Homosexual Behavior Is Immoral

We both agree that any type of sexual behavior outside of marriage is immoral. However, that is where our agreements end, as I hold homosexual behavior to be immoral under every circumstance. Con's most recent argument appears to be that the traditional Christian understanding of homosexual behavior is outdated, given that modern sociology has shown that loving homosexual relationships are possible. Unfortunately, that a relationship can be loving does not imply that it is morally permissible -- mere love does not make something right. Paul, even if he were confronted with modern observations about loving homosexual couples, would still maintain that homosexuality was wrong. This is because his rationale was not that homosexuality was wrong because of _sociological_ matters, but because of _theological_ matters -- it violated God's original design plan. Indeed, Jesus himself agreed with Paul that God intended sex to be between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4). Con's statement that "Paul and Jesus disagreed about the union between men and women" is thus simply false. Moreover, Jesus himself indirectly condemned homosexuality. How? Jesus believed himself to be God (It doesn't matter if you agree that he was God) -- the same God who delivered the Old Testament scriptures condemning homosexuality. Thus, though Jesus never expressed it explicitly, he was critical of homosexuality. Let me also note in passing that Con has not responded to the Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality, which carry over to the NT, nor my arguments from general revelation. Quite a bit of emphasis seems to be placed on love, as if it is what makes homosexual relationships permissible. However, love, in and of itself, tells us nothing about whether or not an activity is moral. Indeed, what about incest, polygamy, pedophillia, pederasty, etc...? Surely these acts are immoral, yet there exists loving relationships under which some of these acts take place. Indeed, organizations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Organization argue that some of the former practices should be legalized because some of the individuals involved love each other. As Bill Stepp has said, "God _accepts_ you the way you are, but he loves you too much to _leave_ you the way you are." [1] Even granting the fact that some people are born gay (The research is still quite speculative), it doesn't make homosexuality acceptable. Suppose that one day we discovered a gene which predisposed some people to violently axe-murder others. Suppose further that when caught, an axe-murder argues that he did nothing wrong because "That's the way I was born!" Would you accept that as a legitimate defense?? Surely not. Now, I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to axe-murdering. Rather, my point is that if we justify something based on natural inclination, then we can also justify a host of other immoral activities on the same basis. Moreover, sincerity does not make something acceptable. The Christian believes that in the beginning, God created everything good. Unfortunately, man's sin has resulted in the corruption of creation, of which homosexuality was a result. One must also note that the Bible does not condemn homosexual inclinations, but homosexual _behavior_. Thus, even if one was "born" gay, he is not condemned by God for having homosexual inclinations (Indeed, everyone is predisposed to sin, per the fall). "We're ALL twisted in one way or another by the fall; we're not what God meant for us to be spiritually, psychologically, sexually, physically, or mentally. However, that doesn't mean that we should ACT according to our damaged inclinations." [2] Simply because gay Christians are sincere or unable to change their inclinations does not therefore imply that their actions are acceptable. Similarly, we're all unable to change our sin inclinations, but on the Christian tradition, this does not mean that mean we all get a free ticket to heaven. Rather, we should try our very best not to act on these inclinations. In closing, I want to note several things. First, as we are both Christians, this debate should be judged on the basis of arguments from special and general revelation, with special revelation taking incumbency. Second, note that Con's position is that "homosexual behavior engaged whilst in a monogamous, homosexual union is not immoral." This means that not only must Con establish that homosexual behavior is moral, but that homosexual _marriage_ is also permissible. However, Con has failed to do so both on the grounds of special and general revelation. Indeed, it's virtually impossible for it to be justified on the former basis, both because marriage is explicitly intended to be heterosexual (In Genesis, reaffirmed by Jesus & Paul), and because a homosexual marriage cannot be consummated. [3] Space considerations do not allow me to elaborate on the latter, so please see my source. Sources: See comments