Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?
Side Score: 282
Side Score: 281
Oh yes, it is a sin. I'm not acting on the Bible's word.
That is a hypocritical statement because sin is an immoral action based on the text of the Bible.
I'm acting for humanity.
Saying that you want to kill homosexuals is not acting for humanity. It discriminates minorities that are part of your said "humanity", and you therefore are being hypocritical. In all honesty, we need birth control these days. If you aren't acting on the word of God, then I guess abortions and other forms of birth control are ok with you because they will allow us to prevent over-population, which could lead to lack of resources that are essential to humanity. So a very small population of homosexuals isn't doing any damage to humanity; discriminatory people like you are by separating all humans.
Loud, I am sorry, but you need to make a choice. You think it's probably a sin and yet you don't think it's wrong? Could you be any more contradictory?
Is homosexuality a sin? The Bible clearly shows that God sees it as a sin. I am straight, yet I know many people who are homosexual. I don't cast any blame or judgment on them. I know it is wrong, but I am not responsible for the souls of anyone other than myself and my children. Someone's sexual preference is a matter between them, their partner, and God.
"Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation." - Wikipedia
Just because I think its a sin doesn't mean I subscribe to the religion whose context describes the act. BOOYA!
I respect the position of your argument, however I must disagree with the assumption is is based on, as is evidenced by the second and third sentences; the former being a question and the latter being the answer I have a problem with.
Whether or not something is right or wrong has no bearing on whether or not something can be considered a sin.
I make no claims as to who or what entity passes decisions pertaining to the qualifications of the attributable sinliness/godhoodery of any action or state of being.
Does a thing being "right" or "wrong" have anything to do with it being considered a sin? (www.createdebate.com)
calebsdaddy, it's evident that Loud has made a choice, and it's the same one as myself. Homosexuality IS considered a sin, because the bible SAYS it is a sin.
However, SHOULD it be a sin? That depends on how you define sin.
sin1 (sĭn) pronunciation
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
Going by the first definition, then yes, it should be a sin. However, being as I am not religious, and don't affiliate with Christianity in any way, I am more apt to define sin as the third definition: Something regarded as being...wrong. In that case, no, it should NOT be a sin.
Interestin point Loud...
According to religion...it is a sin...so my answer is YES.
But, religion and sin, are irrelavent concepts until you can prove religion to be true beyond any doubt, which is impossible by its own definition. Religion is faith. Thus meaning any argument religion has in regards to what is right and wrong in our society is not relevant and irrational.
However, to add yet another circular argument...
In reality, you can argue that because of their numbers amongst popular belief, that religion FORCES relevance. But, if we are talking rationally and philosophically...religion is a virus on a productive and foward moving society.
Yes I agree. I am an atheist, but according to the bible homosexuality is wrong in "God's" eyes. I mean if you want to be gay then go for it, it's your life and your decision, but if you are a homosexual and still believe in "God" the you are not living up to your religions standards. I have a Bi girlfriend and I love her with all that I have to offer but I care she is Bi and it saddens me because of her decision. But it is her life and her decision to be with other girls if she chooses, there is NO stopping it. You cannot control someone's life, no matter how hard you try.
Our societies morals and values, whether people like it or not, have been defined largely by a single religion, Christianity. By saying that what religion says in terms of morality is irrelevant and irrational you ignore this fact and thus I would challenge you to provide a source of modern morality that is completely separate from religion.
I have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that some of our moral and values have been mimicked from religion, they come from ideas way before mono-theism. Back in Greek times where the Idea of democracy was originally formed.
Furthermore, morals and values, even within our society range from the community you are in. The values that are important for a church community in Kansas who believe in creationism are very different from the morals and values of a gay community in San Francisco or even a primarily Hindu town like Edison, NJ.
Fortunately, our society is structured around laws that are fair for ALL, not just one group. THIS is what our society is based on....having a clause in the constitution for FREEDOM of religion is a far cry from a nation being based on Christianity.
Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist nation. THIS is an example of a government being run by religious morals and values solely. For example, if you cheat on your husband in Iran, you are stoned. That doesn't happen here. And if you say because in christianity, people aren't stoned for that...haha...I implore you to read the old testament...people were stoned for MUCH less than that. Don't forget, Islam is based from the same Abrahamic god that Christianity is...as well Judiasm.
The Greek word for "sin" used in the new testament is hymartia, meaning, "to miss the mark." If this is the definition meant by the question, as it should be in any religious context (for God is the one who defines sin and its counterpart, perfection), then absolutely and by all means. Homosexuality goes against the very thread of our being, against the way we were created. It does not only miss "the mark" of perfection to which all human beings should strive, but it seems not to even shoot the arrow.
I dont believe the absence of procreation makes homosexuality "against the very thread " of anything. In the wild you will see animals exhibiting homosexual behavior - are they choosing to sin against their nature? Couldn't one argue that because some people have sexual impulses for the same sex, as well as the ability to sexually function with the same sex (albeit without procreation), a sign that perhaps homosexuality was intended by our creator?
Basically sin means something that is wrong, so... If the ENTIRE Human race became devout homosexuals at this very moment, then the Human race would cease to exist within one hundred years. So, that means homosexuality is contrary to the survival of the species and thereby wrong behaviour.
Awesome point HGrey!
Markwho...I hope you don't honestly think the human race is going to fold because of the small population of homosexuals...furthermore, just because one is homosexuals doesn't mean a person is stupid. Even if the world would somehow magically become 100% gay, threating our existance, doesn't mean that people wouldn't get the bright idea of having sex with the opposite sex, in order to keep the species alive. It's not like you become gay and cross gender sexual intercourse becomes impossible!
Ok, so if every Human in the world decided to have sex, but not procreate, that is wrong, too? It would have the exact same results. Not only that, many homosexuals choose to be artificially inseminated or have surrogate mothers, which does allow the human race to survive. Being homosexual has nothing to do with having children or not. I enjoy sex quite a bit, but you betcha I'm not having any damn kids!!!
If the entire human race became homosexual, women could still have babies. Read the book The Female Man by Joanna Russ. I think you'll see that women don't need men. Me, I like men, but I'd get by with friendly pleasure in a world where there were no testosterone-overwhelmed humans. ;)
I will not like to delve into what my religious upbringing or thought process is. But i would like to make this statement "The natural evolution of man is through Love." By this I mean that Scientifically and morally speaking the only way to reproduce naturally is through conjugal love. What is sin? the Merriam Webster dictionary states the following: 'an offense against religious or moral law'. Wikipedia states the following: 'Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful".' Homosexuality according to me is not correct morally and also according to some religions.
Well duh, a "sin" is a religious term and homosexuality falls under the category of such. So simply it is a sin, but sin shouldn't be synonymous with "right" and "wrong" since these are also human-made terms that are commonly interchanged with sin but they are different!
Sexual immorality was a big problem in the Bible period. It included homosexuality, adultery, whore mongering, fornication, etc. etc. Besides Leviticus and Genesis, some of the new testament references against sexual immorality start at: Matt 15:19; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 1:24; 1 Corin 5:1; 1 Corin 6:9; Gal 5:19; Colossians 3:5; 1 Tim 1:10; 1 Pet 4:3; and Jude 1:7. Any sexual immorality is a sin. Sins carry a heavy toll not only in the spiritual world but also in the physical world. For example, marriages break up over adultery, dead beat dads create children they don't want to take care of when they fornicate, you can get HIV from having unprotected same sex or heterosexual sex, and these dilemnas caused through sexual activities can create emotional distress. God knows! The Bible has many stories about the consequences of sin, but it also talks about a savior. This savior cured physical ailments and offered redemption to people. The book of Mark concentrates mostly on his miracles. So to sum it all up yes homosexuality is a sin, sin has consequences, but Jesus saves. More at http://www.blackplanet.com/ExGayGuy/
God Heals (www.godtube.com)
Side: You Can't Change the Bible it changes U
I say yes just because homosexuality falls under the same category as lust, doesn't it? I haven't gotten far in the bible (it's so boring) but I'm not aware of anything, yet, about it saying anything bad about man with man. Otherwise, in the world of religion, it's probably a sin, but in reality, not in my opinion, because I don't believe in sins. :-)
Ok guys. If you haven't looked at the title, the question is "Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?" (which should read, "Should homosexuality be considered as a sin?")
This should be an obvious answer to everyone. Yes, it should be considered a sin. A sin is a religious term for something that is immoral. So, to all Christians that take the Bible literally, yes, you are correct.
Here's the thing, though; the Bible is a hypocritical text, just like Christians are hypocritical about their religions. There are Christians that are constantly sinning, and most likely sin more than once every day. So, the question should be Which sins should be considered secularly immoral, and not religiously immoral?
I am an Atheist, and the answer is yes that homosexuality is a sin, which is an immoral action based on the Bible. However, homosexuality should not be considered immoral on the world stage because not everyone believes in the Bible.
Side: Sin is a Religious Term
This debate is irrelevant because everyone has a different religion or non-religion.
I am Mormon and I believe that it is a sin to act on homosexuality. If you are interested in my religion I'd be happy to answer questions. If you just want to tare my religion apart don't bother because I'm not forcing my religion on anyone.
Side: This debate is irrelevant
So Christians aren't rationally thinking people? Jews aren't rationally thinking people? Hindus aren't rationally thinking people? Muslims aren't rationally thinking people? I've got to say, if you believe that, you're probably not a very rationally thinking person yourself.
I really need some answers.
Alright, everyone on the "No" side are acting as if attraction towards the other gender means "sex, sex, sex, gAy sex" No, it shouldn't be. I know I'm going to get struck by the storm when the Christians see this but I'm going to be honest.. If your God says loving someone who has the same body parts as you is wrong, they're actually retarded.
Passingby all I can say is I hope you really are just passing by.
Wow where to start.
the guys that are fighting for their rights are now trying to break all the family system that was stable and working for ages.
What family system are you refering to?
Allowing them to marry, to adopt children etc. isn't even that bad itself, although it has some drastic impacts on society
Care to elaborate?
I mean hell why is it ok to have sex with a dude, but not ok to have sex with a pig or a cow? Why can't i marry my beloved pony?
I love how people go from humans to animals. How some peoples brains make that leap is so sad it's funny. Pass when people start wanting to marry their beloved pony we'll cross that bridge then. So far beloved pony nuptuals are not in great demand but should that change we'll let you head the commitee to solve that issue.
Frankly if you want sex with an animal I think it's ok for you. I'm really concerned for the animal though.
Or why homosexualism is a nice and pleasant thing, but pedophilia is not?
Did you even think this one thru??? Sex with a minor is against the law. They are minors and not old enough to make decisions about sex; hetero or homosexual.
I have no idea what you're talking about in the last half of your post.
What family system are you refering to
Well the system that worked for european society for hundreds of years allready i suppose.
The thing with marrying animals is of course gross, but if we could say 30 years ago "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Point. That's it. So go and live with ur pony but don't come to try to marry again". Now a person wanting to marry a pony will have a right to say "Come on how am i worse than a homo? Why did you change the laws for them but don't change them for me?"
Did you even think this one thru??? Sex with a minor is against the law.
Hm.. i wonder was homosexualism ever against the law?
Where do you draw the line? Do you care about incest or homosexual incest?
If You Are For Homosexual Marriage & Rights, You Should Be For Incestual Marriage & Rights Or You Are A Hypocrite. (www.forandagainst.com)
Incest is also what two people could do in private. Are you OK with incest?
If You Are For Homosexual Marriage & Rights, You Should Be For Incestual Marriage & Rights Or You Are A Hypocrite. (www.forandagainst.com)
Do you support incest if they are both consenting?
If You Are For Homosexual Marriage & Rights, You Should Be For Incestual Marriage & Rights Or You Are A Hypocrite. (www.forandagainst.com)
In a rational society it is no longer enough to consider something a "Sin" because an antiquated book declares, under the guise of God's authority, for it to be one. Have a quick read through Genesis and you will find all sorts of "sins" we have discarded as backwards, ridiculous beliefs: masturbation, speaking to a menstruating woman, eating crustaceans, etc. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. It does no a priori damage to society, as far as I can see. Furthermore, it is highly likely and accepted by the majority that homosexuality is inherent, not chosen. Lets move away from the tent dwelling, scared, superstitious mentality of our forefathers and accept our fellow humans without judging them based on where they enjoy putting their genitals, as long as they harm no one in doing so.
The only case in which the bible specifically indicates that homosexuality is bad (never actually calling it a sin) is in Leviticus. Unfortunately for most Christians, Leviticus condemns everything from sexual relations with women during their period to eating shrimp. If a Christian sect labels homosexuality a sin, it must also condemn a number of every-day things that noone considers evil at all.
Now, of course, not all Christians even believe homosexuality is a sin, so it all bears on what religious sect you adhere to (if any).
I, personally, am gay and a pagan. As far as my gods are concerned my behavior is absolutely acceptable.
It sure isn't considered a sin in MY Episcopal church in Tucson. Try reading the Bible. There's only 6 verses, 2 in Leviticus, 2 in Deuteronomy, 1 in Romans, and 1 in Genesis. So if you'd like to condemn me for being gay, be sure to condemn yourself under the exact same book for wearing garments with two kinds of fibers, eating shell fish, not helping immigrants (legal and not), and on and on and ON. Jesus never mentioned it once - funny, you would have thought He'd have brought it up since you seem to think it's THE worst sin of all. Hmm. No, come to think of it, it seems to be hypocrisy He was upset about. Imagine that. Plus, the one recorded time He did meet a real, live homo was that little deal with the Centurion and sick boy -- his LOVER -- and Jesus didn't bat an eye, he just praised him for having great faith! I didn't choose my sexuality and neither did you. Get a life. Start acting like the Christ you say you follow. His love was always unconditional and absolute. Try it. It works wonders. If homosexuality bothers you that much, then might I suggest DON'T ENGAGE IN IT. Sort of like heterosexuality, for me.
Couldn't agree more. I do not care for religion much any more, but that discussion is blown way out of proportion - look at church history - it has always been that way: If it helped bring some agenda further, it was made a big deal.
And on the hypocrisy: I never understood, how you could call yourself a Christian (maybe even a "born again") and constantly violate the 10 commandments, yet keep on picking some little thing you interpreted into some bible text and make that your holy crusade.
Don't kill, don't hate, notice the log that is in your own eye!
Matthew 7:3 (bible.cc)
In addition to some great information and some powerful arguments on this page, I would like to take a minute and maybe move the argument in a different direction by addressing the Bible in a way most people don't look at. Whether this argument can be sustained or not, I hope it will at least provide enough insight to spark interest in researching more on the subject.
That said, I must ask was God considered holy during the time the Bible was written? If you answered yes, you would be wrong. The word holy literally translated to "getting on your hands and knees and praying to God." Priests were holy. The laity could be holy. Jesus was holy. But God was not. But as you can see, the meaning of the word shifted over time and the definition of holy changes from "one who prays" to "omnipotent"
With the knowledge that language changes over time, we must also note that the term homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century, and sexuality was less clearly defined during that time. In many greek and roman cultures during that period, men had intercourse with both men and women. While men had sex with women for pleasure at times, it was mostly for the purpose of procreation. If they wanted to have sexual release without a child, they often turned to boys or other men.
By technicality, homosexuality cannot be considered a sin because no equivalent existed during that period. But that's not what I'm arguing.
I think the interpretations of the Bible can be looked at differently when one puts into perspective the terminology and the culture mentioned above.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The common interpretation is sex with other men is bad. My interpretation is that the writer of Leviticus was addressing the culture saying that it is morally wrong, an abomination, to sleep with men on the side when you are dating or married to a woman. In simpler terms, don't be promiscuous. Mistranslations can certainly be seen when the word homosexual is directly used in your copy of the Bible as with the Living Bible and New Living Translation.
If you look at the New Testament homosexual references in Timothy, Romans, and Corinthians you can also apply the argument of the culture of promiscuity versus the act.
I hope this helps clarify how I feel and can be added as a tool to others who find it useful.
Two examples of same-sex love in the Bible are David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi. "Whither thou goest will I go" is a popular Bible quote used frequently at weddings. It is a promise to remain forever true and steadfast with the beloved. But it was said between Ruth and Naomi. They were clearly a devoted couple.
well, according to the bible homosexuality is considered a sin but I'm not a Christian so i don't care what the bible says. Scientist have also concluded that its a mental disorder. In my opinion all love is sickening and pointless, so if homosexuals want to wast there time on lust, then they have the same mental process as heterosexuals. I think that in manga yaoi is funny but yuri is weird so i probably feel the same way about homosexuality in real life.
Side: should homosexuality be considered a sin
Why on earth would it be? Leviticus? Can you find Leviticus in the Bible if your life depended on it? Christians, I talking to YOU. Do you even know which versus even remotely pertain to homosexuality? Do you bother to even look at the original languages they were written in? Do you realize that Bibles that use the word "homosexual" are not accurate, because the word wasn't even invented until the 1890's in Germany, and didn't become part of the English language until well into the 1950's? What, God sent a revision to the editor? Are you nuts? The original language in Leviticus, by the way, is "men who are soft." You are on VERY shaky ground when trying to make this entire argument, based on original language in the Bible.
Did you know that Jesus himself never said one word about homosexuality? Oh, wait, yes he did, too. Remember the story about the Centurian? No?
The one recorded instance in the entire Bible where Jesus ever encountered a gay person was the Centurian story. A Roman soldier - the Centurian - calls Jesus in a crowd and asks him to heal his ill slave - specifically referring to him as his male, sex slave, his lover. (Check the original language.) Jesus' response isn't one of revulsion, but utter praise! When the Centurian says that it is not necessary for Jesus to travel to the lover to heal him, that the lover was healed simply because Jesus said he was healed, caused Jesus to exclaim to the crowd, "I have not seen this kind of faith in all of Israel!" Yes, praise for a homosexual's faith, not condemnation of who he was. Explain that.
Are you telling me you are more holly than Jesus himself? If He did not judge us, why do you?
And speaking of which, how come you never condemn wealth? Jesus certainly did. A third of all the words in the New Testament, and 2/3 of the words of Jesus, specifically say that the wealthy have great problems getting into heaven because their wealth keeps them from God. Yet you never, ever hear evangelicals mention that? Why? Too busy raising money and driving Mercedes?
Why this fascination with homosexuality when Christ tells you take care of the poor, care for the widowed and defenseless, and stop judging? Look at the countless times he lambastes the pious religious peoples in Israel. Are you listening? He's speaking to you - I'd suggest you stop worrying about gay people and start worrying about your own plight. There are too many homeless, too many abused, too many isolated and defenseless people who go without one shred of help in this country. THOSE are the concerns of Jesus, not gay people.
I dare any of you to tell me that is not the "gospel truth."
Why should we commit our lives to living by an ancient book? A man-made book for all we know could be fake? Yet we worship it like its what all life should go by
There is so much sin in the world that by tackling it is impossible, not only do people sin every day but they do it that much that it becomes normal to them
Does anyone eat shellfish? The bible says thats a sin (its somewhere in there, i should do research tbh)
Why do religious people set their eyes on this one sin and commit their lives to making homosexuals lives hell?
Don't give me some mumbo jumbo crap about it spreads aids cause guess what, heterosexual sex does that at the SAME RATE!
Don't give me any crap about destroying marriage! How is it? Marriage to me, and should be to everyone, two people who love each other a lot wanting to spend the rest of their life together. So why cant homosexuals do that?
So what if you think its disgusting, their not exactly coming round to your house and f*g on your dining table while you try to eat are they!?
People say gays should be killed YET IT IS A SIN TO KILL!!!!!!!!! So you intern would be committing an even worse sin than the homosexual you murder
Being gay IS NOT A CHOICE! Why would you if, by doing so, you just end up being killed and criminalized?
If everyone is made in Gods image then why hate gays? He must of 'created' them for a reason. To stop the population overflow perhaps?
I don't even believe in God or the Bible but i respect those who do but not those who do and yet continue to attack gays with homophobic comments and abuse
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, in the roman times it was seen as normal, Christianity changed that, why?
Times are changing and so should you, sometime in the next few weeks the marriage equality law is being put forward in the United Kingdom.
After this I will be able to marry the man I love
Is it not a sin to judge a man?
And a sin to murder?
A sin to attack someone?
A Sin to eat shellfish? (sorry but I find this sin hilarious)
If all of these are sins and we do these everyday (well maybe not murder) then why should homosexuality be targeted out and attacked?
While I agree with eveything you say, You may want to rephrase your debate title to "Should homosexuality be a sin" or "is homosexuality wrong"; by asking "IS it a sin" the answer couldn't be anything but "Yes" (of course this also depends on what religion you are talking about) but "sin" is a figment of religion, not a figment of rational thought. And most religions have declared homosexual behavior as "sinful".
"All that make you happy should not be sin"
ROBBERS-TAKING AWAY OTHER'S STUFF
RAPIST- SEXUALLY ASSAULTING OTHERS
IT MAKES THEM HAPPY!
THEN THEY "SHOULDN'T" BE PENALIZED?..
IT'S WHAT MAKES THEM HAPPY!
IT DOES NOT MEAN IT MAKES YOU HAPPY THAT IT IS NOT A SIN...
IT'S NOT YOUR HOTLE ROOM.. IT'S OUR WORLD!
What's with the shouting? Please, be civil.
I think we are "missing the mark". Murdering, robbing, raping, pillaging, lying, cheating, stealing, these things do harm to others. A mentally stable person does not get pleasure from doing harm to others.
Also, something being a sin does not make it illegal. When was the last time you saw an episode of cops where they broke down someone's door for coveting?
Shouldn't we be comparing similar things?
I don't think they're happy when they're doing all the things you're talking about. Most of them do things that turn the others, which are not a good thing for the rest of society, and they're conscious of the fact that they are not doing a good thing. If they seem to be happy it's likely to have a mental problem. As long as you don't hurt others and you accept you as you are then loving another man is certainly not a sin.
People...I've been reading the links you sent me and I can definately say one thing...huh?
I knew there would be euphemisms and interpretations but homosexuality just doesn't seem to be a big deal in the Bible. Where's the long tirade against same sex union? Where's the parable of how Christian slept with a man and developed maggots in his dick. How come there are no stories, lectures, examples?
What little there is takes on the form of...Bill that thing with Ted maybe not a good idea. Hardly the blood searing evil everyone seems to think homosexuality is. But then again the Bible does condone incest and a few other nasty things.
Once again I'll say that if it was that big of a deal God would've mentioned it.
Given that the world economy is teetering on the edge of catastrophe, we aren't taking any significant steps to deal with human activity's contribution to ecological and weather disruption, we are way behind where we should be in developing alternate energy sources, and 40 smaller nations are now developing nuclear weapons programs...how can any sane or rational human being think it is important to fuss over what two men or two women do in the privacy of their own home?!
To those who think it's a sin? So what? Don't do it. End of problem. Demanding that others are obligated to listen to the voices in YOUR head is twice as insane. (The rest of us have our own voices, thankewverymuch.)
This is an argument that's a dead end. Homosexuality has been around ever since sexuality began. It's not going to go away. Declaring it a sin is a way for sexually insecure people to dominate and bully others and cause needless pain and hurt to those who want nothing more than to experience their own ability to love.
The advocacy of homosexuality as sin is merely a self-righteous justification for legal and illegal forms of discrimination; but the bigger sin is hypocrisy. Jesus told us to love one another, to forgive one another, and not to sit in judgment of one another. The bible has only six passages which have been interpreted as condemnations of homosexuality, but over 300 condemnations of adultery -- in fact, "thou shalt not commiit adultery" is one of the big ten no-nos. So why aren't the same folks who have their panties in a twist about homosexuality also worried about their own hypocrisy, judgmentalism, and self-righteousness?
Enough already. The real Christians in this world are focusing on feeding the poor, healing the sick, educating the children, helping the elderly, and making a real difference in their communities.
According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a sin. However, I suppose it would have to depend on who you ask also. Most Homosexual people claim that they were born so, and that it isn't necessarily a choice. If this is the case, and there really is no choice, then I can't see why "God" would consider it to be wrong.
Now even if it were a choice, why should that matter either? I'm not a religious person, but I think that if there were a God, and he apparently gave people the ability to have free will and their own opinions about things, why shouldn't they be able to exercise said free will?
People have the right (at least in America) to make their own decisions, why should the view/opinion/moral belief of one person interfere with the opinion or personal preference of another.
Does anybody actually read philosophy? Does anyone study ANYTHING anymore? First of all, "sin" is far too subjective a word to be used in this case. It is easily confused with notions such as right and wrong, good and evil. Sin implies an act prohibited by a particular religion. There are lots of religions. What is considered a sin in one is not in another. What was considered a sin in antiquity is now considered acceptable. If you want to pick and choose your sins, which many people do, fine. Just know that you have done so and be capable of understanding that as well as applying as much meaning as is reasonable to any act. Or, to be clearer, call homosexuality a sin all you want, but remember that wearing clothes of two different kinds of fiber, interacting with women who are menstruating, eating shellfish, doing work on Saturday, and working for a credit card company are also pretty sinful. If you're going to disregard your own sins and focus on the ones you like, fine, just be aware of your choice to do so.
As for right and wrong, the major moral systems, like deontology, founded by Immanual Kant, a staunch Christian, really forms no valid argument against homosexuality other than, "I don't really like it, it's gross." Well, you know what, I think eating beef is gross, but I'd hardly call it a sin. Let alone Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, founders of Utilitarianism, who have nothing much at all to say about homosexuality.
So, is homosexuality a sin? It depends strongly on who you ask and their biases, which they aren't likely trying to control. Is homosexuality wrong? Well, try taking ethics 101.
This is Letter to Louise, one of the best studies of the actual words in the Bible - not the English version, the real Bible, in it's actual languages it was written in - as it pertains to homosexuality.
Read this. THEN tell me how you think homosexuality is a sin. Very, VERY, thin argument your side is making.
Then let me throw a few verses at you about love, your obligation to help the disadvantaged, and your fundamental need to abandon your wealth if you truly seek God.
That will make a very interesting session.
From Letter to Louise:
Genesis 18:20 to 19:29--The Sodom Story
Some consider the sin of Sodom to be same-gender sex, although we are not told in Genesis what Sodom's sins were, only that they were so great that God determined to destroy the city. On the evening before its destruction he sent two angels, in disguise as men, to the city to lead Lot and his family out early the next day. Hospitable Lot invited them to spend the night at his house. During the evening the men of the city surrounded the house and demanded of Lot that he bring the two men out so that they could [19:5]
King James Version: "know them."
Revised Standard Version: "know them."
New International Version: "have sex with them."
When Lot refused to bring his guests out, the men of the city were about to break his door down when the angels struck them all blind and the mob dispersed. The next day Lot and his family were led out of Sodom, and the city was destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven.
The Hebrew verb used here, "yadha," "to know," is used 943 times in the OT and only ten times clearly to mean "have sex," then it always means heterosexual sex. The word normally used for homosexual sex is "shakhabh." Many scholars believe that in Gen. 19:5 yadha means "know" in the sense of "get acquainted with" (the city's men may have wondered if these were enemy spies or they might have sensed the city's impending doom and been concerned with what these strangers were doing there) and have several arguments for this, including Sodom's being used as an example of great sin numerous times in the Old and New Testaments with nothing ever said about same-sex sex, and the context of Jesus' references to Sodom (Luke 10:10-13) which seems to imply lack of hospitality as the sin.
Other scholars think it was the common practice of showing dominance over and humiliating outsiders by forcing them to take the part of a (an inferior) woman in a same-gender rape.
Others think it means "have sex," and point to Lot's offering his two virgin daughters to the crowd if sex is what they want, if they will just leave his guests alone. If this is the right interpretation, it is clearly about violent, criminal, gang rape, something always condemnable.
Another thought is expressed by Religion Professor David L. Bartlett: "This story is certainly an unlikely starting point for a `biblical' understanding of sexual ethics. While the attempted homosexual rape by the men of Sodom is explicitly condemned, the offer by Lot to hand his two virgin daughters over to the violent and lecherous inhabitants of Sodom is related without a word of judgment."B-2
Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah--often cited in connection with homosexuality--is actually irrelevant to the topic."B-3
There is nothing in this story applicable to our consideration of homosexuality.
Again from Letter to Louise:
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Revised Standard Version:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.
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...
The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)
God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."B-5
Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason.
When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.
In the New Testament there are three passages to consider.
Romans 1:21, 26, 27
Revised Standard Version
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...
The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.
Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.
Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible."B-6
I Corinthians 6:9
King James Version:
9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.
New International Version
9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.
A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.
Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."
Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.
Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."B-7
One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, "homosexuals." Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though "of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts."B-8
So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.
I Tim. 1:10
King James Version:
9...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,...10...for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)...
Revised Standard Version - both 1952 and 1971 editions:
9...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for 10 immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai),...
New International Version:
9...the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful...10 for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai)
Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term "sodomites," which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes. The KJV probably has the same thought. The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex. Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9.
As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex in our discussion.
So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the molestation of young boys by heterosexuals.
In view of the facts set forth above, we realize there is no moral teaching in the Bible about homosexuality as we know it, including homosexual sex (except possibly pederasty). The Bible cannot be used to condemn as immoral all same-gender sex. It clearly condemns lust, whether homosexual or heterosexual. There is certainly nothing in the Bible about anyone going to hell because he or she is homosexual. All who go to hell will go for the same, one reason: failure to commit their lives in faith to Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
From a slightly different approach to interpretation, Dr. Robin Scroggs states, "The basic model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate."B-9 [Italics his]
Dr. Gomes concludes his discussion of homosexuality and the Bible with these words:
The Biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem," of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it.B-10
Let me state here and now why I even bother posting any of this.
I couldn't care one rat's ass about what any Baptist or Evangelical thinks about anything. I wouldn't darken the door to your home or your church for all of Bill Gates' money. It is my view that the least likely place on Earth I will ever find a person of God is in those two places. End of discussion. The hate and abuse those two camps spew forth is enough to turn my stomach, let alone the hypocrisy and love of power and money their leaders clearly exhibit.
I don't care if I ever change your view of anything. Who cares? Stew in your own hatred for all I care. History is against you. We will have our freedom, our rights, and the respect we deserve as gay people. There is no force on earth that will stop that. The younger a person is, the less hate there is. This is a battle you have already lost.
What I care passionately about is getting out the word to other lgbt people that there is nothing to fear from the hate mongers that dare call themselves followers of Christ. They are not. They have no more the word of God on their lips than the local village idiot.
What I want to say to my lgbt family is simply this: if you would like a church life, if you would like to express your spirituality, there ARE churches out there that love you, embrace you, and desperately want you to be a part of the faith, as you, not one change needed from you.
Our hearts and minds are open, and we want you to know that, to be heard above the bigots that have kept you isolated for so very long. Don't assume that the right wing idiots are by any means "religion" and that you are excluded. You are not. In many churches - mine most certainly - lgbt people are the life and soul of our congregation and we simply would not exist without their love, compassion, hard work, and devotion.
If this is what you yearn for, let no man keep you from it. There is nothing about your sexuality that keeps you from God. Learn it, love it, live it.
It may be said to be a sin in the bible but if there is anything I have to disagree with that is in the bible it is that homosexuality is wrong. Has it not been proven that gay people are gay from the get go? Should you have to confess and beg for forgiveness to get into heaven just because you like the same sex?
Homosexuality has been proven to be a result of nature. It is not a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex.
For you theists, explain it to yourself how you want, but if there really is a God, he's clearly testing you to see if you've learned the Bible, and he wants you to understand how important it is to accept all his creations in all the shapes, sizes, and forms he sends them.
Just let people be who they are and how the were meant to be. Grow up seriously people, learn that people are DIFFERENT then you. Love is love no matter the gender. It is not a freaking sin. What people do in there spare time is their business not yours, society these days need to learn to stay out of other people's business.
Absolutely not i am honestly a religious person and i say absolutely not i think that gay marriage is the same as regular marriage while the bible says marriage should be between a man and a women. It also says treat people the way you would want to be treated and they deserve a right to be married!!!!
Assuming it is a sin as in a transgression of church dogma, it isn't called a sin. Something sinful requires consciously selecting to transgress that church's dogma and I'm unaware of anyone in their lifetime being asked by some "Holy Spirit" if they would like to be born a homosexual. It's a political construct by certain political groups that wish to impose their political dogma on the entire nation. Let it be.
I think homosexuality is fine because i am a moral person!!!!!
If two people love eachother nothing should be able to keep them apart, and not to mention that homosexual acts have been recorded in hundreds of animals! so not only is it natural but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it in the first place, the world is very overpopulated as it is we dont exactly want more kids.
also a sin isnt morally right or wrong, a sin is an act that goes against a divine power or law. So some religions say that its a sin, but if you look at almost all the 'is god real' arguments on this website you will see that the atheists are winning :P
I would have to agree with you on this one. By its definition, what constitutes a sin relies on the context of a divine law, without that context (which is not given in question of this debate) it is largely pointless to debate what is/isn't or should be/shouldn't be a sin.
You're probably right, however the actual question is "Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?" And since this is an educated debate, we can only go by what the actual questions says and not by what everyone makes of the spirit of the question. Especially in this case, "Sin" is such a context heavy word, that for a lot of people, me included, it can't be equated to "morally wrong".
Assuming the Western religious context of 'sin', the restated question is: 'should we accept the the Bible's instruction on homosexuality?'. Yes, homosexuality is unequivocally a sin in accordance with biblical understanding but of course it isn't wrong, so long as it doesn't endanger anyone's lives.
I really don't think the Bible is for real, but I know Christians that are Gay, so here is my 2 cents.
I did a quick search and found this interesting web page that says Christ took away the "Law" of the Old Testament and now "Grace" is in effect, nullifying Leviticus 18:22. Bam.
New Testament reconciliation with homosexuality (www.christiangay.com)
We have moved on to a post-victorian era. Old concepts, especially something everyone with the freedom to move, to talk should be granted.
I have no concern what people are doing in private as long as it causes no greater harm. And I am pretty sure the Bible was written a few hundred years ago when views on homosexuality are unfair, it needs a someone new to update it. Jesus Jnr?
I'm gay, and my trait of being attracted to members of the same gender is no more a sin than me having the trait of being 5 foot, 9 inches tall. Grow up, people. Grow up. I chose neither trait. They just ARE traits that I have. Of course, sin implies a belief in a supernatural being, which is absolutely ridiculous to begin with.
Lamb chops, it you want to follow the writings of 2000 - 5000 year old writings by old men that is your business. These writings were edited by the church and they picked and chose which books to include in "The Holy Bible". If this is what you follow, then follow ALL the laws: sacrifice a goat each week, throw dung on dishonorable children and put menstruating women outside the city walls. You can't just pick and choose. Besides, how do you know the church didn't throw out books applauding gay life? You don't. What gays do in no way effects the marriage you are going to eventually suffer divorce from anyway. So chill.
As a non-religious, I disagree with the idea of sin, but regardless, I do not find homosexuality to be socially deviant behavior.
I hold the belief that there are biological reasons for homosexuality, and there are many studies and examples to back this up, from studies that have discovered discrepancies in the brain between homosexuals and their heterosexual counterparts, to studies observing animals engaging homosexual behavior.
With all this support for the idea that homosexuality has biological causes, coupled with how, by way of observing it in animals, I find it ludicrous to condemn it as "a sin," or "unnatural."
"...studies that have discovered discrepancies in the brain between homosexuals and their heterosexual counterparts..."
I don't think sexuality can be just explained by genetics, that would be way too simplistic. "Some are born gay, others aren't." What about bissexuals? Do they also have their own brain pattern? What about guys who spent most of their lives honestly liking girls and now honestly like guys? Have their brains changed? Are they "wrong", because they weren't born gay?
I see sexuality as just a matter of taste and preference, we don't need to explain it biologically the same way as we don't have to explain why some guys (straight, if you want...) like pink.
One needs to think back to who actually wrote the bible. Christians are taught that it was written by men who were inspired by God, BUT they were only men, who were also subject to sin. It is a possibility that they wrote in their own views as well as what God supposedly inspired them to write. In my own interpretation, the bible does not specifically say that being gay is a sin. It's more saying that homosexual actions are a sin; however, this would also be a sign man's sin. Man has been homophobic since the beginning of time because supposedly homosexuality is "weird". I'm straight but just because I want to be with a woman doesn't mean another guy should go to hell because he wants to be with a man. Besides, research shows that homosexuality could be a chemical imbalance. That's part of God's doing, no?
First of all, sin is the act of deliberately turning from the will of God. It requires an act of will on the part of the sinner and, as such, an act can only be defined as sin by the actor and God. There can be no such thing as objective sin. At worst an act might be deemed objectively amoral. Second, how can love, being acted out by two people in the way God made them, be a sin if, as St. John tells us, "God is Love, and he who resides in Love, resides in God."?
sin IS determined by organized religion. This is the official definition of sin:
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
note the first meaning DIVINE law
Whose "official" definition is that?
You left out the 3rd definition, whether by accident or by design I do not know:
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
Here is websters:
1sin Listen to the pronunciation of 1sin
Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
before 12th century
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
Plenty of room in this definition to interpret the question as " Should homosexuality be considered (against moral law) or (highly reprehensible) or (a serious shortcoming or fault)?
Once again I suppose we should ask the OP to clarify the question instead of arguing with each other over which definition of "SIN" we like best.