Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

Question

(Note: I know this may start a firestorm, so I will be careful here.)

I believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is immoral.

I also believe that it does NOT condemn homosexuals to hell (a sin is a sin is a sin). When a person receives Christ in them they are saved and ALL their sins are forgiven.

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

Also, I would like this to be about homosexuality itself, not about homosexuals or the culture of homosexuality (i.e. stereotypes about homosexuals, etc.).

Answer 1

The question asks "Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?" Because clearly, some do. This is not the place to hold forth on your own beliefs on the matter, this is Stack Exchange, where we answer the question posed.

Potentially Valid Reasons

• Many Christians (including the Catholic Church, as recently restated by Pope Francis) believe that "being" homosexual (having homosexual sexual tendencies to some degree - remember bisexuals exist too) is not sinful in and of itself , but that having sex with another same-sex person is a sinful act. So a chaste homosexual is as holy as anyone else who's not sinning. Homosexual (or sexual, in general) acts are simply a sin like any other, from gossip to lying, not in some special "worse" category in any mainstream theology; most of the current firestorm about homosexuality specifically is political and bigotry related, not religion related.

• Some Christians believe that the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are misapplied/badly translated and therefore do not speak against what we would today regard as "otherwise moral" homosexual practice. For more see What does the bible say about homosexuality? and this Human Rights Campaign article of the same name.

• Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in concept but not literally inerrant (see the Wikipedia entry on biblical inerrancy), and that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with it that has to be sifted out to correctly interpret it. There are a lot of things we do/don't do partially based on this understanding (rejection of slavery, for instance).

• Related to the previous point, some Christians believe that just as Jesus obsoleted/fulfilled the Law in favor of the love of God and the Golden Rule, we should look at the "big picture" and not focus on lists of sinful acts. Because, to be honest, the Bible says a lot of things. The OT says to not eat shrimp; that ban is not one most modern Christians recognize. If you love God and your neighbor, then the specifics which were intended to generally point you in that direction are not needed any more. Some Christians would say that the rejection of legalism and embrace of a more direct relationship with God (which is more complex than any set of rules) was the main point Jesus was trying to get across to us during his life and that Paul and other writers then also tried to get across in the other letters and such that became books of the Bible.

• The church I'm in has better theologians on staff than I, and they say it's OK. Some denominations officially accept homosexuality in whole or in part. For a good overview of different Christian teachings on homosexuality, see wikipedia. This includes mainline Christian churches such as various Lutheran, Anglican, and United Churches of Christ denominations.

Mostly Invalid Reasons

There are probably other reasons; those previously listed are the ones I feel have a decent foundation. The illogical/unfounded reasons one might hear are:

• "But they're born that way." It's not known for certain that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual inclinations, but even if there is one (and I think there probably is), that has no bearing on the morality of the act. Sin is about the choices we make, not our DNA. Whether from original sin, the Fall, or the human condition, we all have tendencies that point us towards sin, and though those tendencies may make it difficult to live moral lives, we are not bound by them, and they are never excuses for sin. This is an odd argument that is applied to no other sin; would anyone say that if they had a genetic disposition against monogamy that they could get a mulligan on adultery? Of course not.

• "Oh, who cares what the Bible/church says?" This of course is a difficult position to hold about anything for a Christian. And if you're of another/no faith, we love you and all, but our worldview is guided by those things you reject, so that opinion is of limited help to someone wrestling with this problem from our worldview. One can argue that the Holy Spirit has guided them to this understanding, which is fine, though in general we are asked to test our perception of the Spirit's guidance by the Scriptures and church to verify it's God speaking and not the product of our own creative minds.

• "I know a homosexual and they're not a bad person." This is someone unclear on Christianity's teachings in general, unaware that even good people sin and require repentance. The demonization of homosexuals by the more hateful elements in society actually feed this one; once someone meets a homosexual and sees that they don't have little goat horns and rape babies, they assume they were probably lied to 100% and reject even honest Biblical critique. Understandable, but not logical.

The polarization of society on this topic makes a lot of the usual Scriptural measuring sticks difficult to use. We are encouraged by culture and the media to think of things in terms of "right side/wrong side", so when we try to apply, say, "By their fruits you will know them," we see some homosexuals who clearly favor a licentious and ungodly lifestyle, but others who seem as normal as anyone's parents, just gay. And similarly we see some Christians with balanced views on the topic but plenty who are spouting hate and other clearly unchristian stuff as well. Which "side" is right? That's a false dichotomy that leads to confusion. My one contribution to this discussion is that I think we need to reject what the world is trying to tell us about which faction or football team we're on and, like God does, address it on an individual basis. There's a lot of judging around this topic based on the extreme activities of the exceptionally disturbed on one side or the other.

Answer 2

The question is:

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

I can answer this from the perspective of a minister in the Swedenborgian Church of North America, a Christian denomination that does not regard homosexuality as a sin, performs gay and lesbian marriages in most of its local churches, and has been ordaining openly gay and lesbian clergy since 1997.

The lines of reasoning I will present below are a brief summary of a major article I published on this subject in February, 2015: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity. This article presents the best Christian arguments that homosexuality is not a sin from a Swedenborgian Christian perspective.

1. Homosexuality is rarely mentioned in the Bible: there are only five or six clear references to it in the Old and New Testaments combined. In comparison, the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments receive major coverage throughout the Bible. The heavy focus on homosexuality among traditional and conservative Christians despite this scant Biblical mention of it suggests that the strong opposition to homosexuality comes from cultural opposition to homosexuality rather than from Biblical sources.

2. In the Old Testament, the prohibition of men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was made in a specific cultural context that no longer applies. Specifically, in the ancient world, marital and sexual relationships were almost universally viewed as a relationship between unequal partners, and the sexual act was seen as an act of a dominant partner penetrating a submissive partner. Since in ancient Hebrew culture and religion all men were seen as equal under the Law and in God's eyes, it was "detestable" (meaning culturally taboo and ritually unclean) for a man to have sex with another man because it reduced the man who was penetrated to a lower religious and social status. Because it was based on cultural conditions that no longer exist in the Christian world, the prohibition against men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is one of many Old Testament laws that no longer apply to Christians.

3. The story of the condemnation and destruction of Sodom in Genesis 18:16–19:29 is often read as a condemnation of homosexuality. However, the parallel story of the heterosexual gang rape of a woman in Judges 19 is not read as a condemnation of heterosexuality. Thus the argument that the story of Sodom should be read as a condemnation of homosexuality holds no water. Further, in Ezekiel 16:49–50 the Bible itself states quite clearly what the sin of Sodom was, and the focus is on arrogance, self-indulgence, and lack of charity, thus setting the tone for our interpretation of the story of Sodom. In short, the story of Sodom has little or nothing to do with homosexuality from a Biblical perspective. (For fuller presentation of these points about the Biblical story of Sodom, see: What is the Sin of Sodom?)

4. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself never said a word about homosexuality, positive or negative. The lack of any condemnation of homosexuality in the Gospels, where the Lord Jesus himself gives the basic teachings for the Christian Church, should give pause to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin for Christians.

5. Paul's condemnatory references to homosexuality in Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–11 were made in a cultural and religious context similar to that of the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In fact, the textual evidence is that Paul drew directly on the Holiness Code and other ancient lists of sins in writing those verses. Paul, like the Old Testament writers, condemned homosexual acts because he saw it as an act of one man reducing the social and religious status of another man. This took on even more poignancy for Paul, given that standard Greek and Roman homosexual practice was for an older, dominant male to penetrate a younger, submissive male. Essentially, all homosexual sex in the ancient world was sex between unequal partners, which ran contrary to Paul's Hebrew- and Christian-inspired view that all men are equal under the law and in the eyes of God. Therefore Paul's condemnation of homosexuality simply does not apply to the present day ideal and practice of committed, monogamous homosexual relationships between equal partners—something that was practically unknown in the ancient world. This is not the only issue on which we now see Paul as dated by his culture. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul requires women to wear veils while praying or prophesying, and in Ephesians 6:5 he requires slaves to obey their masters. These are teachings that few, if any Christians still believe are in force. So the argument that everything Paul says still applies today holds no water.

6. Moving beyond strictly Biblical argument to other Christian-inspired lines of reasoning, the first point is that there is no demonstrable harm to society or to homosexuals themselves from committed, faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships. It is unfair and unjust to condemn homosexuality based on its perversions, just as it would be unfair and unjust to condemn heterosexuality based on its perversions. A fair comparison requires us to compare the highest Christian ideal for heterosexual marriages with a similar highest Christian ideal for homosexual marriages. So the only valid basis on which to condemn homosexuality would be if committed, faithful, monogamous homosexual marriages caused some sort of evil to society or to the homosexuals themselves. There is no good argument for such evil socially or politically. And to state that homosexuals will go to hell because homosexuality is a sin is to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the result. That argument would have to first establish or assume that homosexuality is evil and a sin—which is the very issue being debated.

7. Even if homosexuality is an evil, it is not a sin for those who practice it in good conscience. Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains" (John 9:41). And in Romans 2:14–16 Paul says that Gentiles who are not under the law will be judged by their own consciences. Since most practicing Christian homosexuals do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, but believe that it is good and blessed by God, it will not be charged to them as sin because they are living according to their conscience and according to what they believe is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

8. The conclusion now generally drawn from overwhelming evidence and experience is that homosexuality is a fundamental, non-changeable trait of homosexual men and women. Many organizations, including many Christian organizations, have tried and failed to change homosexuals into heterosexuals through prayer, repentance, therapy, including Skinnerian aversion therapy, and various other methods. Studies over time and follow-ups on these efforts show that they are an almost total failure, if not a complete failure. The most commonly cited study to the contrary, published by famed psychiatrist Robert Spitzer in 2001, was retracted by its author in 2012. Many prominent "ex-gay" organizations have disbanded or have ceased their efforts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. How is this relevant to Christian views of homosexuality? If homosexuality is not a "sin" that can be "repented from," but is a fixed, permanent part of someone's basic humanity, it is incompatible with the love and mercy of God for homosexuality to be a sin that is punishable by eternal damnation. If something is a sin, it must be possible to repent from it. But it is not possible for the vast bulk of homosexuals to "repent" from homosexuality. It is part of their basic nature.

9. God has created marriage between a man and a woman as one of the deepest and most searching and effective forums for spiritual growth and Christian regeneration, or rebirth. In a growing marriage, the partners must continually examine themselves for selfishness, ego, pride, and other sins, and repent from them, in order to truly love and care for their marital partner. Marriage is therefore a gift of God to Christians for their eternal spiritual growth and wellbeing. Gays and lesbians, however, cannot participate honestly and from the heart in heterosexual relationships. If they are going to be in a loving, committed marital relationship at all, it will be with someone of the same sex. God has placed the desire to unite with another person deeply in the human spirit. For gays and lesbians, this means uniting with someone of the same sex. And most, if not all of the spiritual benefits of marriage are the same in Christian or spiritual homosexual marriages as in Christian or spiritual heterosexual marriages. It is therefore God's will that homosexuals who desire marriage should unite with someone of their own sex who shares common faith and values. In this relationship gays and lesbians can gain many, if not all of the same God-given benefits of marriage as heterosexuals can. And it is God's will that all of the people God has created, and whom God loves, should be able to share in the joys and spiritual benefits of marriage. Therefore Christians who would deny homosexuals marriage are working against God's will and against God's eternal love for all people.

This is a very brief summary of a much longer (13k words) article. For the full version, once again please see my article: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity.

Answer 3

I've come across news articles (https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality-seriously-it-doesn-t-13ae949d6619 and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality_b_7807342.html) that have done in-depth research on what the translations actually mean.

I also did my research and found out that...

...these articles were right.

Today's definition of homosexuality wasn't in the Bible. "Homosexuality" then wasn't today's equivalent. Today's homosexuality is mostly about rights and equal treatment.

But back in Bible times, sex with the same gender was more a show of power and ruthlessness.

Sodom & Gomorrah's sin - though it looks it from first glance - wasn't homosexuality. It was inhospitality. And they showed the inhospitality by treating their neighbors horribly through sex. That's what they wanted to do to the angels (aliens) who had bunked at Lot's house. If that was in the early 1900s, it was as if whites wanted to grab African-Americans from a malt shop and beat them up just because of the color of their skin. Since hospitality was a big thing in Middle Eastern culture, they were punished for that through the fire and brimstone.

Now in Roman culture, same-sex relationships were socially again a show of dominance and power. An older male would usually have younger men around him to show his status. Militarily-speaking, male Roman soldiers were encouraged to have sex in order to deepen their bond and function better as a team.

So in relation to today's homosexuality vs. Biblical "homosexuality" (which is actually just toxic male dominance through sexuality), that's probably why some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual by modern standards. They're not hurting anyone or asserting their identity by sexual dominance.

Answer 4

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

This answer presupposes that homosexuality as referring to the sexual orientation per se, not the sexual acts of homosexual persons.

Homosexuality is a gift to be celibate

In the Scriptures, it is recorded that Jesus spoke about natural eunuchs (Matthew 19:12). First century contemporary evidence as well as ante-Nicene evidence shows that these eunuchs by birth have no desire for heterosexual marriage due to what we know today as homosexual orientation, intersex conditions as well as transsexualism.

Philo ,a first century Jew (1st century), knew that a man who is natural eunuch does not have sexual desire to a female ( Philo, On Joseph, XII. 58-60).This shows that the eunuch by birth in Matthew 19:12 means men who does not have sexual desire to a female.

Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspectiveabout the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1):

Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.

Strong's Concordance:2135 eunoúxos – properly, "alone in bed" (i.e. without a marriage partner) – literally, a castrated (emasculated) man; a eunuch.[ HELPS Word-studies]

Emasculated (ευνουχίζω) = deprived of masculinity [WordReference English-Greek Dictionary © 2015]

How does that translate to natural eunuchs, to eunuchs born that way?

Because the context of Matthew 19:12 is about heterosexual marriage, it highly implies that this shows that eunuchs born that way have "no sexual desire to the opposite sex." It fits the definition of eunuch as emasculated or deprived of masculinity. This may be what we call today as homosexual orientation.

Coming from the same literary source, the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:1-10 and the discourse on threefold types of Eunuch in Matthew 19:11-12 interpret each other. In Matthew 19:1-10, Jesus spoke of divorce in the context of heterosexual marriage while in Matthew 19:12, Jesus spoke of eunuchs who cannot undergo heterosexual marriage.

Jesus spoke of being “one spirit” with his church in the context of heterosexual union, speaking of “one flesh” fact (1 Corinthians 6:16-17, v. 16 cited Genesis 2:24).

Same Sex Relationship in the Bible is not sexual but spiritual. It is living in holiness.

David and Jonathan’s relationship is an archetype of the relationship of Jesus and his church.

1 Samuel 18:1b Jonathan became one in spirit with David,

1 Corinthians 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

1 Samuel 18:1c and he loved him as himself.

Ephesians 5:28 He who loves his wife loves himself.

Conclusion

Persons who are attracted to the same sex are not sinning. Their lack of attraction to the opposite sex is moral. The Lord Jesus himself spoke of them as blessed for the gift of celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:12). The relationship of Christ with the church is a parallel to the spiritual same sex relationship between David and Jonathan.