Christians: is homosexuality sinful without sex?

[saizai]

It seems to me that there are two different definitions of "homosexuality".

Normal psychology: a general tendency towards affective, sexual, etc attraction towards people of your own gender

Christians et al: having sex with people of your own gender


So my question is this:

Suppose that Bill and Bob are a long-term gay (in the first sense) couple. They love each other, kiss, cuddle, live together, dance together, etc etc. But they never actually have sex with each other because of (insert random medical reason that prevents sex here).

Sinful or not?

If necessary to make a distinction, you can further assume that they never sleep together even in the purely platonic cuddles-and-sleep sense, but still do all the rest. (E.g. perhaps both of them need a lot of space to sprawl / shift / etc to get good sleep.)


Please ignore the possibility for them being tempted to have sex and just axiomatically say that neither is even capable of it. So just talk about the sex-free aspects of 'homosexual behavior' / affection / etc.

Please justify your response with whatever sources you consider appropriate.

Finally, I would prefer that you address both religious and pragmatic / social issues.

Have fun and play nice. :)

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Didn't Jesus say anyone who lusts has committed adultery in their heart? Sounds sinful to me.

[saizai]

Didn't Jesus say anyone who lusts has committed adultery in their heart? Sounds sinful to me.

I didn't say anything about lust.

In any case, assume that their attentions and affections are exclusively for each other, and they are married insofar as the law allows.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

If it was some medical reason preventing them from havign sex, that implies they want to and are being stopped by an external factor. Traditional interpretation of what Jesus said is that if you don't commit a sin because you are unable for whatever reason or becuase you don't think you'd get away with it, you are culpable for said sin.

[saizai]

If it was some medical reason preventing them from havign sex, that implies they want to and are being stopped by an external factor. Traditional interpretation of what Jesus said is that if you don't commit a sin because you are unable for whatever reason or becuase you don't think you'd get away with it, you are culpable for said sin.

Suppose that this reason (whatever it is) is such that they don't even like or want sex. IOW they have zero libido. So that doesn't apply.

Like I said, I want this discussion to focus only on the non-sex aspects of the question.

[Myriad]

That depends. Is the current world population too low, or too high?

If it's too low, they're both sinning because they could both be out getting women pregnant and they're missing the chance.

Context matters for everything. Even sin.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[saizai]

Myriad- Assume that the context is the world as it is now. You'll have to supply the definitions and judgements of "too low" or "too high" yourself, as that is not part of the setup of my question.

Please presume (like I said) that their medical problem is such that they are incapable of having sex or wanting to. And that they're 100% sterile, if that wasn't clear enough. :)

[Bob Klase]

Didn't Jesus say anyone who lusts has committed adultery in their heart? Sounds sinful to me.

Yes, god did a good job of setting up the world so that you have to commit sins by 'his' definition.

Let's face it, if god didn't want me to lust after my neighbors wife he wouldn't have made her so good looking!

[rachaella]

So at some point in the past there was some desire to have sex with their own gender though, otherwise we wouldn't label Bill and Bob homosexuals, just best friends or room-mates. I think to Christians the only homosexuals who aren't sinning are those who are actively fighting against their homosexual urges. Bill and Bob have none, so have none to fight against. It is a difficult question, but seeing that Bill and Bob are contentedly living together in what seems like a happy relationship, it sounds like should Bill and Bob magically gain their libidos back, they would happily act upon their homosexual urges, thus Bill and Bob are evil sinners. That's my take on your hypothetical situation.

[Lonewulf]

Yes, god did a good job of setting up the world so that you have to commit sins by 'his' definition.

Let's face it, if god didn't want me to lust after my neighbors wife he wouldn't have made her so good looking!

"Coveting is good for the economy!" -- George Carlin

[saizai]

So at some point in the past there was some desire to have sex with their own gender though, otherwise we wouldn't label Bill and Bob homosexuals, just best friends or room-mates. I think to Christians the only homosexuals who aren't sinning are those who are actively fighting against their homosexual urges. Bill and Bob have none, so have none to fight against. It is a difficult question, but seeing that Bill and Bob are contentedly living together in what seems like a happy relationship, it sounds like should Bill and Bob magically gain their libidos back, they would happily act upon their homosexual urges, thus Bill and Bob are evil sinners. That's my take on your hypothetical situation.

Best friends and roommates don't generally love each other in the romantic kiss-cuddle-and-hold-hands sense. Bill and Bob do. They do absolutely everything you would expect from a loving long-term couple except sex and thinking about sex.

Is there anything in the bible that justifies condemning an action that is not in itself sinful, and does not in itself even make sin tempting, but that if a situation changes might then tempt one to sin?

[Myriad]

Then please clarify one more thing: are you asking Christians what their own beliefs are, or to tell you what Christian "authorities" (whatever those are) would have you believe?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jesus_freak]

Are they sinning? The answer is YES if they are kissing and holding hands I would assume that they are lusting and having sexual desires...God sees every THOUGHT word and deed.

[Lonewulf]

Best friends and roommates don't generally love each other in the romantic kiss-cuddle-and-hold-hands sense. Bill and Bob do. They do absolutely everything you would expect from a loving long-term couple except sex and thinking about sex.

Is there anything in the bible that justifies condemning an action that is not in itself sinful, and does not in itself even make sin tempting, but that if a situation changes might then tempt one to sin?

Can I speak as an atheist that assumes that he has some understanding of the topic of religion? I just want to get my thoughts down, and I'm willing to debate this or drop this as others see fit.

As far as I know, there there are a few bible entries on the subject of homosexuality. Some seem to think that homosexuals were called "dogs", but I've heard that "dogs" was a word the Israelites used for "gentiles", so I won't include those references.

1) Some passages (such as in Genesis) that make the proclamation of "Be fruitful, and Multiply" -- one of the commands of God in Genesis. Now, personally, I say that the two claims in the Bible under most question are Genesis and the Afterlife, as these two events are the hardest to prove in any way, shape, or form, thanks to lack of witnesses or secondary sources, and were obviously written "after the fact". But, ignoring that, I would also say that "Be Fruitful and Multiply" is an anachronistic phrase. It was useful for humans at the time when there weren't many people, and being fruitful and multiplying tends to give advantages to agrarian pre-industrial societies. We've moved way beyond the need for population booms, however, so "Be Fruitful" is out. Forgive me if I make the assumption that God, if He existed, would be rather forgiving on this point.

2) Sodom and Gomorrah is sometimes brought up, but that didn't have to do with homosexuality; if anything, most of the people in those two cities were bisexual, and also guilty of all sorts of nasty crimes far far worse (probably everything from pedophilia to rape to murder to whatever else). So that's out. (Out, too, goes the "Sodomite" terminology).

3) Leviticus is the main one, though. Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." So, under the passage of Leviticus, no, it is not a crime to "cuddle" with your partner, as in this terminology, "lie with" directly implies sexual activity. I'd also add that this could still be an anachronism, for much of the same reasons as paragraph 1!

I cannot think of any other (in)famous passages currently, but there was one on spilling seed... which can fall under #1, really.

I do have to say something, though. God, if he exists and is a loving God, would most likely be far more forgiving of a loving homosexual couple, whether they engage in sexual relations or not, than a rabid-mouthed homo-killing homophobe. That is, if there is any justice. If there is not, then he is not a Just god, by most societal definitions of Just.

[saizai]

Then please clarify one more thing: are you asking Christians what their own beliefs are, or to tell you what Christian "authorities" (whatever those are) would have you believe?

Either or both. I am not particularly interested in debating it here (though others are welcome to), just in teasing out the difference when you take away sex, since that's what christians always seem to monomaniacally focus on when talking about teh fags.

I will just point out when something contradicts the situation I gave or clarify it as necessary.

Can I speak as an atheist that assumes that he has some understanding of the topic of religion? I just want to get my thoughts down, and I'm willing to debate this or drop this as others see fit.

Sure; there's no faith requirement here. :)

Be fruitful, and Multiply

Bill and Bob are both completely sterile.

[saizai]

Are they sinning? The answer is YES if they are kissing and holding hands I would assume that they are lusting and having sexual desires...God sees every THOUGHT word and deed.

You assume, but I told you specifically that Bill and Bob both really don't like sex, don't want it, and aren't even capable of it if they did.

But they do like kissing and holding hands because they think it's romantic.

Cm'on, can't you get away from the sex for just a bit?

[Lonewulf]

Bill and Bob are both completely sterile.

Yes, I realize that, but it IS pertinent to the discussion of homosexuality in general, so I figured I should bring it up and use it as a starting point for my overall post.

If they were totally and completely sterile, and if medical science could have no chance of allowing them to be unsterile (which, as far as I know, modern tech does not have the capability of doing... yet!), then I'd say that the "Be fruitful and multiply" portion would be fairly useless. As well as spilling speed.

The only problem is with the Leviticus passage. However, if they do not actually commit lustful acts, then all they live with is temptation, without having actually committed the sin, whether it was within their minds or not. However, Jesus Freak brings up the idea of God seeing into your mind and Judging based on that.

In the physical, societal sense, just being tempted to kill someone is not the same as killing them. You cannot be arrested for fantasizing about throwing silicon shuriken into your coworker and beating them to death with a printer. However, one of the points of avoiding temptation is so that you lose sight of material desires, in order to pursue your love for the Divine, and to do what God wants you to do. However, I would also note that many things we do today (including eating shrimp!) were also spoken against in the Bible, so obviously we do not rigidly follow every single passage. So, under this argument of God "seeing into your mind and knowing your temptation", I would have to say that they would be just as guilty as any couple that cannot have sex while wanting to, assuming that Bob and Bill wanted to have sex; and if they did not, then they're no different than a normal couple that don't want to have sex.

They do not commit the crime of "spilling seed", the idea of "spilling seed" is anachronistic anyways, and they do not commit the physical act of making love. They just kiss and, at the worst, fantasize. I do not see how this would destroy their devotion to God (if they had it to begin with) any moreso than a heterosexual couple under the exact same circumstances.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Bill and Bob's position, going by the Bible and a not-so-literal translation of it, while taking everything in context and using a historical perspective.

[hubbub2]

As an ordained minister (ordained online, how's that for cool), I can state for the record that homosexuality without sex is not a sin.

However, homosexuality after getting your hair cut, shaving your face and wearing a cotton- polyester blend is a sin! (Really...it say so in Leviticus).

[Lonewulf]

As an ordained minister (ordained online, how's that for cool), I can state for the record that homosexuality without sex is not a sin.

??? You can get ordained online? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of ritual, or am I thinking of Catholic priests?

However, homosexuality after getting your hair cut, shaving your face and wearing a cotton- polyester blend is a sin! (Really...it say so in Leviticus).

Quote the passages! I demand it! :D

How much stock do you put in Leviticus? Or most Bible passages some use to justify judging others today?

[saizai]

Yes you can get ordained online. I'm a ULC minister too. (Almost officiated a couple friends' weddings even. :))

Even without leviticus (godhatesshrimp.com), the commandments say explicitly that you, your kids, your slaves, and town visitors aren't allowed to work on Sabbath. E.g. there's the guy who gathered wood on a sabbath and they stoned him to death. (I forget the cite on that one but you can look it up.)

But that's all irrelevant here; AFAIK leviticus only talks about men "lying with" men as they do with women (what about Jenna and Jane, who are exactly like Bill and Bob but female? do they get to have sex?), i.e. OMG TEH SEX0R!!!11!, which Bill, Bob, Jenna, and Jane don't do.

So, any other Christian perspective on the sexless queers? Scriptural or cultural, fine by me.

[slingblade]

God sees every THOUGHT word and deed.

As does Santa! Coincidence? I think so!

[cgallaga]

As does Santa! Coincidence? I think so!

But Santa is more fun at parties!

[slingblade]

He's at least a little more immediate about the whole rewards thing.

[cgallaga]

Myriad- Assume that the context is the world as it is now. You'll have to supply the definitions and judgements of "too low" or "too high" yourself, as that is not part of the setup of my question.

Please presume (like I said) that their medical problem is such that they are incapable of having sex or wanting to. And that they're 100% sterile, if that wasn't clear enough. :)

Is this a homosexual of the gaps argument? :)

[saizai]

Is this a homosexual of the gaps argument? :)

:D


No not really; just trying to get at that difference of definition as stated in the OP. The standard-psych definition includes Bill and Bob; the Christian one doesn't. But most Christians I think would still find Bill & Bob to be 'squicky' in some way and would thus try to argue that they are behaving wrongly.

So I want to get at why they believe that, by taking out the sex question and leaving it to all the other bits.

It's amazing how something that one does a maximum of, oh, 10 hours / week ;):cool: and more probably like 30 minutes / month :D affects the perception of all the rest of one's life or interactions with someone, which is usually the majority of it...

[cgallaga]

I'll try to answer the original proposition now, instead of just making bad jokes.

Christianity is a religion based on revelation and scripture. So the scipture is the basis of the method (madness?) but the continuing revelation of those who are in contact with the divine through prayer and meditation takes almost equal weight to the original scripture.

Current dogma states that acting on versus resisting the temptations presented by homosexual thought is the act of sin. It is acting in accordance with the devil rather than resisting his temptation and acting in accordance with The Christ. So even though there is no intercourse there is a homosexual thought and acts following from embracing that rather than resisting that. So all us queers, celibate but wishing, monogamous, or promiscuous, are allegedly damned to eternal hellfire unless we accept Jesus into our hearts and by basking in his love and forgiveness have all temptation removed. We must remain in this perpetual state of grace until we die, in order to be saved.

What fun!

[autumn1971]

:D


No not really; just trying to get at that difference of definition as stated in the OP. The standard-psych definition includes Bill and Bob; the Christian one doesn't. But most Christians I think would still find Bill & Bob to be 'squicky' in some way and would thus try to argue that they are behaving wrongly.

So I want to get at why they believe that, by taking out the sex question and leaving it to all the other bits.

It's amazing how something that one does a maximum of, oh, 10 hours / week ;):cool: and more probably like 30 minutes / month :D affects the perception of all the rest of one's life or interactions with someone, which is usually the majority of it...


Being married, I remember 30 minutes/month.
...sigh...

I believe that the specific situation you describe is free from any scriptural condemnation. As many have pointed out, the phrase "lie with" denotes sexual activity, and as your couple do not think of sex or physical satisfaction, they are just pals.
As to the existence of this couple, I would say they are highly speculative, but I won't attempt to to give them a definate probability.

[Lonewulf]

Yes you can get ordained online. I'm a ULC minister too. (Almost officiated a couple friends' weddings even. :))

But I thought you said you were agnostic. Did you have second thoughts? Or do you still consider yourself an actual Minister?

Even without leviticus (godhatesshrimp.com), the commandments say explicitly that you, your kids, your slaves, and town visitors aren't allowed to work on Sabbath. E.g. there's the guy who gathered wood on a sabbath and they stoned him to death. (I forget the cite on that one but you can look it up.)

Yeah, I knew about that.

[saizai]

as your couple do not think of sex or physical satisfaction, they are just pals.

Pals who kiss and cuddle and sleep together (literally) and go dancing and all that.

While I happen to know people who are liberal enough to have those be true amidst friends (and like it), I think most Christians would still see this as somehow 'homosexual' or at least "faggoty".

To put it another way:
a) is it a sin
b) is it totally clean happy OK and something we should wish them well in
c) is it something we should try to convert them away from doing

[saizai]

But I thought you said you were agnostic. Did you have second thoughts? Or do you still consider yourself an actual Minister?

Yes, no, and yes when it pleases me. ;)

The ULC doctrine - do good things and support freedom of religion - are ones I agree with. They don't require that I believe in any god, so there is conflict.

[autumn1971]

I can't answer for any of the various Christian denominations, but it seems that you have postulated a prepubescent (in behavior) couple, who only enjoy the physical contact that everyone enjoys. My son kisses me full on the lips, often with his toungue hanging out, but he is three years old. Specifiying that your couple are not interested in sex, at least in the commonly understood (do any of us really understand it?) way, makes them almost impossible to catogorize. If they truely have no desire to attain a state of sexual arousal, and have no concept of it which they are at all interested in, I think they are free and clear. Biblically speaking.

[Lonewulf]

Here's a question. If you have two cyborgs -- entirely "fake" bodies, and two human brains that function totally normally -- and they do the kissing and making out thing, does that change things? Are they still "male" or "female"? They have no reproductive processes, and in fact have forgotten what "gender" they truly feel themselves (perhaps they did some modifications to their brains, or perhaps they never really felt the need to see things as a product of gender).

Let's say that a man is born with a female "gender". He grows up, and eventually becomes a cyborg with a female body, with anatomy that allows her to have sexual contact, and "she" ends up with a guy. Does this become a heterosexual couple?

Just throwing out a couple of questions out of curiosity, me being a Transhumanist and all. I'll take it to a new thread if you feel this disrupts the current one.

[saizai]

Lonewulf - Your cyborg is unnecessary. It's amazing the things they can do with plastics nowadays. :)

So try rephrasing it to this:

Bob and Jane marry, have sex, etc.

Jane gets a sex change - her chromosomes are still XX but she looks like a male, has male genitals and hormones, presents and acts male, etc.

Is it OK for them to stay married and continue having sex?

(Remember, Yahweh doesn't like divorce.)



Next example, try a genetically and behaviorally trans/inter-gendered person (wikipedia it; yes they exist), and apply the same question.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf - Your cyborg is unnecessary. It's amazing the things they can do with plastics nowadays. :)

Actually, I feel that it adds something. The cyborgs in the first example were made to make them virtually "sexless". In the second, I was just going along with the first and continuing along that route.

You can't tell what the original sex of the original couple were. They're just within non-flesh bodies sculpted in a way that looks almost male, almost female. You couldn't tell what they were, or what "sex" they are. Is it homosexuality? Is it sinful? Even if they don't have sex?

(I'd also add that when I mention "Cyborg", I don't imagine the Borg of Star Trek, but more advanced and pleasing-to-the-eye type of bodies, an almost idealization of the human body in a ne w form. Plus, I'm writing science-fiction, and one of my settings is like a "Dante's Inferno" of the future, and has angelic cyborgs in it...).

[saizai]

Ah, I see. Good points.

You'd still be able to tell the sex; their brains would contain DNA, which in turn would show a Y chromosome or not. And there are some structural differences between male and female brains, though not enough to make a definite determination on that alone with present technology. (Unknown whether a "perfect mri machine" would be able to.)

[Mr Clingford]

No, I don't think it is sinful, whether they have sex or not.

[Beerina]

If it was some medical reason preventing them from havign sex, that implies they want to and are being stopped by an external factor. Traditional interpretation of what Jesus said is that if you don't commit a sin because you are unable for whatever reason or becuase you don't think you'd get away with it, you are culpable for said sin.

No, that doesn't count.

Remember, if thine eye offend thee, doink it out and fling it away. If thine hand offend thee, jam it in the meat slicer like that scene in Children of the Corn and heave it away.

So you can, and should physically disable ways to sin to prevent you from sinning. It's a cheap trick, but it's got the Holy Stamp of Approval(tm)!

[slingblade]

here's how I've heard it from some....remembering that Christians are not a unified group in anything, just like sane people. <--little jest, there. ;)

God hates the sin but not the sinner. Therefore, if you are gay, but never do anything remotely gay-like, you aren't sinning.

Even taking into account that nifty little passage about how lusting in one's heart is the same as actually doing the deed, blah blah, I've still heard some Xtians say this. Do nothing "gay" and you aren't a sinner.

This would make your proposed scenario sinful in the eyes of some, as there is still "gay-like" activity taking place in it.

But there can't be one answer to the poser--it's going to be the usual "for some, yes, but for others, no" type of answer.

No True Scotsman and all that.....

[Davidjayjordan]

It seems to me that there are two different definitions of "homosexuality".

Normal psychology: a general tendency towards affective, sexual, etc attraction towards people of your own gender

Christians et al: having sex with people of your own gender


So my question is this:

Suppose that Bill and Bob are a long-term gay (in the first sense) couple. They love each other, kiss, cuddle, live together, dance together, etc etc. But they never actually have sex with each other because of (insert random medical reason that prevents sex here).

Sinful or not?

If necessary to make a distinction, you can further assume that they never sleep together even in the purely platonic cuddles-and-sleep sense, but still do all the rest. (E.g. perhaps both of them need a lot of space to sprawl / shift / etc to get good sleep.)


Please ignore the possibility for them being tempted to have sex and just axiomatically say that neither is even capable of it. So just talk about the sex-free aspects of 'homosexual behavior' / affection / etc.

Please justify your response with whatever sources you consider appropriate.

Finally, I would prefer that you address both religious and pragmatic / social issues.

Have fun and play nice. :)

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/CanGaysbesaved.html

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/SinofSodom.html

[sphenisc]

Didn't Jesus say anyone who lusts has committed adultery in their heart? Sounds sinful to me.

No, he didn't.

[Davidjayjordan]

No, he didn't.

Well said, as jesus created sex and physical attraction. Without lust, we wouldn't be attracted. Adultery however is when one wants to control and dominate and possess, that is a different story than mere equal by choice sexual lust, play and sex.

[Darat]

Roman Catholic Church's views

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html


....snip....

3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

...snip...



So the couple you describe if they are homosexual are behaving in a morally unacceptable manner, if they were two heterosexual males living in the same manner it would be morally acceptable (according to the RCC of course).

[sphenisc]

Roman Catholic Church's views

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html



So the couple you describe if they are homosexual are behaving in a morally unacceptable manner, if they were two heterosexual males living in the same manner it would be morally acceptable (according to the RCC of course).

How do you you conclude that the couple are behaving in a morally unacceptable manner?

It's " the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity " which is described as morally unacceptable; they're not doing this, so I can't see how you reach that conclusion.

[Darat]

How do you you conclude that the couple are behaving in a morally unacceptable manner?

It's " the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity " which is described as morally unacceptable; they're not doing this, so I can't see how you reach that conclusion.

Well I don't the RCC does ;) it is because they are homosexuals that their actions are not neutral or good, their actions are part of their inclination which is described as "an objective disorder".

[Myriad]

So let's review, they kiss, they cuddle, they sleep together, they play and generally enjoy life together, they take care of each other. But they do not want to have sex and are not physically capable of having sex.

I have two small (female, if it matters) dogs. They lick my face. They particularly seem to relish licking my mouth, and as I'm not a germaphobe, I allow them to. I pet them. I groom them. They sleep with my wife and me in our bed. We play and generally enjoy life together. We take care of each other. (They show great concern for my welfare when strangers approach the house, and when I'm away). They're both peacefully curled up less than two feet away from me right now, despite much more comfortable resting places available one room away. But I do not want to have sex with them, and as far a I can tell, they don't want to have sex with me. (Physical capability may be within the realm of hypothetical possiblility but not without physical injury.)

I do not believe, and I don't think any sane Christian church would tell me, that as a result of the above, I am guilty of the sin of bestiality in my mind.

Your example homosexual couple, saizai, contrived as it is, appears identical to this situation in every significant respect. Ergo, not sin.

Regarding sex as fundamentally associated with "original sin" makes little sense Biblically, even if you take Genesis literally. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, before they ate the fruit. As they were sinless in Eden, there must have been a possibility of doing so sinlessly, but clearly they could not do it sexlessly. So sex per se is not a sin. But the parts about Adam and Eve's nakedness make it seem that knowledge of good and evil equates with knowledge of sexuality, and that sex somehow became inherently evil by virtue of the Fall.

In most Christian doctrine, marriage restores the "sinlessness" of sex that was lost in the fall. Adultery remains a sin by virtue of breaking a specific commandment. Pre-marital sex violates Mosaic laws, the same as eating shrimp and wearing clothing with mixed fibers, but more important is the post-fall lingering of the inherent evil of sex when unshielded ("unsanctified") by marriage. Gay sex -- well, theologians just make stuff up about it, as far as I can tell.

My own opinion of this is that most of the Bible is about ancient and largely practical social contracts rather than foundational morality. The covenant between God and mankind changed several times in the Bible, and has continued to change since. People who are at peace with God and with the world, and who follow Jesus's moral teachings to love their neighbors and enemies, easily recognize these changes, while those who are not go digging through dead text (which they themselves killed, by insisting on unchanging literalness) to justify their own failure to pay attention.

Gay sex (assuming consent, etc.) is not a sin.

Though like straight sex it can, depending on the circumstances, be in poor taste.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Lonewulf]

No, that doesn't count.

Remember, if thine eye offend thee, doink it out and fling it away. If thine hand offend thee, jam it in the meat slicer like that scene in Children of the Corn and heave it away.

So you can, and should physically disable ways to sin to prevent you from sinning. It's a cheap trick, but it's got the Holy Stamp of Approval(tm)!

Dude, that was just figurative. You know that, right? He talked in hyperbole and in parables a lot.

The idea was that to prevent yourself from sinning, remove yourself from the sin, and distance yourself away from the causes of that sin. He didn't mean to mutilate yourself.

I'm an atheist, but Jesus' sermon was interesting, if you ignore some of the hypocrisy (such as saying, "Don't call other fools -- but if you don't believe me, you are fools!" My World Literature instructor said he gets away with it 'cause he's Jesus).

However, setting up a straw man makes our arguments look bad.

[saizai]

myriad - Is your relationship with your dogs mutually romantic?

I would bet that they're not capable of it, so in that regard it's not parallel.

Other than that little (crucial) bit, it seems like a good analogy.

[qayak]

Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) described Seven Deadly Sins in his Moralia in Job.

1. Superbia Pride
2. Invidia Envy
3. Ira Anger
4. Avaritia Avarice
5. Tristia Sadness
6. Gula Gluttony
7. Luxuria Lust

The seven deadly sins are all sins of the mind (#6-debatable). So the answer is: "Yes, homosexuality is sinful without sex." However, if they do not think about sex, then they are not sinning. Of course, if they do not ever think about homosexual sex or engage in it, then they are not really homosexual are they?

(All this is according to the RCC, not my own personal view)

[saizai]

I guess the followup question is this:

Is it totally OK to have a romantic-yet-asexual relationship with anyone and everyone? Does it count as cheating? Is it something to be encouraged or discouraged? How does it mesh with the usual conservatives' condemnation of things like gay couples holding hands in public etc?

[Lonewulf]

The seven deadly sins are all sins of the mind (#6-debatable). So the answer is: "Yes, homosexuality is sinful without sex." However, if they do not think about sex, then they are not sinning. Of course, if they do not ever think about homosexual sex or engage in it, then they are not really homosexual are they?

(All this is according to the RCC, not my own personal view)

Actually, this is debated by some other organizations, that they are not the "seven deadly sins", but the seven vices. I.E., they can lead to sin, but they are not sins within themselves. So there's other viewpoints out there.

[qayak]

Actually, this is debated by some other organizations, that they are not the "seven deadly sins", but the seven vices. I.E., they can lead to sin, but they are not sins within themselves. So there's other viewpoints out there.

Yes, that would definitely change the matter wouldn't it?

[Myriad]

myriad - Is your relationship with your dogs mutually romantic?

You have to tell me. "Romantic" without any desire for, or possibility of, sex means what exactly? I was assuming something like, "mutual expression of deep affection and devotion." A normal parent-child relationship would seem to fit this description too. If not, you must tell me what "romantic" implies that "mutual expression of deep affection and devotion" leaves out, which also does not impinge on expressing a desire for or expectation of sex.

Assuming that "mutual expression of deep affection and devotion" does cover it, I'd have to say yes. I am not a dog psychic, and my dogs didn't give me any hand-crayoned valentines last week, but within the limits of observation all the evidence points in that direction. When I return from an absence, even when my wife has been with them to see to all their needs, I get a joyful greeting, followed by a very distinctive vocalization scolding me for having been away so long (they're a very "talkative" breed), followed by more joyful greeting. The emotional states driving the visible behavior are as clearly conveyed as several tens of thousands of years of dog-human co-evolution can make them.

But if the dog analogy doesn't hold up for you (some people doubt, in the face of all evidence, that dogs have e.g. "real" emotions, a kind of species-solipsism), then consider a normal parent-child relationship instead.

Normal parents and children kiss. They do not, in cultures I have knowledge of, tongue kiss. Is tongue kissing a required part of "romantic," or is it part of the "sex" that's unwanted and absent in our example, or is it optional either way? For me, I would not tongue kiss any human whom I did not regard as at least a potential sexual partner (and since I'm married, that pretty much narrows it down to one person). So for me, tongue kissing that's "romantic" but "not expressing a desire or expectation for sex" is simply an oxymoron. (Dogs have a different "culture" so I make allowances for non-sexual non-mutual mouth-licking.) Does any of this make things any clearer? Seems to me the celibate untempted gay partners scenario is getting more confusing as we go.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[qayak]

I guess the followup question is this:

Is it totally OK to have a romantic-yet-asexual relationship with anyone and everyone? Does it count as cheating? Is it something to be encouraged or discouraged? How does it mesh with the usual conservatives' condemnation of things like gay couples holding hands in public etc?

I would guess this would depend on what commitment you have made to your partner. If you agreed to love them and foresake all others, then I would say it is cheating.

However, I don't think it matters what you think when it comes to your own cheating. I think it only matters what your partner thinks about it. :D

[saizai]

myriad - are you familiar with the concept of "chivalric romance", or the various greek gradations of love?

[jesus_freak]

I guess the way I would look at this is like this...Is murder a sin without killing someone? What if I just love the idea of killing a human being and am courious to know the power it must possess to actually kill someone...But I am paralized and will never actually be able to fullfill my desires because of a medical condition, knowing full well that if I were able to physically I would do it...I am assuming that if these two fine young gentlemen were able to have sex with each other they would, just because they are unable to does not make their feelings ok.

[Lonewulf]

I guess the way I would look at this is like this...Is murder a sin without killing someone? What if I just love the idea of killing a human being and am courious to know the power it must possess to actually kill someone...But I am paralized and will never actually be able to fullfill my desires because of a medical condition, knowing full well that if I were able to physically I would do it...

I find it so funny how you're comparing murder to love.

[hubbub2]

??? You can get ordained online? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of ritual, or am I thinking of Catholic priests??

Yeah, Universal Life Church.

Quote the passages! I demand it! :D

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
(Heads have corners??!! Wouldn't heads have to be shaped like blocks to have corners...or maybe they were, dare I say it, blockheads?)

How much stock do you put in Leviticus? Or most Bible passages some use to justify judging others today?

I put no stock whatsoever in Leviticus or any religeon that uses it's holy book to judge others or to justify violence or hatred. As a matter of fact, I work with a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, however in this state, it wouldn't be legal, but I told her I'd be happy to perform a commitment ceremony (of course, I get first shot at the buffet dinner afterward).

BTW, I'm also an atheist.:jaw-dropp

[Myriad]

myriad - are you familiar with the concept of "chivalric romance"...

I'm familiar with the concept. Whether it's, as described, something that ever actually existed in the world is not clear to me. Seems like Lance and Gwen would be both a poor example of the concept and a typical example of its real-world application.

(I also had a platonic friendship for many years with my present wife. We both thought we were pretty sincere in our platonic-ness. We fooled ourselves pretty well; the only ones who saw through it were everybody else who knew either of us.)

or the various greek gradations of love?

Well, there's Discussing Comic Books, then Watching Bablyon 5 DVDs Together, then Teaming Up Online In World of Warcraft, followed by Making Matching Worldcon Costumes...

... oh, wait, you said Greek. Sorry, misunderstood. (Learn to capitalize, man!)

I don't remember the exact terminology, but I'm familiar with the concepts. There was one specifically for mother-child love, for instance. But what matters is what the partners are doing, and (hypothetically, for the "sinning in your mind" concept) what they're thinking (e.g. not about sex), not what you name it.

So again, what does our gay couple do or think that's not exhibiting or resulting from any desire for sex, that a mother and her child would not do or think, that could therefore possibly be interpreted as sinful?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[qayak]

. . . (of course, I get first shot at the buffet dinner afterward).

BTW, I'm also an atheist.:jaw-dropp

What? Are atheists not allowed to eat first? :D

[hubbub2]

What? Are atheists not allowed to eat first? :D

:dl:

[saizai]

myriad - the Greek versions are not defined in terms of behavior, but in terms of attitude. And that's the point of the distinction I was trying to get at.

[Davidjayjordan]

Yes, god did a good job of setting up the world so that you have to commit sins by 'his' definition.

Let's face it, if god didn't want me to lust after my neighbors wife he wouldn't have made her so good looking!

Your second statement has excellent insights, even if you didn;t know it BOB. Your first one might taker a bit of discernment, as his sins are not the church sins, as the two are usually very very different.

The church makes sex almost always a sin, unless under their control and domination in their type of marriage. But real sin is done in the heart and then comes out in actions.

[Davidjayjordan]

Interestingly, sex can be discussed HERE. And it will be truly interesting, to see false skeptics deny that sex is good. They deny everything else, so this is an eye opener of a thread

[cyborg]

Sex is bad.

Wouldn't want to disappoint you now would I?