Is being gay a sin?
What I understand after reading some arguments
Sin is anything that separates us from God. Loving someone, without interfering in the life of another (as would be the case in adultery or fornication), does not separate us from God. There is no evil action in LOVING someone; why would God be angry about that?
The biblical passages used to prove that "homosexuality is a sin" have complicated translations, with interpretations to be taken into account.
Leviticus 18:22 — You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 — If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
"You shall not lie with a male" is quite clear in its meaning. But if the intention was to condemn homosexuality, wouldn't that phrase be sufficient? "If a man lies with a male, both of them have committed an abomination [...]" would give us a very objective rule. But “as with a woman" narrows the scope of the phrase. It is possible that the verses are condemning a specific type of homosexuality, since these phrases seek to specify the type of relationship. The Hebrew word shows where one can’t lie: in a woman’s bed. One of the possible meanings would be “do not lie with a man who’s a partner of a woman.” That would be adultery between men, as the law had stated before that adultery was committed after taking another woman, and perhaps they’ve found a loophole in the law by taking another man.
1 Corinthians 6:10 — Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 — Knowing this, that the law is not made for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
The Greek word that has been translated as "sodomites" or "homosexuals" is arsenokoitai. This word does not have a certain meaning and there are no other sources to compare it to, because Paul invented it by mixing the terms "arsenos," men, and "koiten," in bed; both were used in Leviticus 18:22, which, as explained, has an ambiguous meaning and is difficult to understand without cultural basis.
In 1 Timothy, the word "arsenokoitai" is used between the terms "pornois", sexually immoral, and "andrapodistais", kidnappers and/or slave traders. Following the context of the words, it is possible that "arsenokoitai" refers to a group of sexually immoral people, or prostitutes, or those who use male prostitutes.
Furthermore, the Greek words for a male couple are generally "erastēs" and "erōmenos". Paul could have used these words, but chose to create a new one. This suggests that Paul was not referring to the common male couple seen in his society, but rather to men who practice abusive sex, sexual exploitation, including the kidnapping of young men for sexual use.
Finally, Josephus and Philo, Greek-speaking Jews, discussed Sodom, believing they were punished for homosexuality, but they did not use the term "arsenokoitai". Therefore, it becomes complicated to assume that the word means solely homosexuality in general.
Romans 1:25-27 — For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:18-32 speaks of injustice and idolatry among the Gentiles. "Because of this" implies that the sexual behavior occurred because of idolatry, because they ignored God, because they did not worship Him. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the concept of homosexuality did not exist at that time. Sexual practices between the same gender were generally between slave and master, young boys and adult men, where there was no love but rather a forced relationship. Therefore, Paul probably did not have in mind a consensual relationship between people who love each other and worship the one true God, as we can observe today.
And if we talk about "natural use," in 1 Corinthians 11:14 it is not natural to have long hair, while Leviticus 19:27 says, "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." So what is natural depends on society and time. As mentioned above, homosexual relationships were not seen as natural because they were violent and not loving; it is not something that God approves of regardless of sexuality. But now same-sex relationships exist and can be as loving as heterosexual ones, just as they can also have the same problems in the relationship. This is a matter of character, not sexuality.
Judges 19:22b — [...] Saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may abuse him.”
Genesis 19:5 — And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who saw you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
It is obvious that the sin portrayed here is sexual abuse, and not homosexuality itself. If we replaced “man” with “woman”, the sin would still be the same. The sex of the victims would not alter the gravity of the situation. The violence and lack of love in that place angered God, as Ezekiel 16:49-50 says, specifying the sins of Sodom: "Pride and abundance of food and idleness were in her and her daughters; but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. They were arrogant and committed abominations before me."
If this reinterpretation of the verses bothers someone, then let's look at the following verses that have also been reinterpreted or disregarded over time:
Leviticus 7:23 — do not eat the fat of oxen, sheep, or goats
Leviticus 11:5-8 — do not eat rabbit, hare, or pork
Leviticus 12:3 — circumcision
Leviticus 19:3,30, Deuteronomy 5:12 — keep the Sabbath
Leviticus 19:19b — do not wear clothing made of mixed fabrics
Leviticus 19:27 — do not cut your hair (for men)
Leviticus 24:20 — "Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth"
1 Corinthians 11:5,6 — women should wear a veil when praying or prophesying
1 Corinthians 14:34,35 — women should be silent in churches
1 Timothy 2:9-15 — more instructions for women
Most of it concerns beliefs and customs of the time, which brings us to believe that some things in the Bible have meanings tied to the people of that time, and therefore do not apply to our society today. I believe this is the case with homosexuality, since the behavior at the time was seen as violent, idolatrous, etc. But if there is still resistance, then I’d recommend that we follow the Bible in its entirety, including the verses cited above; would we be able to do it in our society?
Regarding renunciation, I believe that God would not allow this feeling in human beings simply to contain it. "For every creature of God is good, and there is nothing to reject" 1 Timothy 4:4.
1 Corinthians 7:7-9 implies that some are not called to marriage (like Paul), but those who are, should marry. So if a homosexual has the desire to marry, it is better that they marry than sin. Or would you prefer that the person deprive themselves of marriage and live in sadness? Or what about marrying someone they don't truly love, lying to themselves, to another person, and to God, causing harm to the other person, living a terrible relationship, or even a divorce? Or what about not marrying and living the sin of fornication, far from God? None of these options seem good compared to the obvious one: homosexuals marry, living in communion with God, happy with Christ and doing good. And I stand with John 4:24, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” Could one worship God truthfully if they can’t be honest even to themselves?
If we talk about not reproducing, we have Jesus saying that not everyone can receive this word, such as eunuchs (infertile men), and teaching the Jews that they should not judge them (Matthew 19:12). The custom of the time said that a person only had prestige in society if they left descendants on earth, but Isaiah 56:4,5 comforts them by saying that God himself will give them a name that will never be erased. So, not reproducing does not anger God. If it were just about anger, contraceptive methods, condoms, infertile people, and people who have decided not to have children—all of them would be going to hell equally.
Also keeping in mind that adoption is a way to preserve the family legacy. "But the child will grow up traumatized!" Again, this is a matter of character, not sexuality. A child can grow up without a father after he abandons the family; the parents can create a hostile environment for their development, making them a person without any emotional structure. This can happen in both homosexual and heterosexual scenarios. To think that the environment is suitable for the child just because there is a father and a mother, and to think that the environment is harmful to the child just because there are two fathers or two mothers is a misguided thought, knowing that there are diverse forms of families in society. A biological mother and an adoptive mother (without being related) can raise a child at the same time, a single mother or father, uncles, grandparents, etc. There is no reason to be hostile to homosexual families for being different. If the parents are Christians, the child will indeed grow up on the right path, serving God and recognizing His great love.
"But the child will be influenced to turn homosexual!" No one turns homosexual; it's something inherent in a person. If influence was the case, a large portion of homosexuals would be "influenced" to be heterosexual because heterosexual couples are everywhere. What differentiates a homosexual household from a heterosexual one is that the child will grow up knowing they are safe and loved regardless of who they love—which makes it easier to detect homosexual feelings, should they arise. And should they not arise, it is also the duty of the family to support heterosexual feelings and relationships (or the lack thereof, as in the case of Paul).
That’s what I could understand and write about. Please, let me know if there’s something you agree or disagree with; I’m trying hard not to be biased :)
