Homosexuality and homosexual practice

[dorkelf]

The topic came up in Guild Wars alliance chat yesterday evening. I'm not sure if the fellow who brought up the topic is active in these forums, but Heiscomingsoon was kind enough to direct him here and hopefully he'll get a chance to join in on this conversation.

I want to say first that homosexuality is a 'hot button' issue - most people have very strong personal opinions about it and it is hard to discuss it without offending other's beliefs and convictions. We’ve had members of our guild leave after similar forum or alliance chat discussions, usually after an ad hominem (personal) attack to the tune of ‘you can’t be a Christian if you hold that view’. Frankly I was reluctant to post this at all. But it did come up, and this is the right forum for it - so better to address it here rather than Guild Wars alliance chat.

There will differences of opinion on this issue, just as there are on Bible versions, young earth/old earth, or a host of other topics. I think it is important for anyone who participates in the discussion to respect those who hold different views.

With that said, here are some of the questions I wanted to bring up:

1 Is homosexuality as a gender preference a sin?
2 Is homosexuality as sexual practice a sin?
3 If yes to either above - should this sin be distinguished from other sins such as lust, greed, stealing, etc.?
4 Should homosexuals (gender preference) who abstain from practice be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
5 Should active homosexuals (sexual practice) be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
6 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a gender preference?
7 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a sexual practice?

And here are my own answers to these questions:

1 My BEST understanding of current scientific and medical research is that homosexuality (as a sexual preference) is a mental disorder, likely brought on by early childhood trauma, which creates an uncontrollable (but perhaps treatable) inclination towards the same sex. Therefore, because I believe sin has to involve an actual CHOICE to do what is immoral, I don’t think an involuntary PREFERENCE for ANYTHING can be inherently sinful.

2 I think it is very explicit in the Bible that homosexual practice is sinful.

3 I personally think that some sins are more despicable to God than others, but I don’t know that I could back that up solidly with scripture. What I do believe and would be able to support is that the ‘wages’ of sin aren’t determined by what the sin was, or how offensive it was to God.

4 I abhor the idea of punishing someone for an admitted inclination if that person has never acted upon that inclination.

5 Jesus’ modeled the role of a physician, and like he said…those who are sick are the only ones who need him. I think it is horrible that we so often turn away those with visible ‘symptoms’ of sin in order to preserve a comfortable church environment for ourselves!

6 I think the Church should stand behind all sinners and aid them. We’re dreadful wretches just like them. We can only hope in God’s promise that our own sins are overcome by His love, and share that promise with others.

7 Homosexual practice is NEVER mentioned in a positive light anywhere in the Bible, and its association with sin is very difficult to dismiss. I think the Church should be unified in condemning homosexual practice as a sin.

Paul

 

[Hescominsoon]

regarding number one...nothing has ever been proven that homosexuality is anything but a choice. NO gene has ever been found.

Also remember the Bible says before we are saved we have a sinful nature...homosexuality is in that category. Once we are saved we can choose to leave that sinful lifestyle behind or continue to indulge in it.

 

[sdenotter]

Let me give you a real example. My dad, a Pastor, was getting his car fixed, and started witnessing to the mechanic. He invited him to church, and then the mechanic asked if his husband could come too. My dad of course jumped at the chance and said yes.

Here is the sad part,

Every single person prior to my dad had told this man that God hated him for the sin. (my thought is that he may have thought that is what they meant) So when my dad told him that God loved him regardless, he was in disbelief. So it brings up the ol' "Hate the sin love the sinner"


So my opinion, Does it matter what the "right" answer is? yes, cause I think the right answer is God still loves him/her and wants him/her to join Him in heaven one day. So we should show God's love to them regardless of their sexuality preference.

 

[Hescominsoon]

A good phrase comes to mind..hate the sin love hte sinner. The issue comes when the sinner refuses to repent..then you must send them bakc into their own self-inflicted mess.

 

[dorkelf]

regarding number one...nothing has ever been proven that homosexuality is anything but a choice. NO gene has ever been found.

Also remember the Bible says before we are saved we have a sinful nature...homosexuality is in that category. Once we are saved we can choose to leave that sinful lifestyle behind or continue to indulge in it.

That is true, what you say about the gene. And in light of recent advances in understanding and mapping the human genome, I tend to believe such a gene would have already been discovered if it did exist. So at this particular point of scientific understanding, I think it is very hard to support the idea that homosexuality is caused by genetic makeup.

However, most psychological conditions are not pre-determined by genetic makeup. Schizophrenia, for instance, can't predicted before it happens, and it doesn't pass on from parent to child. It's something that happens to you, or more precisely something your brain does to adapt and protect itself when something happens to you.

HCS - I'm interested to know if you have considered whether homosexuality as a gender preference could be a mental disorder. You didn't address that issue in your previous posts. It seems to me that you see a homosexual gender preference as completely and entirely the choice of an individual - something that the individual decided, for whatever reason, to 'turn on' - and which he or she can 'turn off' at will. Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Paul

 

[Hescominsoon]

I have seen no credible medical/scientific research(not saying it doesn't exist..however I have also not seen any ministry that deals directly with homosexuals say anything credible exists either) saying homosexuality is anything other than a choice or learned behavior.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

The issue comes when the sinner refuses to repent..then you must send them bakc into their own self-inflicted mess.

Must you? I'd hate to think what would happen if Christ had thought this same principle.

However, to be fair, if a sinner refuses to repent you cannot force them to do so. You need to keep showing love and keep waiting for them to come around. You also must limit their influence in your life and the Christian community.

 

[Hescominsoon]

However, to be fair, if a sinner refuses to repent you cannot force them to do so. You need to keep showing love and keep waiting for them to come around. You also must limit their influence in your life and the Christian community.

you said the same thing i did..I just chose to use less words. The last sentence especially is true. I would limit their imfluence as much as possible. Frankly if somebody is homosexual, refuses to repent, me and my family would not be in contact with that person as i don't want that influence around my children. If htis was a fellow church member I would not freeze that indivudual out in church..jsut not allow that person contact with me or my family.

 

[dorkelf]

I have seen no credible medical/scientific research(not saying it doesn't exist..however I have also not seen any ministry that deals directly with homosexuals say anything credible exists either) saying homosexuality is anything other than a choice or learned behavior.

I haven't seen any conclusive findings on either side of the issue in medical/scientific research. But I'm not making a claim that I KNOW homosexual gender preference to be exclusively a choice or not. It is the responsibility of anyone who IS making such a claim to show why that claim is true.

I pose this question to this discussion group: How can we advocate the exclusion of non-practicing homosexuals from the Church based only on the fact that we STRONGLY SUSPECT they sinned by choosing their sexual orientation? Because if we have no actual proof that their sexual orientation is a choice, that is exactly what we are doing.

I'm all for condemning the practice of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. But I think the jury is still out on exactly what causes a homosexual gender preference, and whether it is a conscious choice. If you disagree, please show your proof otherwise.

Paul

 

[Avesther]

My many apoligies for this long post.

I've been reading this thread with great interest and wonder:

How do you define sin? Without understanding your own definition of sin, this arguement will teeter on the side of fruitless.

From my own personal studies, Sin is that which seperates us from God. It is "missing the mark", and the mark is Gods perfection. How do we know when we have sinned, or missed the mark? We look to Gods laws because Gods laws are a reflection of Gods character. If we compare our acts, our decisions, our character to Gods law, or character, we will find the many ways in which we have missed the mark.

Gods law is not solely encompassed in the 10 commandments, they are listed everywhere through out the bible. Some times it is very specific in listing the laws, sometimes it is hint in how to behave. Every word of the bible is a reflection of Gods character and hence, a reflection of Gods law.

Any sin and all sin are equal. There is are no difference in the wages of sin between a simple theft and murder. While Gods laws may require different forms of restitution, the wages, the ultimate penalty of sinning is death.

When does sin happen? We do not sin in being tempted. A collegue may come to you ask that you make a dishonest decision and fix the numbers on a report, there is no sin on your part for being tempted. The sin on your part may come in simply thinking about doing it or actually doing it. Biblically, thinking of doing it is likened to actually doing it. Jesus taught us how to handle temptation...to outright refute it. To say that it is not right that somebody put you in such a position and that you will not give in to their tempations.

Specifically now to homosexuality. Is homosexuality a sin? Is the practice of it a sin? Is the gender preference of homosexuality a sin? To answer these question, we should go straight to the source of Gods law, Gods character and read what God has to say about it: It is an abomination to God that a man sleep with another man like he would a women.

To me, it is pretty cut and dry what Gods character is in regards to this. It is an abomination to God. Very strong wording, it is worth putting these people to their deaths over it in Gods law. And what is Gods law on marriage? That a man and woman leave their parents and cling to each other. That the one that was made two be made one, or whole again. Homosexuality does not fulfill Gods law, it is not a refleciton of Gods character. It is a sin.

Is being predisposed to being a homosexual a sin? Basically, having a gender preference that is homosexual, a sin? Yes. This goes back to the notion of original sin. When Adam allowed sin to enter into the world, he allowed the notion of original sin into the world. The original seperation of man from God, and it has bitten mankind since that day. We are all born predisposed to sin. Whether that sin is homosexuality or theivery or lieing or murder, it does not matter. There is no "gay" gene much like, there is no "lieing" gene. I am talking about the seed of sin that is in us when we are born.

Saying that you are a homosexual but do not practice it is similar to me saying that I am a liar but do not practice it. I am, by all means, a sinner of the worst sort. While I may not have done it all, I most certainly thought it all. Sin, is a choice. Although we are born predisposed to sin, we are also born with the ability to choose not to sin. Many a people are raised in abusive families and are not abusive when they start their own family. How does this differ from the person who says "I was born into a family that abused each other, thus, when I grew up, I only knew how to abuse others, that is why I abuse others?" I believe one chooses the high road. One makes the right choice and the other choose to justify the wrong choice.

To me, being born a homosexual holds as much weight as me saying I am born a liar. The statement, in its most basic form, is the truth. But to say I have no control over it is to deny God even more then admitting that we are sinner. I may not be able to help the fact I was born a sinner, but I certainly have a God given ability to choose not to sin, especially now that I know what sin is through the written word (the bible) and the life of Jesus.

What should the message of the church be in regards to homosexuality? That it is indeed a sin but not unlike any other sin. It's practice is no different then lieing, cheating, stealing, adultry or murder. That those who are born predisposed to homosexuality are no different then all who are born predisposed to sin via original sin. That we are called to sin no more and in all our comings and goings, to glorify God to the fullist.

Should a homosexual be forced into a hetrosexual relationship? No more then we should cut off the hands of our fellow believers who steal. We have no idea what relationship God has in store for any sinner and to force a sinner into a situation does not glorify God.

As for, should we reject a homosexual, should we shun them? Jesus did not shun the lepers, the cheats, the liar. And even though he ate and drank, and walked and healed them...I wonder, how did Jesus limit their lifestyle on his life? Maybe, he didn't limit it, maybe he went out to be with them on purpose so that his life and his grace would not be limited or restricted from them? It is meat to think about, thats for sure.

My many apoligies for this long post.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Sqweak all

1 Is homosexuality as a gender preference a sin?
2 Is homosexuality as sexual practice a sin?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing on the above. The bible is pretty clear it is a sin.

3 If yes to either above - should this sin be distinguished from other sins such as lust, greed, stealing, etc.?

No sin is acceptable by God so on that level it is equal. I do think the bible distinguishes it with especially strong language (abomination). Perhaps partially so people would not doubt it was a sin, although people still deny the Bible says it. Like the ones ordaining gay priests. I could conjecture more, but, don't feel the need at the moment.

4 Should homosexuals (gender preference) who abstain from practice be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
5 Should active homosexuals (sexual practice) be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?

I would say anyone who is actively working against their sin would be acceptable to a church. Excluding people from a church is done when that member is actively causing others to stumble. To compare those who are heterosexual may have problems with adultery, or thoughts of. However, if they condemn such things and fight against it would we not help them as anyone else struggling with sin?

6 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a gender preference?
7 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a sexual practice?

They should quote the Bible verbatim and get arrested for hate speech. I've read about it happening but haven't checked the details. Different subject anyway.

Up to here I think we all agree (and probably will below as well). I would also add though...

I've seen PBS shows that had homosexual behavior occurring between animals. I've also seen PBS shows that talked about the brain chemistry differences that could be related to murderous intent. That there are physical things that effect our choices is true, but, if we allow ourselves to believe we cannot EVER choose our actions contrary to our biology you are getting into a scary place. A place were people are condemned before they commit a sin in thought or deed based purely on scientific evidence. If a person is considered nothing more than the sum of their parts judgment of their total potential should theoretically be possible. A dystopian totalitaristic society where your future is planned from the start would be inevitable. Gattaca anyone? Too bad that movie wasn't coming from a Christian perspective it could have had a strong Christian message. Regardless all that is lacking is the technology to measure those parts accurately enough. This is why a society based on the belief that man is without a spirit will not work (at least by our standard of working).

The Homosexual (or heterosexual) urge could not be purely genetic as one must learn what a woman or man is (this is also why I am against homosexuals adopting but different subject). That is to say a person growing up alone could not have an attraction to something he did not know exist. That he may have a attraction is true, but, he must learn what it is he needs to fulfill that attraction. At that point it becomes a need to define what would fulfill him. Physically, mentality and spiritually men and women are different and made to fulfill each other by those differences. Whether you believe this by God or science it's irrelevant. Even if you were compatible mentally you would not be compatible physically. However, not all gay men choose alter themselves to become women-like (surgery etc. not that I agree with that either). So the physical incompatibility remains and the relationship would always be flawed.

I have seen the argument used by advocates of homosexuality that because it is a naturally occurring phenomena we should accept it. Even if it were a medical condition I don't see how it matters in ones acceptance or rejection of it. Should we accept a disease if it is naturally occurring? What scientific purpose could long term homosexual relationships serve in the continuance of any species? I'd really like to see scientists say this but never have.

Although it is possible for homosexuality to be carried though recessive genes or some spontaneous mutation I am a little skeptical. Most genes are reinforced by BREEDING thus you should not be able to reinforce those traits!

My many apologies for this long post.

You are weak! You call that a long post you have seen nothing, nothing I tell you! Serious subjects often require much explanation to prevent miscommunication that's just the way it is and you haven't seen a long post till you have seen some of mine

 

[Amicus Dei of [FoG]]

#1: I firmly believe that it's a choice. My friend (a female) was once very heterosexual and interested in males only... then later she found interest in another female and has now decided on her own to be... bisexual... although i disagree i don't want to say "i hate what you're doing" so i'm trying to convince her that it's not the best choice.
Also, the causes for gender preference can stem from childhood experiences. For example, let's say there is a family with two children, one male, one female, and divorced parents living in separate houses. Now let's make it where the parents trade off weekends, and the children primarily stay with their mother (as is usual for divorced families). The mother is always helpful and generous and pampers the children, but the father is the opposite and does not give them what they want and teaches lessons the realworld way, which is tough for children. Chances are, because of the way that their experiences with males have been, both children may prefer to be with females, meaning that the female child may be homosexual. Of course this is by her choice, because she chose to turn away from males due to the treatment of her by them.
This is, as my understanding, a sin.

#2: Thinking about this one it reminds me of ye olde Adam and Eve. Of course the couple have been used in multitudes of conversations with similar topics to explain that God's plan for humans is to have a man and woman together, not two of either... Besides, homosexual practices cannot produce children...

#4 & #5: back to what was said about hate the sin, love the sinner; nobody should be rejected from a church or any other aspect of Christianity because of a particular sin. murderers, liars, and thieves can and have been saved and accepted into churches. God accepts everyone and so should his followers.

#6 and #7: both of these should be, IN MY VIEW, regarded as an obstacle that needs to be overcome, and churches should offer help to those who fit either of these categories. they should NOT, however, outright say that it's wrong.

 

[Hescominsoon]

in regard to 6 and 7:
how can you honestly say it should not be called wrong when the bible explicitly calls homosexuality an abomination? Folks who are trying to work through this and remove themselves from this sin yes should be helped..those who don't should not be allowed in to cause others to stumble.

 

[Amicus Dei of [FoG]]

i'm not saying it isn't wrong i'm saying don't run up and tell somebody "Hey, that's wrong you shouldn't do that" because they won't be so excited about accepting God when you tell them they're flawed and wrong right off

 

[Hescominsoon]

i'm not saying it isn't wrong i'm saying don't run up and tell somebody "Hey, that's wrong you shouldn't do that" because they won't be so excited about accepting God when you tell them they're flawed and wrong right off

the truth hurts. Nobody is going to be saved unless the full darkness of their sin is brought out into the light. Otherwise there is zero chance of a true conversion.

 

[Durruck]

Here's another analogy on this one.....

Two groups of college kids get on a plane, heading for spring break. A hostess comes up to one of the kids in each group, whispers something to each of them (one at a time) and then hands them a goofy-looking orange backpack. They're both explicitly told to not tell anyone anything about the backpacks.

They both put them on and go to their seats.

The first kid puts his on, and as he approaches his seat, his friends start laughing at him for wearing it. He finds that he cannot get comfortable sitting down because of it.

The second kid looks terrified when he gets his backpack. He promptly straps it on and nervously looks around the plane, wondering why nobody else can't have a backpack? He takes his seat and the plane takes off.

The plane starts hitting some turbulence. The first kid has had enough. This backpack is making him miserable. He can't take it anymore... He screams at the stewardess and throws his backpack on the ground. He doesn't care anymore, he's not wearing it and will never put on the backpack again. The second kid, however, looks even more nervous, and pulls the straps tighter.

Why? Because the stewardess told the two boys different things when she gave out their "backpacks."

First guy: Here is a parachute, it will make your life better.
Second guy: Here is a parachute, this plane is going to crash.

So the first guy thinks that all of a sudden his life is going to get better. Then he gets ridiculed, sitting in public is difficult, etc. When he's had enough, he doesn't care anymore, and nothing you say will make him put on that parachute again. He'll claim there wasn't even a parachute in the pack later, if you ask him.

The second guy tho, he knows that right now he looks silly to people, that he's not comfortable, but he understands that later, he's going to love having that pack, and wondering why nobody else gets to have a parachute. He'd give one to everyone if he could.

Isn't this what sharing the Gospel is like? If all we tell everyone is how great Jesus is, how much God loves them, how He will take away their troubles...... when they have troubles... they think He has abandoned them. But if you show both sides of the story - this plane is going to crash, and you'll die, paying for your sins... then won't you put on that parachute of forgiveness? Won't you look around and wonder why everyone isn't wearing the parachute - try to tell them about it? When you hit the turbulence, won't you pull the straps tighter and truly appreciate the fact that you have been given your parachute of forgiveness?

I think one of the problems that we run into with our ministries is that we don't give an even mix of what we're supposed to tell people about.
We have the protesters out front of the abortion clinic... and the people that just seem all sing-song. We need to be in the middle ground, telling people about their upcoming judgement by God, how they can avoid it, but make sure they understand that it's not always easy or comfortable. But when the plane crashes, they'll definitely love the fact that they've worked so hard for Him. You reach out to people, give them both sides of the story, and perhaps they'll hold on a little tighter, even when the times are tough.

 

[dorkelf]

How do you define sin? Without understanding your own definition of sin, this arguement will teeter on the side of fruitless.

It is a very important question. If we somehow manage to never practice sin, are we still sinners and still condemned based on our very nature? Or do we sin ONLY by making a conscious decision to do (or, think about doing) what is wrong? Doesn't there have to be a conscious DECISION for there to be sin? I'm convinced so, which is why I can't call a 'preference' for ANYTHING a sin when it is not acted upon.

Saying that you are a homosexual but do not practice it is similar to me saying that I am a liar but do not practice it.

The issue I have with your analogy is that a 'liar' is implicitly someone who DOES NOT resist the temptation to lie - i.e., who actively lies frequently enough that they are characterized by the word 'liar'. So your analogy implies (probably unintentionally) that having a homosexual gender preference is synonymous with practicing homosexual acts. To avoid that implication I would use this analogy instead: 'Saying that you are a homosexual but do not practice it is similar to me saying that I love gambling, but choose not to gamble.'

What should the message of the church be in regards to homosexuality? That it is indeed a sin but not unlike any other sin. It's practice is no different then lieing, cheating, stealing, adultry or murder. That those who are born predisposed to homosexuality are no different then all who are born predisposed to sin via original sin.

That's a great way to put it.

Paul

 

[dorkelf]

Chances are, because of the way that their experiences with males have been, both children may prefer to be with females, meaning that the female child may be homosexual. Of course this is by her choice, because she chose to turn away from males due to the treatment of her by them. This is, as my understanding, a sin.

I don't think a female's decision to 'turn away' from males is inherently a sinful act, because I don't think being unmarried or unattached is a sin.

Besides, homosexual practices cannot produce children...

Marriage to a woman who has had a hysterectomy also cannot produce children. Or to a woman you can't have sex with because she has AIDS. Are these women ineligible to be married? Just some food for thought.

Paul

 

[ChickenSoup]

I personally think that some sins are more despicable to God than others, but I don’t know that I could back that up solidly with scripture. What I do believe and would be able to support is that the ‘wages’ of sin aren’t determined by what the sin was, or how offensive it was to God.

I'd have to agree, well sort of. I haven't found any sin (so far--I'm willing to change my mind if someone said "hey here's a verse where it says this") that's "worse" than any other sin... but I've found that one sin cannot be forgiven--which is blasphemy against the spirit.

From Biblegateway.org (the bold letters are the words I had typed in the search engine)

Matthew 12:31
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Matthew 12:30-32 (in Context) Matthew 12 (Whole Chapter)


Aside from that I never saw anything being considered worse than anything else, but anyway that's my two cents on that point.


(by the way--what exactly is blasphemy against the Spirit?)

 

[Avesther]

***EDIT OFF TOPIC***