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

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a h*m*sexual?

This answer presupposes that h*m*sexuality as referring to the sexual orientation per se, not the sexual acts of h*m*sexual 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 h*m*sexual 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 h*m*sexual 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.

I've come across news articles (https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-h*m*sexuality-seriously-it-doesn-t-13ae949d6619 and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-h*m*sexuality_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 h*m*sexuality wasn't in the Bible. "Homosexuality" then wasn't today's equivalent. Today's h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality. 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 h*m*sexuality vs. Biblical "h*m*sexuality" (which is actually just toxic male dominance through sexuality), that's probably why some Christians believe it is moral to be a h*m*sexual by modern standards. They're not hurting anyone or asserting their identity by sexual dominance.

The question is:

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be h*m*sexual. 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 h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality among traditional and conservative Christians despite this scant Biblical mention of it suggests that the strong opposition to h*m*sexuality comes from cultural opposition to h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality. 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 h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality, positive or negative. The lack of any condemnation of h*m*sexuality in the Gospels, where the Lord Jesus himself gives the basic teachings for the Christian Church, should give pause to those who believe that h*m*sexuality is a sin for Christians.

5. Paul's condemnatory references to h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexual 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 h*m*sexual 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 h*m*sexual practice was for an older, dominant male to penetrate a younger, submissive male. Essentially, all h*m*sexual 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 h*m*sexuality simply does not apply to the present day ideal and practice of committed, monogamous h*m*sexual 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 h*m*sexuals themselves from committed, faithful, monogamous h*m*sexual relationships. It is unfair and unjust to condemn h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexual marriages. So the only valid basis on which to condemn h*m*sexuality would be if committed, faithful, monogamous h*m*sexual marriages caused some sort of evil to society or to the h*m*sexuals themselves. There is no good argument for such evil socially or politically. And to state that h*m*sexuals will go to hell because h*m*sexuality is a sin is to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the result. That argument would have to first establish or assume that h*m*sexuality is evil and a sin—which is the very issue being debated.

7. Even if h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuals do not believe that h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality is a fundamental, non-changeable trait of h*m*sexual men and women. Many organizations, including many Christian organizations, have tried and failed to change h*m*sexuals 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 h*m*sexuals into heterosexuals. How is this relevant to Christian views of h*m*sexuality? If h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuality 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 h*m*sexuals to "repent" from h*m*sexuality. 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 h*m*sexual marriages as in Christian or spiritual heterosexual marriages. It is therefore God's will that h*m*sexuals 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 h*m*sexuals 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.