if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence?

score:10

Accepted answer

I think you've given a very good argument why it's implausible to theorize that h*m*sexuality is a sin because it does not produce children. I agree: that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.

But that's not the only conceivable (no pun intended) reason why the Bible would say that h*m*sexuality is a sin.

The easiest answer would be to say, "it just is, just like all others sins are sins because they just are". Why is murder a sin? It just is. People often answer, "because it hurts another person". Okay. So hurting another person is a sin? Why? What makes hurting another person a sin? All you've done is push the question back a step.

You could say that there's a general principle in the Bible that sex is good and beautiful within a marriage between a man and a woman, but wrong in any other case. Thus pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, beastiality is a sin, and h*m*sexuality is a sin.

Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? We could, I suppose, discuss the health problems and social problems and emotional problems it causes. Just like we could talk about the economic problems that would be created if murder was allowed. But again, that just pushes back the question. Are veneral disease and broken homes "bad"? Who says? Why? Again, all you've done is push back the question. At some point you have to say that some things are good and others are bad because they just are.

It appears that in general, things that God forbids as sins do in the long run hurt the people who do them or those around them. Murder obviously hurts the victim, and violent people have a tendency to meet violent ends themselves. Adultery destroys relationships and broken homes hurt children. Etc. But I'd be very cautious about saying that that's the entire reason why God forbids something.

Upvote:3

The question seems a bit problematic from the very beginning. If doing something is wrong, why isn't doing nothing also wrong? Or why isn't "not doing it" wrong? Just because God forbids one thing does not mean He mandates another.

The answer to the question really lies in why anything at all is wrong. There is a moral law, and it is not subjective, but objective. The Moral Lawgiver defines what is right and wrong. Sin is anything that is contrary to His purposes or plan.

The Bible states that God created one man and one woman for one marriage at the very beginning. That is the precedent that He set. He affirms later that this was, indeed, His plan and purpose, and that h*m*sexuality in particular is contrary to that.

We can also observe a specific design inherent in men and women. They were designed for each other, but it is fairly obvious that women were not designed for women, nor were men designed for men.

Adultery is also contrary to the pattern and precedent and purpose in marriage, and God identifies that as sin as well.

So, h*m*sexuality is a sin, not just because it cannot produce offspring and heterosexual relationships can. Homosexuality is a sin because it is contrary to God's specific design in marriage for one man and one woman, His purpose and plan for sexual fulfillment, and His establishment of the family.

Abstinence, on the other hand, is actually required until a person enters into marriage, so it certainly is not wrong.

Upvote:4

I think that the easiest answer is that h*m*sexuality is "unnatural" (cf. Romans 1). Now, before someone tries to correct me and say, "it happens in nature all the time," I am not talking about "nature" in the same sense you might turn on the Discovery Channel and watch flying shark vs flying crocodile. After all, rape is something which is found in a number of different species and I would also call that "unnatural". No, "nature" in the Romans 1 sense has to do with how man and woman were created, how they were "from the beginning" (cf. Matthew 19).

When God created Adam and Eve, he created a mystical pairing whereby both parties partake in a supernatural act of self-gift (Paul calls it a "profound mystery" in in Ephesians 5). It is a pairing which is so profound that their bodies are actually designed to fit together and complete each other β€” so profound that the two become one flesh (Genesis 2). Not only that, but one of the primary results of this act is the creation of life (John Paul II basically said that sex is where we are the most like God in that we freely choose to create life).*

Homosexual acts are unable to properly demonstrate this pairing. While there may be love (and perhaps profound love, in a sense) between two individuals, if they are the same gender they are not compatible. It is not in their combined natures to unify that way.

I suppose someone might try to say, "So, it isn't in their nature, why is that wrong?" Well, is it in your forehead's nature to pound nails into walls? If you try, you will very quickly find that acting against your forehead's nature will cause you not a little bit of pain. Similarly, using any part of your body in a way which deviates from the original intent will prove damaging, even if that may not be the most obvious at the time.


* I think it is important to note that while it is one of the primary results of intercourse, children are not the point of sex. Using sex exclusively for the purpose of having children and divorced from the unitive and self-gift aspects is still placing the other as a means to an end.

More post

Search Posts

Related post