if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence?

Question

I've always wondered why homosexuality is a sin. The most common argument I hear though is that "They can't procreate and be fruitful, which is an integral part of God's design for us". But I notice a few things wrong with that claim:

Assuming that homosexuality being a sin is taking about the act, wouldn't doing anything other than having sexual intercourse be a sin? It seems that by that definition anything that doesn't result in procreation is a sin. The act of homosexuality does not prevent someone from being able to procreate, so what is the problem?
If the "lifestyle" of homosexuality is a sin for that reason, why isn't abstinence a sin as well? Like homosexuality, abstinence is a sure fire way to ensure that you're never fruitful and populate the earth as is God's plan. That being said, if someone said that abstinence was a sin, I'm sure most Christians would laugh.

The whole "fruitful" thing is the only plausible explanation that I can think of for why homosexuality is a sin. The above are things that I've never really understood, and as someone who was raised Christian all her life, I really don't want to believe that I was taught something that is completely ungrounded and unfair. Thanks for reading my question!

I have no idea who you are talking to to hear "they can't be fruitful" as the most common argument against homosexuality, but it's not anyone who knows anything about Christian theology. — DJClayworth, Aug 03 '12 at 14:31
The entire basis of this question is off. Homosexuality is a sin because it is using something - the power to procreate - for means which don't lead to the intended outcome. Abstinence however is the act of not using that power for any outcome. Also men have been commanded to do all sorts of things so saying that anything that isn't sexual intercourse is a sin is just.... ignorant. Sorry if this seems harsh but this question is really low quality and assumes some huge logical fallacies. — Ryan, Aug 03 '12 at 16:53
How is a homosexual act using the power to procreate? If it does not have the power to procreate, how is it using said power? It seems to fall under the same category as sexual acts other than intercourse. And what I am saying is that to say homosexuality is wrong on the grounds that it does not result in procreation is contradictory--because it would imply that anything that doesn't result in procreation is a sin. What sets homosexuality apart from any other act that does not result in procreation? And I challenge you to find fallacy in such a question. — allycatgirl, Aug 03 '12 at 17:02
There was no attempt to solicit a debate. I just clarified my question in response to your downvote and your reason therewith. — allycatgirl, Aug 03 '12 at 17:07
@allycatgirl these questions aren't constructive. For one you're making an assumption that no all groups make and implying that it's universal. — wax eagle, Aug 03 '12 at 19:00
Are you talking about the assumption that homosexuality is a sin? Because I was under the impression that within the scope of Christianity, the sinfulness of any act and the reasons therewith were objectively verifiable via the Bible. — allycatgirl, Aug 03 '12 at 19:22
@allycatgirl that's subject to you and your group's interpretation of the bible. Considering that groups disagree rather dramatically, objective verifiability is out the window. — wax eagle, Aug 03 '12 at 19:57
Hi allycatgirl, and welcome to C.SE! It sounds like you might be new to the study of Christianity, and I just wanted to encourage you to continue to read, question, and learn. Bible study can be fascinating, as it includes the disciplines of theology, history, cultural anthropology, linguistics, and much more -- and does so in a framework informed by concepts like compassion, justice, forgiveness, and mercy. Cheers. — Philip Schaff, Aug 03 '12 at 20:58
It looks like your question has been closed. You might want to rephrase it into a format that fits better with the site's format, such as, "Are there any Christian traditions that teach that abstinence is a sin?" The reason that homosexuality is considered a sin in explained in another C.SE response. — Philip Schaff, Aug 03 '12 at 21:04
Also, there are christian traditions that teach that abstinence in marriage in order to avoid the hardship of raising children is indeed a sin. — Please stop being evil, Mar 24 '15 at 18:50

score 10 · Accepted Answer · answered Aug 03 '12 at 05:03

10

I think you've given a very good argument why it's implausible to theorize that homosexuality is a sin because it does not produce children. I agree: that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.

But that's not the only conceivable (no pun intended) reason why the Bible would say that homosexuality is a sin.

The easiest answer would be to say, "it just is, just like all others sins are sins because they just are". Why is murder a sin? It just is. People often answer, "because it hurts another person". Okay. So hurting another person is a sin? Why? What makes hurting another person a sin? All you've done is push the question back a step.

You could say that there's a general principle in the Bible that sex is good and beautiful within a marriage between a man and a woman, but wrong in any other case. Thus pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, beastiality is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? We could, I suppose, discuss the health problems and social problems and emotional problems it causes. Just like we could talk about the economic problems that would be created if murder was allowed. But again, that just pushes back the question. Are veneral disease and broken homes "bad"? Who says? Why? Again, all you've done is push back the question. At some point you have to say that some things are good and others are bad because they just are.

It appears that in general, things that God forbids as sins do in the long run hurt the people who do them or those around them. Murder obviously hurts the victim, and violent people have a tendency to meet violent ends themselves. Adultery destroys relationships and broken homes hurt children. Etc. But I'd be very cautious about saying that that's the entire reason why God forbids something.

answered Aug 03 '12 at 05:03

Jay

7,787
23
25

2

"Pushing back the question" is a good thing, in that it makes us think about things. For example, 5 whys approach. That absolutely doesn't mean that you have to conclude "some things are good and others are bad because they just are" - that means you just stopped thinking / asking. Re broken homes; I'm not saying they are ideal, but: they can often be less harmful to all than two people staying in a fractured, broken and unhealthy relationship, just "because of the kids" – Marc Gravell Aug 03 '12 at 06:00
So what negative side effects does homosexuality have? Who gets hurt from that? – allycatgirl Aug 03 '12 at 12:07
1

@allycatgirl the point of the answer is that it has at least the same negative effects as any other extra-marital sin. All sexual contact outside of marriage is prohibited. Homosexuality is singled to out in scripture, but mainly just to make sure we understand it is included as part of that larger list. Of course, the next step is talking about homosexual marriage. But that's like asking why you can't make orange juice from an apple: you're missing a key ingredient. You could make apple juice and call it orange juice, but that doesn't make it so. – Joel Coehoorn Aug 03 '12 at 14:28
Where I think this answer falls short is that it limits us to talking about harm. Marriage is what is, and sexual sin is what it is, not just because of harm, but also because it's a metaphor for God's relationship to the Church. There is a greater thing at work here than just sex. It's about faithfulness. – Joel Coehoorn Aug 03 '12 at 14:33
@Marc I agree with the first part of your comment. It wasn't my intent to say that "pushing back the question" is bad. Yes, trying to see general principles behind the details and understand the reasons behind rules is good. What I was trying to say is that it doesn't solve the problem. Perhaps I could study all the, what, hundreds? of rules and advice in the Bible and come up with one grand unified field theory that explains it all. But I think you would still at some point come back to, X is wrong because it just is. – Jay Aug 05 '12 at 18:30
@Marc As a divorced person myself, I can say from experience that broken homes are a very bad thing. I don't doubt that there are cases where they are the lesser of two evils. Personally I think many families would be much better off if the couple could force themselves to stay together for the sake of the kids, assuming they took this to mean "pretend we still love each other", as a good pretense could lead to action and action could reignite the feelings. But sure, if the alternative is a couple who are literally beating each other up daily, etc. – Jay Aug 05 '12 at 18:35
@allycatgirl My best friend in college was a homosexual, and I saw the negative effects quite clearly. He never knew love with a woman as God intended it. It destroyed his relationships with other men. And in the end, it literally killed him -- he died from AIDS. I'm sure you can write a fiction story about a happy and fulfilling homosexual relationship. You can write a fiction story about wizards with magic powers, too. But how many of either exist in real life? – Jay Aug 05 '12 at 18:40
2

@Jay what (to alexcat) a warped thing to say. I personally know many homosexuals leading happy fulfilled loves with a dedicated partner, and I know heterosexuals "putting in about", getting into trouble, etc. you are picking contrasting extremes of each. The truth is more complex: there are good and bad in every category you can think of. Indeed, it is not unlikely that the non-acceptance by society has contributed to the inability of many to form lasting relationships. In the uk there have been well over 50k civil unions in the last few years: that suggests stable relationships are not rare – Marc Gravell Aug 05 '12 at 19:00
@Jay I've also had a heterosexual family member die of AIDS. Whether or not homosexuality causes AIDS is a scientific debate--not pertinent to Christianity or the Bible. – allycatgirl Aug 05 '12 at 21:06
1

@allycatgirl Well, it's not very much of a scientific debate. Homosexual men make up 1-2% of the population, but 61% of AIDS cases. 74% of the women who have AIDS have had sex with men who were bisexual or were IV drug users. To the extent that anything can be proven in medicene, I think it's pretty well established that AIDS is spread primarily by homosexual sex and IV drug use. And if you're going to debate the health effects of homosexuality activity as an argument against moral criticism, then it is very pertinent. – Jay Aug 07 '12 at 05:16
@Marc So if a Christian couple get divorced, that must be because social liberals and atheists are constantly attacking Christian morality and ridiculing Christian ideas of gender roles as out of date? – Jay Aug 07 '12 at 05:20
The number of civil unions formed between homosexuals proves nothing. The test will be how long those unions last. – Jay Aug 07 '12 at 05:21

Ignatius Theophorus · Answer 2 · 2012-08-03T11:59:35.810

I think that the easiest answer is that homosexuality is "unnatural" (cf. Romans 1). Now, before someone tries to correct me and say, "it happens in nature all the time," I am not talking about "nature" in the same sense you might turn on the Discovery Channel and watch flying shark vs flying crocodile. After all, rape is something which is found in a number of different species and I would also call that "unnatural". No, "nature" in the Romans 1 sense has to do with how man and woman were created, how they were "from the beginning" (cf. Matthew 19).

When God created Adam and Eve, he created a mystical pairing whereby both parties partake in a supernatural act of self-gift (Paul calls it a "profound mystery" in in Ephesians 5). It is a pairing which is so profound that their bodies are actually designed to fit together and complete each other — so profound that the two become one flesh (Genesis 2). Not only that, but one of the primary results of this act is the creation of life (John Paul II basically said that sex is where we are the most like God in that we freely choose to create life).*

Homosexual acts are unable to properly demonstrate this pairing. While there may be love (and perhaps profound love, in a sense) between two individuals, if they are the same gender they are not compatible. It is not in their combined natures to unify that way.

I suppose someone might try to say, "So, it isn't in their nature, why is that wrong?" Well, is it in your forehead's nature to pound nails into walls? If you try, you will very quickly find that acting against your forehead's nature will cause you not a little bit of pain. Similarly, using any part of your body in a way which deviates from the original intent will prove damaging, even if that may not be the most obvious at the time.

^{* I think it is important to note that while it is one of the primary results of intercourse, children are not the point of sex. Using sex exclusively for the purpose of having children and divorced from the unitive and self-gift aspects is still placing the other as a means to an end.}

Is it in the "combined natures" for a happy heterosexual couple to "unify that way" knowing that one or both partner(s) is infertile? — Marc Gravell, Aug 03 '12 at 05:58
So you're using the word nature with your own, personal, idiosyncratic definition. Your argument is basically: homosexuality is unnatural™; unnatural™ things are immoral; therefore homosexuality is immoral. This reasoning strikes me as circular. — TRiG, Aug 03 '12 at 11:32
@TRiG Either we say that Paul is wrong and that homosexuality is natural, or we say that the word natural in Romans 1 has to do with divine/ontological nature and not what you see on the discovery channel. — Ignatius Theophorus, Aug 03 '12 at 11:50
@MarcGravell Children are an occasional byproduct of the unitive act, not a necessary one. But, even assuming infertility, that does not necessarily mean infertility (see Abraham & Sarah or Zechariah and Elizabeth) — Ignatius Theophorus, Aug 03 '12 at 11:53

score 3 · Answer 3 · answered Aug 03 '12 at 11:52

The question seems a bit problematic from the very beginning. If doing something is wrong, why isn't doing nothing also wrong? Or why isn't "not doing it" wrong? Just because God forbids one thing does not mean He mandates another.

The answer to the question really lies in why anything at all is wrong. There is a moral law, and it is not subjective, but objective. The Moral Lawgiver defines what is right and wrong. Sin is anything that is contrary to His purposes or plan.

The Bible states that God created one man and one woman for one marriage at the very beginning. That is the precedent that He set. He affirms later that this was, indeed, His plan and purpose, and that homosexuality in particular is contrary to that.

We can also observe a specific design inherent in men and women. They were designed for each other, but it is fairly obvious that women were not designed for women, nor were men designed for men.

Adultery is also contrary to the pattern and precedent and purpose in marriage, and God identifies that as sin as well.

So, homosexuality is a sin, not just because it cannot produce offspring and heterosexual relationships can. Homosexuality is a sin because it is contrary to God's specific design in marriage for one man and one woman, His purpose and plan for sexual fulfillment, and His establishment of the family.

Abstinence, on the other hand, is actually required until a person enters into marriage, so it certainly is not wrong.

So that brings me to the question, what defines "sex"? Obviously the Bible has never strictly defined what sex is, so it seems that many people have made their own ad hoc assumptions about it. But, without getting into gritty details, my understanding is that sexual intercourse as the Bible defines it is between a man and a woman. Therefore how does homosexuality fall under the category of sex, such that doing it out of wedlock is adultery? And how can you compare it to sex between a man and a woman? — allycatgirl, Aug 03 '12 at 12:20
@allycatgirl I don't compare it to sex between a man and a woman. The Bible does that. Romans 1. — Narnian, Aug 03 '12 at 12:29

if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence?

3 Answers3