Homosexuality: Is it a sin?

As I was reading your article I became acutely aware of just how preconditioned I really am. While most implications of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are probably apt, they are, as you point out, somewhat implicit, rather than explicit. Furthermore, as you also point out, there is more depth to the sin of the cities than we are used to thinking about. 

Something that I have thought about over the past few years is the implications of the "gay gene" and how it relates to the doctrine of Original Sin. Christians have held, and most still do, that a person cannot be born gay or have an predisposition toward being gay.

I think that there is another possibility that has been reinforced, at least in my mind, by your article. That possibility is that since we are born into sin, with a disposition against God and anything good until He draws us unto Himself, it is possible to be born into homosexuality just as we are born into disobedience, deceitfulness, and the like.

I think that many Christians underestimate the powerful grip that sin has on the human condition. We are radically depraved. It's possible that we all have it within us to embrace genocide, kill our own mothers and children, and to have or act on homosexual desires. Praise God I am not and never have been there!

I have not fully considered everything that I have commented on here, although I've been thinking about it for some time, as I said. As such, these are not ideas that I would spread as fact, but rather as something to think about until I have a better grasp on it. I would like to hear what others have to say on the issue. 

I do think the Genesis account is pretty clear that homosexuality was characteristic of Sodom:

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."  - Genesis 19:4-5 (NIV)

Your point, Nathan, is excellent.  I think we are predispositioned to see certain sins more readily than others, or even to assume sins of people as a matter of discernment.  Homosexuality is a sin - like any sin - but it is, as you say, both a sin and a punishment.

Homesexuality is such a grave sin because it makes a lie out of God's most beautiful and perfect expression of love.  God gave us marriage as a means of communicating the nature of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.  He ordained marriage as one of the first acts of history and gave it special status.  Marriage demonstrates how we are made in God's image by allowing us to participate in the creation of life.  Homosexual love cannot do that naturally.

If our society were to be fully accepting of homosexual behavior, what would it look like?  When you read Romans 1 the picture becomes clearer: "...men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." -Gen 1:27   When there are no boundaries, the behavior spirals out of control, limited only by stamina and libido.  Furthermore, the focus of society, in general, becomes so self-centered that it ultimately ignores threats from the outside.  Society becomes unstable.  I think of the accounts of Rome begin sacked by the Visigoths.  The Romans couldn't be bothered to fight back as they simply were too obsessed with their own personal lives to recognize that their society was coming to an end.

We need to think deeply about these issues, for they affect us today and determine if we will see tomorrow.

Hey guys, this is my first response to a post and so don't know most of you.  First I would just like to say that I am writing and joining this dialogue, like any, because I would like there to be a commradery, a friendship first, and then an open door to discuss ideas.

I would simply state that I agree with your overall showing that Sodom and Gomorrah's sins were not of a homosexual nature alone but it was an overall package that God was judging.  I believe, as I take for granted the rest of you agree, that God abhors all sin.  God was judging the wickedness of man here, the intent of their hearts, and not simply the act alone. 

That being said I would agree with my fellow who addressed the concept of the gay gene before.  While I disagree with the fact that there is a genenome that designs you to be gay I do give way to the possibility to there being one that opens you up more to the suseptability of certain temptations.  In science some are suggesting that people can have chemical "inbalances", I use this term as it pertains to those outside the average of the polled group, that encourages fits of anger, rage, sexual desire and even theft. Yet a temptation, or inability, or disability in one area does not mean that one can not complete the ulitmate task in front of them.  I may not be quick or strong enough to make the college football team but I can still graduate from university without a football scholarship, even if it would be easier to have one.  This is a crued example I know but it was the fastest I could think up.  Yet in any of these cases if it does turn out to be true I see no statement that they have to give way to these temptations. 

I do however note that some have been taught from an early age that homosexuality is acceptable.  I do not believe that it makes it so, however it does mean that God is working with this individual from a different frame work.  Yet in all areas in which God deals with us, I do believe that he works on our intentions first and then deals  with the actions that flow from them.

I grew up in the Anglican Church.  This denomination today has some serious internal battles going on between individuals about the acceptance of homosexuality.  The real question comes down to the authority of scripture.

The end result of my post is this, and if you didn't get it then you missed the purpose and got caught up on a less important particular; the real issue of the western world in regards to do with homosexuality has little to do with the action itself.  Where this all stems from is the complete rejection by the western world of the authority of the bible.  In the west people tear apart the bible taking the sections they like and disgarding the rest.  They take pieces of it, claiming it good for counselling, or health concerns.  They take pieces of the bible as a way to make their lives better.  This is in part due to Jesus, as people take his actions to mean that they are not obliged to follow the bible, they feel they have become exempt from God's laws.

The rampant acceptance of homosexuality is due to the dismissal of the bible as the standard of all our lives.  In this way I would state we are getting what we deserve, although I would never state it without a great deal of remorse and grief.

David:

Great first post.  I believe the purpose of this blog is to mull over issues in a God-honoring manner, and you have done that.

I understand the issue within the Anglican church as you do.  The primacy of the word as it relates to life in general, and sexuality in particular, is what caused me to leave the Episcopal church.  Iit is clear that we are thinking alike.

Re: the gay gene, I'm suspicious anytime someone develops a rationalization for sin.  Even if a genetic source were discovered for homosexuality, the fact that it is a sin is not changed.  I am a married heterosexual man.  One might say I have a genetic predisposition that desires sex with women, but the sin occurs only when I act upon that impulse and commit adultery (I am not here talking about the sin of lust).

On a more personal note, David, do I detect an accent in your writing?

Cheers, mate,

Steve

I apologize that I haven't commented sooner on this (or on my previous posts); I have been quite busy as the semester is ending for me and I have a lot of work to finish up.

Soon after I wrote this article I got a private message from Seth Cotton alerting me to his concerns over the issue of Prop 8, which I purposely did not directly address in the article as I wanted it to come up in the comment thread.  I have his permission to post sections of his rather lenghty message to me.

Hey Jack,

I was reading your article and I think there maybe some parts that aren't that clear. you write about some churches that are lets say "not happy" about prop 8 passing. but what I don't understand is why they aren't happy. from your article it seems as though you are saying it is because they are affirming homosexuality is not a sin. I am not so sure I agree with that point. I think a lot of churches who are sad about it see a need to give support to a group of people who are feeling oppressed, unwanted, unsupported, and frankly insulted.

 Let me say that the churches in question that are not happy with the passing of Prop 8 were ones which I had read as supporting homosexuality as equally blessed by God.  I tried to find the article from which I gleaned that information, but the news wire is clogged with articles on the LDS church's method of support for Prop 8.

Yet, Seth's point that some churches may be saddened by the passing of Prop 8 yet affirm that homosexuality is a sin is a possibility.  I just have not heard of any.

The prospect of a Christian voting to uphold homosexual marriage in an effort of loving homosexuals is something I find very disconcerting.  I think that that borders on giving them approval of their lifestyle.  If I were called to vote on the matter I would have no choice but to vote in such a way that does not give approval to sin.  There are ways to show love that do not give approval of their actions.

Now that I have given that preface let me say this.  Ultimately I do not have a problem with the government passing legislation that gives homosexuals marital status in the eyes of the law.  Before you roast me let me give my caveats to that statement.

• As I said I would not vote in favor of that.
• The reason I would not have a problem with it is because I do not think the Church and the government are the same thing.
• The Church is to be a light that shines in darkness.
• Morality is best seen when contrasted by immorality.
• A "moral" government can blur the distinction Holy and Common
• If homosexual union were to be recognized by the government, that would only equate with secular benefits to the couple.  The (True) Church would issue a higher calling of morality.
• The government already recognizes marriages that the Church does not (common law marriage, marriages performed by a notary, any marriage undertaken that is not done so by the blessing of God; they would be recognized by the Church once the individual becomes a Christian.
• The juxtaposition of the Church and the World would cast a greater divide between the Church and the government.
• If the government persecuted the Church for not accepting homosexuality as equal with heterosexuality, then the Church would be seen all the more as a body of committed believers, rather than a corpus of hypocrites as it does today.

I still believe my role as a voting Christian is to vote according to my morals as well as my views of government.  But if government goes against morality, then the Church will shine brighter in a darker land.

As to Pauhl Mill's discussion of the gay gene:

I think the gay gene discussion is largely an attempt to give credence to homosexuality as just as natural and therefore right as heterosexuality as SteveMoss has also said.  I see homosexuality as a different sort of sin however.  I see homosexuality as an outworking of other inherited sin if you will.  Disobedience to God can perhaps be seen as the sin inherited from Adam.  So the various ways in which a person is disobedient does not necessarily mean that each person is born with different sin predisposition.  All are prone to wander, its just which way they wander.  I may be splitting hairs here, but I believe that homosexuality is the fruit of the sin of disobedience that some bear.  I never bore that fruit as an unregenerate, but I bore others.  They all came from the root issue of the inherited sin of disobedience.

SteveMoss:

You are right in saying that homosexuality was characteristic of Sodom, yet apparently that was not the lone reason for its destruction.  Also, homosexual sin is not the only sin that perverts the act of sex as an expression of love.  Fornication (sex outside of marriage), adultery (sex with someone other than your spouse), and lust likewise destroys the benefits and blessings of sex.  The difference being, a (legally) married homosexual is still operating outside of the parameters that God had instituted.

I assume you do not agree with my relative indifference to the prospect of legalizing homosexual marriage.  Let me know what you think.

DavidMatthews:

First off, welcome!  I am glad that you are posting comments, partly because I hope all the members take an active roll in the discussions and facilitate comradery and mutual learning, and also because you make an excellent point.

You hit the nail on the head as far as a core issue for the Church in the West.  Scripture has been supplanted by reason and experience as the rule (or canon) for life.  The Scriptures have been dissected, with the offensive bits amputated.  For many, God is not sovereign, but is ruled by culture and the times.  Today's culture is more accepting, therefore, God is as well.

I suppose ultimately, Man is sovereign in the West.  God is no longer seen as the one who regenerates the reprobate, calls him, and sanctifies him.  God not only has to meet people where they are, but let them stay there.  Oh, but they still want God to provide for them.

JackNathan:

Surprise, perhaps.  Maybe it is semantics, but I would not be totally opposed to civil unions, for the very reasons you suggest.  If it were distinct from marriage, I got no beef.  (You might say I've gotten several people "married" by explaining to them that they can't add their girlfriend/boyfriend to their insurance.  They tell me they live together, own a house, and really consider themselves married.  That's called common law marriage here in SC.)

However, I don't think gay activists want civil unions.  They want "marriage" because they want their lifestyle accepted and considered the equal of marriage.

What if two gay people got married and one of them became a Christian.  Would the Christian be obligated to stay married since God hates divorce?

Hello everyone,

since I sent Jack the private message I thought maybe I should chime in publicly and see if I could ask a few questions and make a few points.

Steve:

Since you have no problem with "Civil Unions" but you don't want it to be termed "Marriage" does that mean that you are in favor of restricting the rights of people who enter into a "Civil Union"? if you think they should have all the same rights then what you are really saying is that you think they should not be put in the same category as a heterosexual marriage. so I guess then we should be renaming all the different types of marriage to follow that line of logic. so Christian get married, Buddhist get united, Atheist's get Civil Unions if they are gay...if not that we need a new name for the term...but they all have the same rights and privileges. 

what I am trying to point out is that you don't want to "support" homosexuals in equality because the term marriage means something else to you other than religious reasons. it means heterosexuality. because if it was a religious thing then you would not want Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim's, atheist, and all the other religions in the world to share the same term as us.

as far as supporting prop 8 or against it, it is about supporting a person and saying you are equal to me. you have the same rights and privileges that I do. I may not agree with your choices but you have those Constitutionally  Given right to choose for yourself and I have no right to take that away from you. if the role was reversed and it was heterosexuals that couldn't get married  and homosexuals could you would be screaming for equality. screaming that it is your God given right. you would be just as mad as if someone said churches have to close their doors because they can't be called "church" you could have a meeting and be a community with no name and yet the name is your identity. it is a apart of your rights. just as the name marriage is a constitutional right given to all American citizens. in the past we have banned black people, native people, and other immigrants from being able to marry. we saw people as property and not as our equal's. we as a church need to understand a person in Sin is still our brother and our equal. we don't have to perform their marriages but we need to support their governmental movement for the same freedoms we have to show that we can support them and love them because we believe they are our equals. 

My wife's uncle is gay. he was married for a long time before he came out. he is a prime example of someone who wants to be accepted because he knows he is equal. he doesn't really care if you agree with his lifestyle, but he does care that you accept him for who he is and as his equal. accept him because he is still YOUR BROTHER don't accept his actions or his lifestyle but accept him. 

I know this seems kind of a long way of saying. I think this is a touchy subject because we haven't figured out how to accept someone and not condone their actions of sin.

Pauhl Mill:

you are probably right about a "gay gene" science has proven that children can be born addicted to drugs and alcohol. there are proven cases where people have been predisposed to rage and anger fits. these are all symptoms of original sin. we are born with a need to be destructive.

Jack:

as far as your point of homosexuality being a sin that God uses to punish sin, I am confused because all sin in the same in God's eyes and their is no hierarchy to it. it is all equal in his eyes, so wouldn't that mean that God uses all sin to punish sin???

I fear my brief answer inadequately expressed my thoughts on the matter of civil unions.  Please permit me to elaborate.

There are two entities involved in the sanction of marriage: church and state.  The church has an interest in the protection the ordinance of marriage because marriage, as I mentioned earlier, represents to the world the nature of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  The state has an interest in the protection of marriage because it is the basis of an orderly society.  Where the family structure is weak, society is weak.    Looking at our own culture we can see this is true.  A parent seeking his or her interests only will not naturally make selfless decisions that support a stable society.

The equality argument you pose is difficult to understand.  First, you use two phrases (“constitutionally given right”, and “marriage is a constitutional right”) that reveal a basic flaw in your logic.  Rights are properly understood as given by God and protected by the constitution.  God provides many rights to us, but the founders of our country chose to protect only a few.  The constitution nowhere protects the right to marry, as you state, but wisely left the decision on the regulation of marriage to individual states.  Thus, we have reasonable restrictions on marriage rights.  I may not marry my sister, three women, my dog, or the chair on which I am sitting.  If you wish to be consistent in a supposed “right” to marriage, why stop at homosexual marriage?  In fact, where would any pairing under the guise of marriage end?

I would caution against making a comparison between homosexual marriage and the sin of slavery.  Our nation wrongly denied personhood to individuals who were human beings.  Such a comparison denigrates the memory of those who fought to gain and preserve the rights of millions of African-Americans.

You also use the word “brother” to refer to homosexuals.  This is where I believe the debate returns us to the original question.  By referring to a person as a brother, I presume you mean to say that they are Christian.  May I charitably observe that God’s word reveals His rather strong opinions on sexual immorality?  A few verses that support this include:

• Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Cor 6:9-10)
• For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.  (Eph 5:5)
• Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. (Heb 13:4)
• The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.  But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Rev 21:7-8)

The bible never describes sexual activity outside of marriage as a good thing, worthy of emulation.

As for my position on civil unions, I see them as mostly the same as marriage except in one sense.  I do not believe homosexuals should have the right to adopt children.  Many states limit adoption rights, and I do not believe a civil union should circumvent those rules.  Children should be raised in an environment that affords them the best chance of success in life.  A two parent family where the father and mother both contribute to the child rearing responsibilities provides what no homosexually-led home can.

I can relate to your concern over your wife’s uncle.  Unless he repents of the sin of homosexuality he is facing judgment.  My cousin has been out of the closet for nearly forty years now, and he faces the same horrific future unless he fully repents.  God can heal this sin and stands ready to help your wife’s uncle and my cousin.  Frankly, the knowledge that their sin is so grievous makes me love them more.  The gay lifestyle is more than a preference; it is a lifestyle of bondage.  Let’s not tread lightly and try to make them feel better about themselves.  Let’s lovingly tell them the truth.  Jesus would have approved.

Steve,

while I do respect your opinions I don't wholley agree with them. I do not see your point as hitting home on keeping the ordanace of marriage secure in the church when that is not what this is about. this pretains to the vow's as a mater of the state and not the church. if this was about the church then I think we have failed because there are a lot of Christians and non-Christians out there who have defiled the sanctity of marriage. does this mean we should restrict the right to marry ot only Christians??

I do not think that we are supporting a life style by allowing others to exercise their own will. I think we are trying to control their lifestyles by not allowing it.

as for your concern of comparing the treatment of homosexuals to slaves, I would ask why are the black civil rights groups fighting so hard to get things approved for gay right's groups? I think they have made the comparison themselves without me having too. I do not think it demeans anyone on account of we are still suppressing people their rights of marriage. which was the problems with slaver...we suppressed their rights and told them what was acceptable and how they should live. we seem to be doing that now in a different way.

I didn’t notice until today that you had replied to my post.  Eeeek!

I guess I would be surprised if you had said that, on reading my brilliantly worded reply, you had changed your opinion.  I can’t get my wife to agree with me most of the time; would I expect a person I had never met to do so?  Hardly.

Re: my swerving from the original topic, I think the topic was about whether homosexuality is a sin.  The context of the topic was the Prop 8 issue, and that is why I was going there.  But let’s get back to the root question: Is homosexuality a sin?

Our source for the answer to this question can only be the One who determines what sin is.  We can only find a reasonable biblical debate if we are using the Bible as our source since it is the word of God.  In other words, start with God and understand Him.

The logic I see employed most often by those who support a change in our interpretation of the Bible is the opposite: Start with a person and try to understand him.  To that end they will 1) Find a gay person, and 2) Point out that he is not such a bad person.  It’s even better if the person is described as a good, moral person who really believes in Christ.

We can’t control their thoughts, opinions, and behaviors of homosexuals, but we can make sure that we never give them grounds to rationalize their immoral behavior.  If we “approve of those who do such things” (Rom 1:31) we might find that our own faith is not in Jesus, but rather a religious idol we have created and called Jesus/Christianity, etc.

Regarding my point about homosexual vs. racial freedom, I just have to level with you.  A lot of people will be very passionate about this – I am one of them.  Race is an immutable, obvious personal characteristic.  To be black in America once meant that you were not a human.  Even when that issue was settled, blacks were considered inferior.  Take some time and do an image search in google with the term “lynching” and you’ll begin to see the fear that was instilled in a community of people.

Homosexuals have had to endure people telling them that they should not do something that is a sin.  A lack of acceptance, for sure.  I don’t think they have been systematically denied education, career opportunities, housing, or the opportunity to participate in our democracy.