Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Teenager]

Besides the supposed verses In the Bible, which condemn same-sex couples. What exactly is God's core reason as to why two normal humans of the same gender getting together in a normal relationship is so awfully wrong?

Please don't reply with "Because 2 people of the same sex can't make children", because that means God doesn't know there are 7.8 billion humans in this world and that babies are being born every second. So God shouldn't have a population issue. Also, God says adoption is perfectly fine (Acts 7:21, Deuteronomy 10:18, James 1:27).

[jimwalton]

We're never told why, but to be fair, we're never told why lying, stealing, or adultery are wrong, either. The Bible often doesn't give us the why. It tells us that it is contrary to God's order ("detestable"), but that's about as close as it gets.

> Besides the supposed verses In the Bible, which condemn same-sex couples.

They aren't "supposed" verses, they are verses.

> What exactly is God's core reason as to why two normal humans of the same gender getting together in a normal relationship is so awfully wrong?

See, you are loading your question with bias. The Bible may not agree that same-sex relationships are part of normality. Even in our era, the science (a 2017 Gallup poll) tells us that approximately 4.5% of Americans self-define as LGBTQ+. That's not exactly a stunning figure of normative behavior.

[Teenager]

I'm not going to explain why each bad action is bad since I'm sure I'll just be telling you what you already know.

However, don't lie because you're saying wrong or untrue things, which can lead to others believing and saying something which isn't true. Don't steal because you're taking someone's possessions away that they probably needed. Don't kill because that's someone's life, who many care about, you're taking away. Don't commit adultery because that's harmful and damaging. And don't get with someone of the same sex as you because...umm...because no. Seriously? With all the previous actions, they're all wrong because they cause bad effects in this world. However, a woman kissing another woman? A man falling in love with another man? How is that damaging this world? It isn't.
Also, when I said "Supposed verses In the Bible", what I meant was the verses that Christians have used to say homosexuality is a sin, even though those verses never really meant that. Leviticus 18:22/Leviticus 20:13 was mistranslated (https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/) and the word "Homosexual" wasn't invented until 1868 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/)

Anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can recognise that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape the angels. They didn't want to have a normal homosexual relationship with them but rape them. The sin of Noah and Ham wasn't homosexuality (https://www.tomthinking.com/wp/understanding-the-sin-of-ham/).

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 describes fornication and/or pederasty. And Romans 1:26-27 obviously is about fornication and lust, not homosexuality.

[jimwalton]

> don't lie because you're saying wrong or untrue things, which can lead to others believing and saying something which isn't true.

There are many things I am not, and a liar is one of them. What I said was the BIBLE doesn't tell us why these things are wrong. We can certainly intuit (pretty easily) why some of them are wrong, as you have mentioned, but that wasn't the point. My point was that the Bible doesn't give us the why.

> How is that damaging this world? It isn't.

Things aren't considered wrong because they "damage the world." Sometimes, we might justify, a small lie smooths things over and makes things better. In WWII, the Dutch would hide Jews in their houses and lie to the German soldiers. We might "reason" that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor was not damaging the world. Whether or not it "damages the world" is not how we discern right from wrong.

Also, when I said "Supposed verses In the Bible", what I meant was the verses that Christians have used to say homosexuality is a sin, even though those verses never really meant that. Leviticus 18:22/Leviticus 20:13 was mistranslated (https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/) and the word "Homosexual" wasn't invented until 1868 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/)

This statement of yours is completely false. The fact that the term homosexual was not invented until the mid-19th century has no bearing on the reality that the Bible teaches that same-sex relationships are a sin. The verses DO mean that. The term used in Leviticus 18.22 is תִשְׁכַּב: "to lie with; have sexual relations with," and the referents are man to man. There is no record or manuscript that these terms or verses have ever changed; there are no variant readings. Nor are they mistranslated. It clearly states, "Do not lie with (have sexual relations with) a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable." That is the only version, and it's not vague. The verse really and firmly stands against homosexuality.

Leviticus 20.13 is just as clear, and has also never changed. There are no textual variants. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." You have to do quite a bit of unjustifiable word-wrenching to change it into "Well, it doesn't really mean that." It most certainly and clearly does mean that.

> Anyone who can put 2 and 2 together can recognise that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape the angels.

Agreed. No argument there. What we have is a picture of corruption (Gn. 13.13) and the danger of homosexual rape became the unavoidable example of it, though we are told about other problems in the city.

1. Sex between men (Gn. 19.5; Lev. 18.22; 20.13)

2. Marital unfaithfulness/adultery (G. 19.4-5; Ex. 20.14; Lev. 19.20; 20.10; Dt. 5.18)

3. Proposed defilement of betrothed women (i.e., a form of adultery) (Gn. 19.8, 14; Dt. 22.23-27)

4. Rape and attempted rape (Gn. 19.5, 31-36; Dt. 22.25)

5. Incest (Gn. 19.30-35; Lev. 18.6-18; 20.11-12, 17-21; Dt. 27.20, 22-23)

The Bible narrates the story as evidence of extreme degradation and moral and spiritual corruption, and homosexual rape is the poster child. A full study of the chapter shows that its inescapable that the author is targeting homosexuality as the clear and present example of their moral and spiritual corruption.

> They didn't want to have a normal homosexual relationship with them but rape them.

You're making this up. The text does nothing to lead us in this direction or to this conclusion. In Genesis preceding this, and in the Bible following this, there is absolutely NOTHING that leads us in this direction or that hints at the possibility (let alone approval of) "normal homosexual relationship." Burden of proof is on you to produce this, but I know it doesn't exist.

> The sin of Noah and Ham wasn't homosexuality

We don't really know what the sin of Ham was. We know from the text that Noah was laying drunk and nude (וַיִּתְגַּל). The possibilities for what happened here are:

• Ham castrated him
• Ham sodomized him.
• Ham committed incest with his mama.
• Human indignity. (He saw his dad naked and didn't cover him up).

No one really knows.

> 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 describes fornication and/or pederasty.

The terms used in 1 Cor. 6.9 describe more than fornication and/or pederasty. Paul covered "fornication" in general with his general term πόρνοι (pornoi). To that he adds μοιχοὶ (adulterer) as a specific kind of fornication forbidden. Then he adds μαλακοὶ (malakoi, referring to the passive, "female" partner in a sexual exchange) and ἀρσενοκοῖται, referring to the "male" partner in a sexual exchange. These words are used with reference to pederasty, but they are wider than that. In ancient Greece and Rome, same sex coitus was often pederastic (though not always), often a display of power (a right and privilege of the wealthy and powerful, or the head of the household), but sometimes just sexual engagement. Therefore the word does include pederasty and homosexual rape, but that's not its only meaning.

Dr. Richard Hays writes, "This word (ἀρσενοκοῖται) is not found in any extant Greek text earlier than 1 Corinthians. Robin Scroggs has shown that it is a translation of the Hebrew mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), derived directly from Lev. 18.22 and 20.13 and used in rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse. Thus, Paul’s use of the term presupposes and reaffirms the holiness code’s condemnation of homosexual acts. This is not a controversial point in Paul’s argument; the letter gives no evidence that anyone at Corinth was arguing to the acceptance of same-sex erotic activity."

1 Timothy 1.10: The word is again ἀρσενοκοίταις, which means "A male homosexual; pederast (one that practices anal intercourse esp. with a boy); sodomite (one who practices copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal); those who engage in homosexual acts; one who lies with a male as with a female." The active, "male" partner in a sexual exchange. Dr. Craig Keener writes, "[The term] seems to mean those who engage in homosexual acts, which were a common feature of Greek male life in antiquity."

> And Romans 1:26-27 obviously is about fornication and lust, not homosexuality.

This is untrue also. Not only the terms Paul uses here, but also his context and sentences. He's talking about shameful lusts, sexual relations, men committing with men indecent sexual acts. It's unavoidable.