Homosexuality is a Sin

Homosexuality is not a sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin. Both are innate orientations as intrinsic to human beings as hair color and right or left handedness. Today's science unveils that one's sexuality is NOT chosen, and many factions such as the Catholic denomination agrees, as outlined in their Catechism. Even Focus on the Family leader (a Christian group vocally opposed to homosexuality) declares, "We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions" [1]. In other words, God makes everyone in His likeness and image; because people can't choose their orientation, than they are perfect just as God made them. Additionally, it is important to note the ways in which the Christian Church's attitude toward human sexuality was very negative for awhile, but has since changed. For instance, the Church used to view sex as only for procreation, not for pleasure; women and slaves were considered property to be owned by males; and many expressions of heterosexuality, like homosexuality, were considered sinful [2]. That is simply not the case today. Just as the Church has changed its views on things like whites being superior to blacks, etc., it's changed its close-minded views based on prejudice in other areas as well. Sins can be described as being offenses to God. Christians derive their concept of sin from what the Bible says. Because the Bible never condemns committed, faithful, non- cultic same sex relationships, Bible believing Christians should not label homosexuality as sin. What many presume to be homosexuality in the Bible is not homosexuality at all. Instead, what the Bible describes in the "clobber passages" is actually cultic pagan worship of the fertility goddess. Because the Bible in context does not support their presuppositions, those who oppose gays and lesbians habitually take verses out of context to "prove" their argument [3]. Moreover, let's take a look at what some theologians have to say about further analysis of Bible interpretation [2]: "The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background." -- Robin Scroggs, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. "One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament, Perkins School of Theology, Dallas. "A close reading of Paul's discussion of homosexual acts in Romans 1 does not support the common modern interpretation of the passage. Paul did not deny the existence of a distinction between clean and unclean and even assumed that Jewish Christians would continue to observe the purity code. He refrained. However, from identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code." -- William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of Pacific, Berkeley. "The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this has been 'against nature.' Two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasure. The second possibility is that physis refers to the 'nature' of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to have homosexual relations." -- John J. McNeill, Adjunct Professor of Psychology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. "The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters." -- John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University, New Haven. As you can see, the word of the Bible can not and should not be taken at face value; there is a lot of new research being done exposing the invalidity of the idea that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible. Further, perhaps most frustratingly of all, most people overlook the reality that the Bible quotes - even the ones that my opponent have cited - never blatantly criticize homosexuality. Instead, they they condemn LYING WITH A MAN i.e. engaging in homosexual activity -- not being homosexual. This fact alone entirely negates the resolution and my opponent's case. Rev. Dan Johnson of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church in Edina, MN said it best: "The half-dozen biblical references to homosexuality do not reflect what we understand today about loving relationships. This is an identity, not a sin." There are some progressive theists like American Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach who note, "Homosexuality and sodomy are not ethical sins. No one is being hurt, no one is being cheated, nobody's rights are being infringed upon. Homosexuality is a religious sin, analogous to other Biblical prohibitions, like not eating the carcass of a dead animal, or not sleeping with a woman during her menstrual cycle." In other words, a lot of what the Bible says is outdated. People tend to pick and choose what they adhere to in the Bible and consider sins, and what they don't. William Sloane Coffin, former chaplain of Yale University notes, ""In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia" [4]. One should also note that many cite the book of Leviticus detailing the Bible's condemnation of homosexual behavior, which reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination" (18:22, KJV). However, the book of Leviticus says all kinds of things. For instance, such as "I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that wastes the eyes...Then if you walk contrary to me and will not hearken me, I will bring more plagues upon you... I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children... You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. And I will... cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols..." (Leviticus 26:14-30). Now Christians have made all kinds of excuses and tried to reconcile or even dismiss horrible Bible passages such as this. However, why can't we try to interpret or excuse other passages condemning Homosexuality from the same book? You can't pick and choose what to accept from the Bible and what not to accept, or what is open for interpretation and what isn't. However, facts are facts: the Bible never condemns homosexuality, only homosexual behavior. Now, I could go on and and on and on arguing my opponent's point, but since I have already negated the resolution, I'll just send this debate back to Pro for now. [1] http://www2.focusonthefamily.com... [2] http://www.uis.edu... [3] http://www.opposingviews.com... [4] http://www.religioustolerance.org...