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 21 Comments. See all 401 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexuality?

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.

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