Word and Lordship of Christ instead of my self-claimed identity lording over my faith and life.

Peace be upon you brother,
Spencer

- Periannath September 14, 2008 4:47PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't ask us

If you really want to know, you can ask God yourself, and he will answer because he loves you.

Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be answered. Knock and the door shall be opened to you.

- Oasthad September 15, 2008 6:09AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible as Authority

Making an argument based on the bible is is in no way persuasive.

- edwardv September 21, 2008 7:09PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm so sorry

I'm so sorry for all the people who give up who they are for a FEW versus in a 2,000 year old, often translated book. There are some basic tennents that are good in the Bible. I live by those every day. I refuse to believe that love is wrong. I wonder how many times love is mentioned in the Bible? In my opinion, the only thing Exodus does is push those seeking their "help" into celibacy. What a waste of a perfectly natural life.

- tjhawknest33 September 23, 2008 6:51PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Because I care about where your soul will spend eternity...

All the Scriptures below remind us that we have a sinful nature, and because of this sinful nature we have inclinations of different kinds. (This is why Dr. Dobson mentioned that in some cases people do not choose to feel same sex attraction) To have an inclination does not mean that we cannot use our God given free will/choice to choose what is right; our ability to reason is not in vain, it is because God, our Creator, did not want us to be like robots; He tells us through the Scriptures what is pure, noble and right, but it is up to us what we choose, or how we want to interpret His word to fit our sinful natures and try to silence our consciences. No matter how many want to justify sin, in the end, sin is sin, and each one will receive what is due according to his/her deeds.
*Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. Romans 8:5
*Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:8
*Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. Romans 8:12
*For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:13
*Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. EVEN THEIR WOMEN EXCHANGED NATURAL RELATIONS FOR UNNATURAL ONES. IN THE SAME WAY MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, AND RECEIVED IN THEMSELVES THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION. ROMANS 1:24-27
*“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32
*But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

Reina

- reinahoward September 25, 2008 12:58PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- How do you go to Heaven?
  
  I'm really starting to think that "Christians" such as yourself take the words of Paul to mean more than the words of Christ.
  
  If you're a Christian... show me where Jesus - you know... the person whom you're supposed to be following - says that being gay is a sin. Tell me how you think Jesus would have reacted to a gay person sharing Christ's message. Tell me if you think Jesus would have treated a gay man or woman any differently than a leper, or a whore, or anyone else.
  
  - SocialistBetty January 11, 2009 3:28PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Gay person sharing Christ message.
    
    Hi SocialistBetty,
    
    Thank you so much for your question. I do not think that Christ would have reacted in a negative way to a gay person sharing His message as long as this person does not act on his/her tendency—same sex attraction. All of us have tendencies and struggles; this is the reason why Christ died on the cross for us.
    
    I believe that individuals are more than just their sexuality and no one should be defined and/or valued based only on a sexual tendency. What about their character, talents, interests, love for Christ and other people, etc., etc.
    
    I want to share this article which explain what I would like to tell you.
    
    Written by: Mike Ensley | March 6th, 2008
    
    The answer that immediately comes to mind is, “Well, yeah!” We know God loves everybody, but then we’re confused when we see Bible verses that say homosexuality is a sin. What does that mean for gays?
    
    Let’s ask ourselves: does God think the way we do? Not quite (Isaiah 55:9). So I wonder if God would even think of people as “gay” or “straight” in the first place?
    
    Like the verse linked to above says, God’s ways are much higher than ours. You know, the Bible really never classifies people as “gay” or “homosexual” (even though some translations make it seem that way). The Scriptures only ever talk about homosexuality being a kind of behavior–not a kind of person.
    
    So it’s more accurate to say that, rather than seeing people as “gay,” God just sees people–some of whom have same-sex attractions, and others who have different struggles. And He loves them all. The only question is whether we are willing to daily make an effort in faith to submit our ground-level ways to His heavenly ones .
    
    No matter what your struggle looks like, though, it doesn’t have to dictate your identity, actions or destiny. A big part of starting this journey is learning to stop thinking the way the crowd thinks, to stop believing everything you’re told just because it’s popular opinion.
    Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect. (Romans 12:2)
    
    SocialistBetty, please let me know if you have any other questions and God bless you =0)
    Reina
    
    - reinahoward January 11, 2009 7:51PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why must you beat me over the head with the Bible?

I am not gay. I have nothing against gays. It is their life, not mine.

I am not religious. Why must I face this barrage over this book which I feel has no mandate in MY life? This is a collections of writings from a time when very few people could write. I find it no more binding than a collection of National Enquirer's from the 1950's.

When it comes to civil rights, the Bible should be left at home. Government and religion should not mix. Ever.

I respect your rights to have your faith. Please respect my absence of faith.

Where gayness and sin are concerned.... leave them alone. Don't they have enough to deal with? Can you imagine how difficult it is to be different and on top of that to be told that you are a "sinner"? How cruel can you be to do this?

No, it is not a sin. Show me where it is a "sin" without using your book. How can love be wrong? Honestly, I just don't get it.

Michelle

- litebkt December 10, 2008 8:31AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cherry picking

Those who turn to Leviticus and other passages to confirm preconcieved beliefs about homosexuality are only cherry picking--these same books say many other normal things are sins, from the sorts of clothes one wears to what you eat. Do those who find homosexuality sinful find the other things in these passages sinful as well? Or are they cherry picking?

- Blue Linchpin December 16, 2008 8:29AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes. No. Maybe.

I have issues with people claiming either "yes" or "no." Let's say you believe "no." Does that mean you get to have sex with whomever you want? Most of my male gay friends couldn't lead a monogamous relationship if God himself came down, slapped them in the face with a turkey, and said "dude, seriously? Knock it off." Maybe that's just the crowd I run around with. But if you sleep with everything that casts a shadow, whether you're gay or straight, you're still a slut. And I'm pretty sure the bible outlines God's feelings towards sluts. Also, if you believe having sex before marriage constitutes as a sin and you're still living in one of those states that doesn't allow same sex marriage...you can see how this could be a problem...

If you say "yes" to the whole "homosexuality is a sin" that's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs. But I have never seen Christians fail so wholly on the concept "love the sinner hate the sin" more than on the subject of homosexuality.

- Livvy December 17, 2008 12:50PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Promiscuity is not Homosexuality
  
  In short, yes, it's just your friends. I know several monogamous homosexuals, and I am an extremely monogamous bisexual (supposedly they don't exist, yet here I am!).
  
  While it may be true that as a population, homosexuals are more promiscuous (and I will not concede that point without current data), that was not the question. The question is: "Is Homosexuality a Sin?" If I answer no, does that automatically mean that doing meth is not a sin, because some gay people do meth? Of course not. It's a different question entirely.
  
  For what it's worth, I don't believe any of these things are sin, because I'm an atheist. Some things are just wrong. Being who you are is not one of them, unless who you are is a serial killer, etc.
  
  - lostlo January 30, 2009 4:34PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Stereotypical stereotyper....
    
    I don't really believe it's just my friends. I would say around 90% of the gay men I have known (and I've lived down the street from San Fransisco, so it's not just a few) have had pretty open relationships. I'm trying very hard not to stereotype here, but it's hard not to when, adversely, all my lesbian friends have been pretty freaking monogamous. You're lucky, in a way, to be an atheist. I've had some good friends who've been steadfastly religious try to deal with their sexuality and it can get quite ugly and distressing for them. It's hard to deal with parents or family who aren't accepting of your choices, but harder still when you yourself have issues with who you are.
    
    - Livvy January 31, 2009 12:40PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Sorry, let me be more clear
      
      Apologies, looking back now that I'm not at work and in a hurry, I was not very clear. My point was, even your friends who are not 100% promiscuous. "All gays are slutty" is the only condition that would make your argument logically correct.
      
      Sorry, I'm a huge nerd about logic. Let me back it up a bit.
      
      The question asked by this page is "Is Homosexuality a Sin?" Your answer (according to my own humble interpretation) breaks down to:
      
      "I don't know. I can't say no, because gays are slutty and god is not a big fan of that. Also, gays can't marry and god doesn't like premarital sex either.
      
      If you say yes, I understand, but I cannot say yes myself because I don't like to hate."
      
      That's actually a great, well-reasoned, and honest opinion. I wish more religious folks had that view. My point was just that the argument "A is wrong, most B are A, therefore B is wrong too" is not logically correct. What about non-slutty gays? They do exist, in fact 100% of the gay people in my close social circle are entirely monogamous. That's because atheist ethics are how I roll, and many friends are like-minded or similar. The point is, even if promiscuity is correlated to homosexuality, it's not the same thing, and god's condemnation of one does not automatically extend to the other.
      
      As for marriage, the legal governmental form of marriage and the religious ceremony are not the same thing, and their endless confusion is a big problem in our country right now. Gays can get married in a church. Surely it's religious marriage, not civil marriage, that god required? Even if you only count legal marriage, if you believe that premarital sex is a sin, again that is not the same thing as homosexuality. The vast majority of heterosexuals also have premarital sex. Using this logic, being an American is a sin.
      
      Our disagreement is a matter of perspective, you're coming from a common-sense point, and I'm coming from a logical view (which is what opposing view is all about for me). To use an analogy, suppose that giving birth were a sin. Does that make being a woman a sin? Most women have children, after all.
      
      As for your comment about reconciling religion with ones lifestyle (which extends to a lot more situations than just homosexuality), amen to that! Personally, I suspect the antagonistic nature of homosexuality vs. religion in the US is probably a contributing factor as to why homosexuality is so often correlated with promiscuity. Of course, there are a lot of other factors correlated to promiscuity which are not, as far as I know, labeled sin.
      
      Sorry if I sound antagonistic at all, when it comes to gay rights I just see red sometimes. I do appreciate how non-judgmental you are :)
      
      - lostlo January 31, 2009 1:50PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Thank you :)
        
        Honestly, the reason I am uncommitted on this argument is because it isn't up to us to decide who the sinners are. And I while I believe whole-heartedly in the existence of God I'm willing to bet he's just about the most chill guy ever. I mean seriously, Jesus comes down, tries to get everyone to chill out and everyone just goes freaking nuts! Plus, if a true Christian reads the bible, they'll notice that God says "thou shalt not judge, dude" just about a million times. So who are we to point fingers at homosexuals and say "sinner"?
        
        And you don't sound antagonistic - I understand about the seeing red thing. I hate hearing people talk about prop 8 because most people on either side of the argument just don't know what they're talking about. People refuse to see past what the media portrays (or what they're parents have raised them to believe) and so we have endless discussions of rhetoric and it makes me SO ANGRY.
        
        Anyway, I think you and I may have had vastly different experiences when it comes to homosexuality. I have to say, most of my close gay friends come from religious backgrounds and they usually don't differ from my straight friends. So things like the gay parades in San Fransisco, marti gras, and flamboyant drag queens seem to me cliche, and I'm automatically biased against them because I think they do a huge disservice to the face of the gay community.
        
        - Livvy January 31, 2009 2:17PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Logical Failure

I'm an atheist, so the discussion of whether homosexuality is a sin does not even have a point as far as I'm concerned. However, completely aside from opinion, the "logic" used in this argument is totally absurd.

According to the argument, god first created Adam. Then he went through all the animals on earth, and none of them were a good mate. So god created Eve, therefore homosexuality is wrong. QED.

There's only one problem with that. There were no other men on earth throughout all this. Therefore god never, ever said "oh, well, you don't fit with this other dude, either." There was only one man on the planet, gay was not even an option for god to dismiss.

If you want to believe in god, fine with me. If you want to use religion to hate others, that's not fine with me, but I respect your right to think whatever you please. But if you're going to have opinions and make arguments, please think about whether they make sense now that you're not 17.

Hopefully this does not sound rude, but it upsets me when people just parrot things they're taught without thinking critically, and religion is a big source of that. It hurts society, like "just following orders."

- lostlo January 30, 2009 4:42PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
homosexuality and the bible

how does romans say homosexuality is a sin.

(1) homosexuals do not have women..........not from their earliest sexual memories.

(2) one cannot abandon something one has never had.

(3) natural(dictionary)inclination of being according to personal essence

(4) shame based lust....anything shamebased is a about self defilement that causes self hatred and self loathing. anything motivated by lust is committed to satiating the lust. the individuals involved are mere instruments for satiating the lust. there is no commitment between individuals.

homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, and respect for a shared committed life together, the same as with heterosexual bonding. it is about self affirmation.

to say that romans is about homosexuality, is like saying that orgies are about heterosexual bonding.

- FEETXXXL March 4, 2009 10:29PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuality is not a choice

Many Christians say homosexuality is a choice. Science, logic, common sense, real life accounts, and psychologists all prove this wrong. Any educated Christian or person knows that homosexuality is not a choice. You cannot choose your sexual attractions. They try to use the cop-out that, "its the behavior" but that behavior is caused by the initial sexual attraction, which you cannot change. If you feel you can change your sexual attraction, you might want to re-evaluate your sexuality, because you are not straight, but bi-sexual.

Now within the group of people that think being gay is a choice, they fall in 2 groups.

Group 1: The bigots, who try to find any excuse to condone their discrimination .

Group 2: People who actually are good people, but not informed or know enough about gay people, and thus still think its a choice.

I am speaking to group 2 here. Group 1 are bigots that will never change their mind, but that generation will die out like the racist generations. Group 2 read on.

-Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice
-Most gay people will tell you its not a choice
-Common sense will tell you its not a choice

While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276 /
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172 /

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

But we don't need scientific evidence for this.

(REVERSE THE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE FEMALE)
I shall ask you this. When you see a naked woman, it goes up right? They turn you on emotionally and sexually right? Now how about when you see a naked man? Does your pulse raise in the same way? Are you enjoying it? Do you go up? Do you feel sexual urges in the same way? Do men turn you on emotionally and sexually? Does male/male porn turn you on sexually? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you find men sexually attractive? Could you be happy sexually with a man for the rest of your life? If you are heterosexual, the answer should be no. Otherwise, you might either be bi-sexual or homosexual , and might want to re-evaluate your sexuality. It is well known that a lot of homophobes deny their homosexuality by being aggressive towards it, until they finally accept it. Most people know this is not a choice, and it would be ignorant claiming it so. I know a few gay people who went to a straight club when they were figuring out their sexuality, where women were putting their naked bodies all over them, giving them naked lap dances, not once did the gay men get it up or aroused. But just the picture of a naked guy gets them up easily. Tell me thats choice. Also, why would a gay person, knowing that you will have a rough time in society , knowing that you cant get married unless you live in certain places, knowing that people will pick on you for it, knowing that your closest friends and families might completely turn their back on you, choose to be gay, if they could easily be satisfied by the opposite sex? Because they can't. Simple logic there.

- ShadowMan March 23, 2009 3:19PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The homosexuality law is there to stop the behavior...
  
  The homosexuality law is there to stop the behavior if you have the attraction like the murder law is there to stop the behavior of murdering if you have the urge to kill.
  
  - Screen Name April 8, 2009 2:10AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you your own person?

I, for one, think it's terrible that you denied who you are. God made you the way you are; who are you to question that? I think you should have gone with your feelings.

- mbargues April 17, 2009 9:22PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
technically yes

"Sin" is a religious term, specifically from the Bible and according to the Bible, homosexuality is a "sin".

Even though I am a Christian, and "disagree" with the homosexual life style, I recognize their right to make their own choices and respect their right to live their life the way they want to.

Religiously speaking, homosexuality is a "sin", but in my opinion it is not "wrong".

- gatorgirl7563 June 13, 2009 8:21PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CB teacher uses authority to influence students on gay marriage

http://judiwheeldon.blogspot.com/2009/08/council-bluffs-public-school-teacher.html

- Judi Wheeldon August 28, 2009 5:20PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- it is ok
  
  That teacher made a true statement.... It is OK to be gay
  
  - MrBook August 29, 2009 7:46AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is a difference between biblical morale and humanitarian morale

I find that people who follow their own instinctual morals, free from religious influence, treat humans as humans, not as creatures to be judged.

- kylo1 September 2, 2009 3:34PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Objection

Truth Doesn't Change Over Time

- From Rick Brentlinger

Open Objection Go to this Objection

if were talking about the bible...

so what about sodom and gomorrah? Did God burn down that homosexual city because he had a sudden urge to be an arsonist? Really, now. In the plainest terms, sin is defined by God, God burned down a city full of homosexuals (in other words, he doesn't like it), THEREFORE homosexuality is a sin. As defined by God. As defined by the Bible.

- zebrakin November 23, 2008 9:38PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The Sin of Sodom
  
  Here's what Ezekiel has to say about the sins of Sodom.
  
  Ezekiel 16: 49-50
  
  49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
  
  In Mark 6:7-13, Jesus informs the apostles to go out and preach, but take nothing with them and to rely on the hospitality of towns. Any town that doesn't show them hospitality will be dealt with, such as Sodom and Gomorrah. No mention of sex.
  
  So, no, God did not burn down a city of homosexuals, claiming that he didn't like it. He burned down a city full of people who were arrogant, rude to their neighbors, showed no concern for taking care of the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. This also fits in with the hospitality laws of the ancient world. That is, even if you're worst enemy shows up on your door begging for help, you help him. That's why there's a lot of ancient myths of gods disguising themselves as beggars. The story of Baucis and Philemon is a parallel story to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in that story, the gods destroy the area because the people would not go out of their way to help anyone.
  
  - Shemhazai November 28, 2008 9:48PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Sin as defined by...who, again?
  
  You can't define anything by saying, "It's whatever God/Zeus/Odin/Charlie says it is." Well, not if you expect to be taken seriously, anyway.
  
  When is an act a "sin", and why? Does someone have to be harmed? Is it enough that it offends someone?
  
  Can you do better than this? “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).” - Robert A. Heinlein
  
  - GalapagosPete December 6, 2008 9:37AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

Exodus International
Addressing Homosexual Issues See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

Rick Brentlinger
Gay Christian 101 See arguments

Most Objections