Skip to comments.Why Is Homosexuality Bad in Itself?
Posted on 02/17/2014 2:47:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer. I'm not suggesting that the Scripture doesn't give us insight. I think it does, and I'm going to offer that, but I'm not convinced the answer is going to be satisfying to a lot of people because most have lost the ability to recognize the significance of teleology.
Teleology is a theological and philosophical term referring to the purpose things were made for. Things are made with a telos, or an end, in view. For example, thumbs are made for grasping, eyes are made for seeing, and ears are made for hearing. Of course, if evolution is true, there is no teleology. If the Darwinian story is true, there are no purposes. Instead, there's just a mechanistic characterization of the biological world; things work a certain way, but not for any reason or to any end.
On a the theistic worldview things are the way they are for a reason. There are certain ends God has in mind for things. I'm thinking of Frank Beckwith's comment, Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn't make it food. There's a certain purpose for food, and it is tied to the design of human bodies. Just because you can get something into your stomachan ashtray, for exampledoesn't mean you're eating food. This is all part of the notion of teleology.
So the first problem here is that teleology in the natural realm is hard for people to affirm.
Secondly, people do not want to acknowledge God's appropriate role in the world. Every created thing is a result of God acting, willing it into existence. If God makes something, then it belongs to Him. He has appropriate authority over everything He has made, which is everything. Therefore, He can make things for ends that suit Him. Those ends are the proper and right ends, and a disregard of those ends results in something that's not right, not the way God wanted, and not what He made it for.
The answer I'm going to give about homosexuality trades on these two notions. First, things are made for certain ends. Second, the one who made them has the final say on what the appropriate endsor purposesare. Both of those things make modern man uneasy because he wants to be the center of the show. He doesn't want to acknowledge someone else is in charge. Man wants autonomy, the liberty to use things as he pleases, regardless of what God had in mind.
This brings us to the issue of homosexuality. There are passages in the Old Testament and in the New Testament that give us some indication of what is really wrong with homosexuality from God's perspective.
Leviticus 18:22 says that when a man lies with a man as a man lies with a woman, it's an abomination. The verse is sandwiched between prohibitions of bestiality and prohibitions of child sacrifice. Both bestiality and child sacrifice are not what God intended of human beings. Children were not made to be sacrificed to idols. Animals were not designed to be the sexual partners of humans. In the same way, if a man sleeps with a man the way he's supposed to sleep with a woman, it violates the purposethe teleologyGod had in mind when he created human sexuality. When we take what God has made and use it in a way completely inconsistent with Gods purpose, that is a rejection of God himself. That's why I think Leviticus 18 is worded the way it is.
Now, lets fast-forward to Romans in the New Testament. We find the same thing going on, but the language is more precise. In my Bible Ive highlighted certain words in the second half of chapter one: the word "exchanged" in verse 23, "God gave them over" in verse 24, "exchanged" in verse 25, "God gave them over" in verse 26, underneath that "exchanged," and "God gave them over" in verse 28.
This is a passage about God being angry at human beings who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Some of the truth they're suppressing is that things were made to be used in a certain way, according to God's desire. Man didn't follow Gods purpose, though, but rather exchanged and, therefore, perverted. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible men, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored. So they exchange, and then God gives them over to this depravity.
Verse 25: For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions. What degrading passions is He talking about? For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way the men also abandoned [note the parallel here with exchanged] the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their persons the due penalty of their error. The next verse: God gave them over to a depraved mind.
Here are human beings exchanging their desires for God's intentionsGod's telosso God gives them over to that. He removes grace from them and they get worse and worse and worse. This is the condition of humankind. Homosexuality is given as an example of mans rebellion against Gods designs.
I want to read the passage once again because you can hear in this verse the same concept we saw in Leviticus, yet with more clarity. Leviticus seems to be saying that its wrong when a man lies with a man the way he ought to lie with a woman. I inserted the word ought here, but I think its implied. In Romans, though, it can't be missed: For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnaturalthat is, they're doing with women what they should be doing with menand in the same way, the men abandoned the natural function of the woman.
Notice what's being abandoned here: the function of the woman. God gave the man a woman for the sexual function, but he's exchanging the woman for a man. They abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another. Consequently, these acts are described as indecent, a degrading passion, unnatural, characteristic of a depraved mind. Those are all words Paul uses to describe the behavior.
The simple answer to why homosexuality itself is bad is because it is a perversion of Gods provision regarding a deep and profound aspect of the created order. God made things one way because He's in charge. He created the world to function a certain way. There's teleology, a purpose to it, and when the purpose is fulfilled it's a beautiful thing.
Instead, human beings took the truth of God, suppressed it and exchanged it for a lie. So God gave them over to degrading passions in which they exchange the sexual function of the opposite sex for same-sex sexual behavior.
I understand theres a psychological reason some people have same-sex attraction. It's a gender confusion that develops under certain circumstances thats inconsistent with the way God intended people to function sexually.
However, all sin is similar to homosexuality in that it is a temptation and a desire to do what is contrary to God's purpose. The response should be the same as for any other kind of sin. We should stand against it, but instead we love it, at least in the moment, because it brings us satisfaction. We are driven to sin because we're fallen.
Romans is a book that records an argument by Paul about the human condition and what God has done to rescue us from it. Paul's point in Romans 1 is that human beings are desperately lost. All humansnot just homosexualssuppress the truth and righteousness. The human condition is universally rebellious: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them. God made it evident to them, for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes of his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse.
Given God's revelation and man's response of rebellion, no one has an excuse. This is the case Paul is making in the first three chapters of Romans. Everybody, the heathen, the Jew, the so-called moral man, are all condemned. Paul concludes this point in chapter 3 when he writes, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world become accountable to God.
Homosexuality is wrong because it perverts the good purposes of God. This is true of all sin, though, and Romans makes it clear that each of us is guilty in our own way, even if our sin is not homosexuality.
It is unnecessary, a leisure time activity. If there are 100 people in the world, and people would need to mate to survive and proliferate, same-sex pairs are not part of the solution.
That, and other reasons. I always wonder if these threads get monitored by outside folks.
Good article. To a large extent, the teleological argument follows exactly what Paul says in Rom. 2.
Without regard to biblical perspective, I find it disgusting and sick.
“Why Is Homosexuality Bad in Itself?”
Religion need not be mentioned when answering that question:
It is bad because it is not reproductive, period, and an end to the argument liberals use by attacking the religious angle.
Queers are queer but they become unqueer to make babies.
So let's extrapolate ... how much value does life have after 2 or 3 generations of ... "Ohhh .. OK ... if I HAF to" ?
By the fourth or fifth generation their 'society' would have to deal with diseased kids that just don't come out right physically and would probably be sterile by gen 10.
OK ... now .. I made that all up ... but it looks right to me.
RE: It is bad because it is not reproductive
Not sure if this is a good counter argument.
Artificial Insemination and Surrogate Motherhood and adoption could solve this problem today.
I don’t care about what homosexuals do.
I care about homosexuality being used as a front to let the State control the legitimacy of marriage, that is only valid between two human beings and God.
I care about homosexuality being used as a front to violate prepubescent childhood, and stress adolescence even more by demanding equivalent time and consideration of someting that affects less than 2% of the population.
I care about homosexuality being used to support the acceptance of unlawful, vicious, irrational cruel and terrorizing political correctness.
I care about homosexuality being used to attack Christian soul teachings, while ignoring the literal murderousness of Islam for the same cause.
And most of all, I care about homosexuality being used to front collectivism and the destruction of human rights and freedom, by mocking those rights and freedoms as being deficient unless they are used to destroy the very foundation of the Constitution on behalf of tyrannies which, historically, have slaughtered homosexuals immediately upon gaining power - before moving on to slaughter or enslave everyone else.
Finally, I am just sick of hearing about sex and politics all the time, by morons who don’t understand either, and who are serving the purposes of slithering creatures who plan on having eating their livers for lunch, with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
“The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer.”
Really? Just look at it, and its consequences.
If that’s not easy, I don’t know how you manage to get dressed in the morning.
But it's a classic case of people not seeing what they don't want to see.
“Homosexuality is wrong because it perverts the good purposes of God. This is true of all sin, though, and Romans makes it clear that each of us is guilty in our own way, even if our sin is not homosexuality.”
That is grotesquely deceptive.
Some sins are worse than others, and homosexuality is up there right near the top. Far above consensual fornication.
Why did the country and cities and businesses ever offer benefits to married couples to begin with? It was for the sake of the high potential for the vulnerable members, in fact the intended offspring or offspring by design, as in children. (A subtle reason this gets obscured today is due to the loss of the full-time homemaking mother, which is arguably necessary for vibrant offspring.) To offer any special care for a member of a union that isn’t in existence for that end is folly and huge squandering of resources as well as a mammoth endorsement for highly self-centered (and perverted) activity.
Any human being that defines himself/herself by their sexuality is a fool. We are more than our sexual impulses. My first reaction is always: I don’t care!
These are the same arguments lefties make against smoking. If states can outlaw or restrict smoking based on this without violating the Equal Protection Act, why can't those who want to preserve marriage do the same on homosexuality?
Truthfully, homosexuality, along with several other practices, like prostitution, may have a biological purpose.
That is, that there are only a limited number of people who are optimal for having and raising children. And there are also people who are sub-optimal, but are also able to have and raise children, either as alternates or to enlarge the genetic pool. But those people that remain, our biology dictates, should not have nor raise children.
However, this does not mean that they are not compelled to want sex. Yet this becomes a problem for the optimal and even sub-optimal breeding couples, because unless they are distracted, the non-breeders will interfere with the breeders.
So, to distract the non-breeders, the human species may use homosexuality, non-procreative prostitution, post-menopausal sexuality, and who knows what other techniques.
Importantly, homosexuality is not unique to the human species, so with observation and genetic analysis, we should be able to determine if the theory is correct.
HIV, rectal cancer, rectal lesions, tears or collapsed sphincters just to mention a few.
If those aren't enough reasons, you are totally sold out to Satan!
If only He had put warning labels on stupid humans.”WARNING!!use of this product in a manner inconsistant with the Creator’s original intention is a crime and will be punished accordingly”.
It’s intrinsically sexist.
It’s not diverse.
That's it? That's a terrible counter-argument.
Frankly, without using the Bible, I don't think there really is much of a counter-argument. However, if one doesn't give a damn what the Bible says about this topic (or any other one), then it's also a terrible counter-argument. Since so few in this country seem to care about the Bible or God, it stands to reason why we're losing on this issue rather handily, and, I believe, will continue to do so.
The very act exceeds design tolerances. Only a moron would engage in a continual act that results in self destruction in the short term.
Short summary: Mental disorder.
Really? Mental illness is not bad in itself? Aids is not a bad thing? Other diseases are not bad things? Disintegration of society morals is not a bad thing?
I agree. When we use the bible or religion as the main source of evidence to back an argument, I think we lose because political correctness has indoctrinated people shut off and not listen. We’re just a bunch of stupid bible pounders after all.
When trying to wake people up, I think we need to talk in secular terms to argue our points. And unfortunately on the gay issue we don’t have much of a non religious argument.
Well, there’s at least ONE culturally important “problem”.
You’ll find it mentioned in this short video:
WOMAN’S LIB AND ISLAM
But it's a classic case of people not seeing what they don't want to see.
Read Genesis 38 up through verse 26 to see how YHvH made it whole.
The story of Onan has only to do with his failing to obey YHvH's shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
levitical marriage( Deuteronomy 25:5-6) i.e. marrying his brothers's
widow in order to provide progeny.
Read Genesis 38 up through verse 26 to see how YHvH made it whole.
While not perfect, I thought this was a pretty good article. It’s not exhaustive - but states some good points. I think the author would agree with the posts here stating all the bad things that go along with the homosexual life style - and how destructive that life style is. But I think what he meant by saying, The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer, is that our current culture would not find these arguments enough (at least, I hope that’s what is going on). The Bible does seem to indicate that some sins are worse than others (those done with the body vs those done without, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). But the unregenerate human heart, separated from a living relationship with the Creator, will pervert one or more of the human appetites with destructive consequences. James talks a lot about this. Romans seems to teach that God punishes sin with more sin. If you do not repent after some warnings/time, he allows you to go deeper and deeper into it. Next, seems to be the giving over to a depraved mind and heart. At some point, and I don’t know where that is, you are beyond repentance and given over to a depraved mind and heart. At that place, no argument from Scripture or the medical community or any other source will change your mind. Like Sodom, destruction and judgement are all that are left. Welcome to the new America. I’m afraid that’s where we are as a nation or at least headed strongly in that direction. The Scriptures warns about a time in the Last Days when men will no longer listen to sound doctrine but will heap unto themselves teachers that will teach what their itching ears long to hear. Are we there yet? I think we are.
"What he DID was evil in the sight of the Lord, and He killed him."
"It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime" (Calvin's Commentary on Genesis, vol. 2, part 16).
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to herthat is, he lies with her and copulatesand, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him" (Luther's Commentary on Genesis)
The Protestant scholar Charles Provan listed over a hundred Protestant founders or leaders in every major wing of (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) who condemned the use of contraception, calling it a sinful act (Provan, 1989, The Bible and Birth Control). Why the change in Protestant Biblical interpretation over the last 80 years or so?
Both dreary kinds of unnatural sex --- gay intercourse and contracepted intercourse---- are being justified by the same form of erroneous argument: a rejection of Natural Law so that we don't draw the line at unnatural forms of intercourse; and a relativizing of Scripture so that its teachings are not applied to the deviancies accepted by ourselves and our friends in our particular milieu..
He had vaginal sex with his brother’s wife (his brother died and he was supposed to be her husband and get her pregnant with a male child), but if he did he would lose all his brother’s possessions because she could leave with all the livestock brought with her plus all that had been born since. So he withdrew and ejaculated upon the floor. His sin was disobedience to the law, depriving her of her freedom and greed.
For one thing, the human race would die out. I figure that’s a point that both the religious and the non-religious can agree upon.
RE: For one thing, the human race would die out.
Well, the gays will tell you that with artificial insemination technology, surrogate motherhood and adoption, that need not happen ( Not that I support their lifestyle, but still... )
God certainly gave us the sacrament of marriage to keep us “safer”, less sinfull, whatever you want to call it. A faithfull marriage keeps you good, children really give you a greater sense of motivation and reason to be responsible.
I have seen too many otherwise good decent men, simply unable to have committed relationships because they have been single too long. They become jaded, selfish, have habits contrary to a committed relationship.
I’m sure the same applies to women. Throw in porn and you have a BIG problem. Sex addiction is an epidemic. Many men who finally get treatment are concerned with the fact that they loathe homosexuality but it becomes the only thing that does the job.
Homosexuality is full of sex addiction, drugs, dysfunction, abuse, and a non stop party lifestyle. The nice little homosexual couple is a myth. I have NEVER heard a homosexual couple grow old together.
So from what I have seen, God was right all along. Any sexual deviance hetero or homo is a slippery slope. Porn is a serious addiction and is devastating families.
Please read the entire chapter for understanding. YHvH has no ordinance against contraception
If you rip a verse out of context and torture shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
it long enough it will yield anything you wish.
except be "fruitful and multiply".
Please read the entire chapter for understanding.
YHvH has no ordinance against contraception
One was a sin of omission (what Onan didn't do): he didn't impregnate Tamar. This was selfishness and disobedience.
The other was an act of commission (what he DID do): he perverted the act of intercourse by an intentional act of contraception.
Scripture says that "What he DID was evil in the sight of God, and so He killed him."
There is another provision known as halizah (Deuteronomy 25:9-10), which decrees that if a man refuses to carry out this duty, the woman must spit in his face -- in the presence of the town elders --- and remove one of his shoes. He is then to be called "this shoeless one'. This shows that a brother-in-law could opt out of Levirate marriage, and suffer no more than a public shaming.
In other words, mere failure to carry out the Levirate duty did not entail the dealth penalty --- far from it.
What aroused God's wrath was that other thing Onan did: performed a perverted act of contraception.
And that was how all of Christianity --- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant --- saw it until the Anglicans approved contraception at their decennial Lambeth Conference in 1930.
Was all of Christendom wrong for almost 2 millennia, until God vouchsafed to the Anglicans in 1930 that, really, He was OK with what Onan did?
The significance of this is explained here: #38
The text has to be read carefully. Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.. What you are suggesting is that since Onan withdrew in time so that Tamar could not conceive, that means that the very same identical act is always a sinful one in all circumstances. I dont believe that you can read that into the text. The act that Onan withdrew from was related to a very specific provision made referred to as the Levirate Law
this special provision is found in Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. The sin here is very simply that Onan refused to obey the law, God knew why and as it states, He was displeased and killed Onan.
It proves my point. He could have just refused. Onan instead lied to the entire Nation. Why did YHvH slay Er ? Why did YHvH punish Judah ? How did YHvH continue the progeny ?
Thank you for the link. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Why did Judah kept back Shelah
from providing progeny ?
This despite Judah's sin of not providing
Shelah to Tamar to provide progeny ?
It proves my point.
He could have just refused.
Onan instead lied to the entire Nation.
Why did YHvH slay Er ?
Why did YHvH punish Judah ?
How did YHvH continue the progeny ?
But in those cases they’re still reproducing heterosexually, i.e, a sperm from a male with an egg from a female.
because it tears the rectal wall?
because it doesn’t bring forth life?
because it spreads disease?
I think that you make a good point and to be fair, the text may not be all that clear. Heres another explanation for why the death penalty was incurred in this instance. The shaming that you refer to as addressed in Deuteronomy 25: 9 and 10 is for the man who refuses to do his duty at all .He essentially makes it clear right up front that he wants to have no part of it. However, I think that we can all agree that scripture makes absolutely no provision for a brother to be boinking his sister-in-law or for that matter, anyone who is not ones lawful wife with this one very narrow exception of Levirate marriage which comes into being after a husbands death for the purpose of raising an heir. To be clear about it, that is not what Onan did .there is no record of him standing up and saying I want no part of this Levirate marriage. I refuse to go along with this law .In essence, what he did was far worse. He decided that he would make it LOOK like he was doing his duty by going along with the Levite marriage, he did in fact boink his sister-in-law but by then by pulling out at the last minute, he would still avoid the consequences of his sister-in-law getting pregnant. This is in fact a case where disobeying the law is a sin but making it look like you are obeying the law when all the while you are purposing to boink your sister-in-law with no consequences AND a scheme to circumvent the outcome, is a far worse sin. Onan was not killed for performing a perverted act of contraception. He was killed for many many other reasons . You could even say that adultery was one of the reasons. Why? Because since he had purposed in his heart to negate the express reason why the Levirate law was created, he was simply committing adultery with one exception . Normally it takes two for adultery but in this case, it only took one since Tamar was innocent. You could even say that this was a form of rape since there is no record that Tamar agreed to have sex with her brother in law except for this one specific purpose of being impregnated as allowed by the law. What this story shows above all is how God views sex .. in a word, a holy act that has to be done his way. But this story is not a statement or lesson about contraception at all.
Heres a similar case for you in scripture
. Acts 5: 1 to 10 is the story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira who sold a bunch of land. They gave the money to the apostles and claimed that they had given it all when in fact they kept some back for themselves. Both of them were killed. What was the sin? Was it the fact that they kept some back? Absolutely not
. if they had of gone to the apostles with the money and said right from the outset that here is all we can give you
we need to keep some for ourselves for one reason or another, everything would have been fine. The sin wasnt in what Ananias and wife Sapphira did
it was in the pretences and sin that were involved with how they executed it.
Yes, but talking about the fact that there even possibly could be drug use issues, STD issues, etc. is considered hateful. Yet it’s totally fine for me to criticize religious beliefs that are statistically harmless. That’s the real problem I have, not neccessarily with people who are homosexual, per se, but the people with power who push around that it’s all about the threat of some Christian bomber, when the threat of a jihadist, especially overseas, is a lot worse. Or when people talk about how much I should be worried about the threat to my health from eating some fatty food, when, should I do something improper sexually, it could hurt me,and/or could hurt others seriously if an STD spread, but then again, people don’t want to talk about improper copulation that can cause bleeding, because that would be offensive to homosexuals as hateful. It’s pretty much nowadays you live a lie, or get relegated to the garbage bin.
Good point. In fact, if some other form of intimacy was used, a good majority of the health risks would be eliminated.
Only problem with this argument is that
1) Those who are homosexual can either donate sperm or receive an artificial insemination.
2) Only really comprise 2 percent of the population, so the remaining 98 percent should still be mostly capable of reproducing anyways.
The real problem is that it is all treated like there’s nothing wrong with certain behaviors, or that problems do not exist within the homosexual community, when in fact, aside from political correctness, even admissions from such individuals as Andrew Sullivan convey a different picture.
Exactly. It’s like the left endorses every sexual activity they can think of but folks “better not smoke a cigarette afterwards!” It makes no sense.
Importantly, homosexuality is not unique to the human species
There is very little sodomy in animal species. Most of what they have observed is in imprisoned animals, not in their natural environments.
And even if taking that argument as valid that “animals practice same sex sodomy so it’s natural for humans”, animals also often eat their young, abandon their young if they want to, eat or abandon old or sick animals, only mate for life in certain species, and on and on. “Animals do it so humans should” is not a valid argument for any behavior unless you want humans to sink to the level of animals in every way.
And unfortunately on the gay issue we dont have much of a non religious argument.
Are you serious?
Homosexuals suffer from a host of terrible illnesses and conditions.
Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan.
They suffer from drug abuse and alcoholism at a higher rate.
They molest children at a higher rate.
They commit suicide at a higher rate, and mental illness in general.
The entire gamut of the “gay” agenda is destroying our freedoms of speech, religion and assciation.
Homosexuals in the miltiary are harming morale.
Children raised by homosexuals have many more problems than those raised by a mother and father.
And on and on an on.