Is it a sin to be gay but not doing any gay sex?

i mean is it sinful to feel more attracted to guys but not doing any homo acts? any point of view ?

15 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I do not believe that being a homosexual is a sin.Here is what I have found about the Bible and homosexuality:

    Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited Sodom and were welcomed into Lot's house. The men of the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the visitors to the mob so that they might know the angels. [The Hebrew verb yada (to know) is ambiguous. It appears 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; it is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape the angels or to meet with them, and perhaps attack them physically. From the context, it is obvious that their mood was not friendly]. Lot refused, but offered his two virgin daughters to be heterosexually raped if that would appease the mob. The offer was declined. God decided to destroy the city because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. The angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked the wrong way, so God killed her because of her curiosity.

    God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. However, God was angry at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the mob, their wives and other adults, as well as children, infants, newborns, etc. It is unclear from these few verses whether God demolished the city because the citizens:

    were uncharitable and abusive to strangers

    wanted to rape people

    engaged in homosexual acts.

    The Church has traditionally accepted the third explanation. In fact, the term sodomy which means anal intercourse is derived from the name of the city, Sodom. But the first explanation is clearly the correct one. As recorded in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezekeiel 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and worshiped many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned. Jude disagreed with God; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations describe the sin as fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust; you can take your pick.

    We are faced with the inescapable and rather amusing conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy.

    The story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually condemns inhospitality and idolatry, not homosexuality. Read the Scriptural cross-references: Deuteronomy 29:23, Isaiah 1:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Lamentations 4:6, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Amos 4:11, Zephaniah 2:9, Matthew 10:15 / Luke 10:12, Luke 17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude v.7, Revelation 11:8

    NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sex. Even if the specific point of the story was concerning a sexual matter, rather than hospitality, the issue is rape not homosexuality. Jesus claimed the issue was simply one of showing hospitality to strangers (Luke 10:12). How ironic that those who discriminate against homosexuals seem to be the true practitioners of the sin of Sodom.

    Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.

    Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.

    These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

    permits polygamy

    prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,

    bans tattoos

    prohibits eating rare meat

    bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles

    prohibits cross-breeding livestock

    bans sowing a field with mixed seed

    prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood

    requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

    Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.

    It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:

    Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.

    Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.

    Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. there is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.

    Even if the reader disagrees with the theories stated above they should take note that these verses are a part of the Hebrew scriptures often called the 'Holiness Code'. This 'code' is no longer followed by the Christian church.

    In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.

    Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.

    19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.

    19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.

    19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.

    11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!

    11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.

    11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!

    23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.

    Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.

    It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:

    Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."

    Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."

    Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."

    Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

    There are those who recognize that Christians are under a New Covenant and yet state that the Old Covenant was divided into three parts, civil, ceremonial and moral. They then insist that the moral part of the Old Covenant remain in force. This distinction can nowhere be found in the Old Covenant itself. In fact, many guidelines clearly have both a civil/ceremonial use AND a moral one (See Leviticus 19:13). Who, then, has the authority to decide "this is morality, but this is civil procedure and this is ceremonial..."?

    Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.

    Deuteronomy 23:17 states (in the King James Version) "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel . This is an "error" by the authors of the KJV. The word qadesh in the original text was mistranslated as sodomite. Quadesh means "holy one" and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution in the temple. There is little evidence that the prostitutes engaged in sexual activities with men. Other Bible translations use accurate terms such as shrine prostitute, temple prostitute, prostitute and cult prostitute.

    In this passage, the actual word that is being translated is "qadesh" which means "holy one" or "someone set apart for a holy purpose." In this case the word is referring to people who commit ritual acts of prostitution in order to honor their deity. The clearest translation of this concept would simply be "temple or ritual prostitute". For example, Deuteronomy 23:17 should be translated thusly: "There shall be no ritual prostitute of the daughters of Israel, or a ritual prostitute of the sons of Israel". Any translation which translates qadesh as pervert or sodomite is blatantly mistranslating. An example which shows this clearly is found in the New King James version which translates qadesh in its male form as 'perverted one' but translates qadesh in its female form as 'ritual harlot', both should be 'ritual harlot or prostitute!'

    Judges 19 describes an event much like that at Sodom. This time, an unnamed Levite visited the town of Gibeah with his slaves and concubine. He met an old farmer and was made welcome. A gang of men appeared and demanded that the old man send out the Levite that they might homosexually rape or assault him. (It is again not clear what the precise meaning of the verb to know was). The old man argued that they should not abuse the visitor. He offered to give them both the Levite's concubine and his own virgin daughter to be heterosexually raped. The mob accepted the former, raped her all night and finally killed her. The Levite sliced up her body into 12 pieces and sent one to each of the tribes of Israel. This triggered a war between the inhabitants of Gibeah and the Israelites during which tens of thousands died. There was no condemnation against the Levite for sacrificing his concubine, or for committing an indignity to a body. Judges 20:5 emphasizes that the aim of the mob was to kill the stranger - the ultimate act of inhospitality. It appears that these passages condemn abusive treatment of visitors. If they actually refer to homosexual activity, then they condemn homosexual rape; they have nothing at all to say about consentual homosexual relationships.

    JUDGES 19

    Here is a story which parallels the Sodom account. The Sodom account showed the inhospitality of a Gentile city-state but in Judges 19 we see an example of extreme inhospitality among the "children of Israel" themselves. As in the Genesis account the house is surrounded by men and the host of the house offers women in the place of his guest and says "HUMBLE THEM..." (v. 19). This clearly shows the purpose of the attack was to humiliate and most probably to kill the stranger, not to satisfy homosexual "lust". (20:5) The guest finally puts his concubine outside and they humiliate him by raping and abusing her all night until she died. This act was an extreme violation of the Hebrew people's sacred code of hospitality. This act of INHOSPITALITY by people of the tribe of Benjamin so enraged the other Hebrew tribes that they went to war with them. When interpreting the Genesis 18-19 account fear and prejudice toward homosexuality cause some people to focus on the fact that the rape would have been homosexual rape and they then condemn all homosexual sex acts. Judges 19 is an almost identical account depicting a group of men raping a woman. Should we therefore conclude that the story was a condemnation of all heterosexual sex acts? After careful study it seems obvious that neither Genesis 18-19 nor Judges 19 were written as tools for condemnation toward homosexuals. The major focus of these stories was the issue of hospitality.

    I Kings 14:24 and 15:12 again refer to temple prostitution. The original word qadesh is mistranslated as sodomite (homosexual) in the King James Version, but as male prostitute, male cult prostitutes, and male shrine prostitutes in more accurate versions. As mentioned before, there is little evidence that homosexuality was involved. Again, the text has nothing to say about consentual homosexual relationships.

    These passages are often translated as if they refer to homosexuals, however the actual word that is being translated is "qadesh" which means "holy one" or "someone set apart for a holy purpose." In this case the word is referring to people who commit ritual acts of prostitution in order to honor their deity. The clearest translation of this concept would simply be "temple or ritual prostitute".

    These passages do not condemn homosexuality, for that matter they don't even condemn prostitution. Instead, they condemn the practice of religious prostitution connected with the worship of a foreign god.

    At this point the reader should be able to see a pattern developing. In the Genesis and Judges accounts some people choose to ignore the actual issue of hospitality and construe the accounts to condemn homosexuality. In the Deuteronomy and 1st Kings passages the actual issue of idolatry is ignored in favor of construing them as passages condemning homosexuality.

    Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn gay and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.

    The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities

    ROMANS 1:24-27

    This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF ROMANS CHAPTER ONE YOU MUST READ ROMANS CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH THREE. The outline is as follows:

    I. The Gospel is for EVERYONE, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)

    II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).

    II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.

    III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)

    IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)

    While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.

    Let's look at some of the verses in this section:

    Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?

    28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:

    Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind.

    Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:

    "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29.

    29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.

    26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity DOES go on in the animal world.

    It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. AND NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT... NO ONE KNOWS THE BACKGROUND... We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?

    In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.

    As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over gays and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.

    I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10

    It is amazing the number of times that you will see the word "sodomite" or "homosexual" or "pervert" in different translations concerning this text. It is amazing because no one knows exactly what the words of the original text mean! The layperson, unfortunately, has no way of knowing that interpreters are guessing as to the exact meaning of these words. Pastors and laypersons often have to rely upon the authority of those who have written lexicons (dictionaries explaining the meaning of words) of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. The authors of scriptural lexicons search for the meaning of the word within the scriptures themselves and also go outside of scripture and research literature written around the same time the scriptures were written. If the interpreter is already prejudiced against homosexuality they can translate these words as condemning homosexual sex even based upon little usage of that word in the Scriptures and little if any contemporaneous usage of that word.

    The truth is that the word some translators "transform" into "sodomite/homosexual/pervert" in I Corinthians 6:9-10 is actually TWO words. Some translators combine them because they "think" they go together but they DO NOT KNOW. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the words separate and translate them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind".

    The two words in the original Greek are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Malakoi is a very common Greek word. It literally means "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to soft clothing. Scholars have to look at material outside of the Bible in order to try and figure out just what this means. The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. In Greek this word never is applied to gay people or homosexual acts in general. "No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians." (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 105-107) "Arsenokoitai" is discussed in the next section as it is found here and in I Timothy 1:8-11.

    Note: Greek contained no word which compares to the English noun "homosexual" meaning someone of homosexual orientation. In fact the word "homosexual" (meaning someone of homosexual orientation) was not even coined until the late 1800'S by German psychologists, and introduced into English only at the beginning of the 1900's. (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 42) However, during scriptural times there were a number of Greek words to describe homosexual sex acts and the two words "malakois" and "arsenokoitai" do not appear among them (on "arsenokoitai" see Boswell, pp 345-346.)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Im not gay, but it is an acceptable and normal sexual orientation and you choose it

    doing homo acts with someone you love is an act or a display of your love for them and is not a sin

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The document on the pastoral care of the homosexual person makes this point very clear for Catholics: if you are genuinely attracted to people of the same sex (and not just perversely looking for a bit of other) then you cannot possibly be held morally accountable. Since sexual activity is legitimate only between married spouses in a monogamous heterosexual union, you must not engage in any sexual act with persons of the same sex or opposite sex, which would be gravely sinful.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Mark T
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Depends I guess on how vindictive your particualr god / religion is. Most however would say it is the act and not the desire that is wrong.

    Personally I fnd the idea that religion can make someones life a misery because of their sexuality, absolutely ghastly - but that is a different matter.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The christian church believes that it's a sin when you act on them. I think that's just their way of keeping people in the closet.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It depends on your religion.....which alters your perception of the bible so those quotes are useless here. I can tell you that in the Roman Catholic faith it is not. I'm gay and a catholic. I've had many conversations about this.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Isis
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Much Ado About Nothing

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I believe it's the "act" that one would consider sinful.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not at all. Gay is an innocent being like other human beings. He can learn to live decently and reach his noble goal.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Nothing is a sin that is done with love and hurts nobody.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    What tempts you is not a sin, even Christ was tempted. It's what you act on that is a sin.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.