One attitude I seem to bump up against continuously is that homosexuality is a “worse sin” than other sins. People cite things like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed, or the fact that the punishment for homosexual acts was death, or that Romans clearly isolates homosexuality as a sin being condemned by the apostles.

But, as my father says, every time you see a “therefore” you really ought to read what it’s “there for.” So let’s start by talking about Romans. This is a verse a lot of gay Christians have had read to them many times,

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Now, yes, that verse does very clearly state that God gave them over to shameful lusts. But why? Does anyone else see the “because of this”?

Romans 1: 18-27
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So what is being condemned in Romans isn’t sexual acts, necessarily, but a larger truth that one must adhere to worship of the One God. God gave them over to lust as a punishment for a greater sin- the infidelity of their hearts against their creator. And these men and women were also leaving their families to indulge their lust- another sin which is clearly condemned throughout the Bible.

But let’s not just look at Romans. Let’s look at Sodom and Gomorrah as well. What, exactly, was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? People immediately think, “homosexuality!”, but that isn’t clearly the case. When the angels came to Lot to tell him of Sodom’s fate (Gen. 19) the men of the city surrounded Lot’s house and commanded that he send the angels out to be raped in the streets. Why would they do that? Were the angels so physically appealing that their lust knew no bounds? Was it customary to have sex with everyone new to the city? (In which case they must have also had sex with Lot) or was this a power struggle? It says that every man of the city, the young as well as the old, came to Lot’s door. Then would it be the case that every single male in Sodom was openly homosexual?

Rape isn’t about sexual pleasure, it is about exerting power. Lot was an alien to the people of Sodom, and they wished to exert their superiority by attacking his guests. Hospitality in those days was very different than in ours, and causing damage to someone’s guest shamed the entire family. Why else would Lot offer his own virgin daughters up as a sacrifice in order to spare his guests? This isn’t about being gay, it’s about being evil. It’s “situational homosexuality” at the most, much like men may engage in sexual acts with other men when isolated in prison or in long-term work arrangements where women aren’t available. Do not use such stories to shame all homosexuals, in doing so you do your own argument a grave disservice.

Now, on to Leviticus, where God does in fact condemn men having sex with men. He does so in Leviticus 19, a passage headed “unlawful sexual acts.” Keep in mind that God in those verses also condemns having sex with the spouse of one’s parent, one’s siblings, having sex with the sibling of a spouse, marrying sibling, having sex with close relatives or the close relatives of a previous sexual partner, having sex with animals, having your wife have sex with animals, and numerous other sexual indiscretions. One may logically use this verse to argue that homosexuality is a sin. I fail to see how this verse makes it “more of a sin.” And let us also observe why God created laws governing sexual acts. The end of Leviticus 19 states, “Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.” The law was about them ceasing to be as they were when they were in Exile and being set apart, a point which causes people sympathetic to the gay man’s plight to say that it is not a whole cloth condemnation of homosexuality, but instead a condemnation of the way in which homosexuality was practiced in those times.

Some people will then say, “but the punishment for homosexual acts was death!”

To which I respond, “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.” (Leviticus 20:9)

The law was cruel. That is why God sent Jesus, to free us from being condemned.

Two more verses:

Colossians 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

1 Peter 4:3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

Both condemning sexual indiscretion, both doing so while condemning other things equally.

So can someone please explain to me how homosexuality is somehow worse?

As has recently been pointed out to me, half of my blog roll is “Christian Gays”.  And I love you guys, I do, I do!

I’d like to have a word with you all.  Two words, actually.

Thank You.

Thank you for reminding us that the world isn’t always black and white.  Thank you for reminding us that we are all sinners, all broken, all lost, and all in need of Christ in equal measures.  Thank you for teaching us grace, tolerance, and mercy.  Thank you for being willing to be open about who and what you are, and why you are that way.  Thank you for putting your sexuality out there in a way that heterosexuals such as myself will NEVER be required to.  Thank you for risking condemnation every day.

I realize the tremendous amount of faith and trust in God it takes to live, every day, opening yourself up to both his love and conviction, realizing that most other Christians expect, at some point, that you will feel called away from your relationships.  It must take an incredible amount of love for God to continue to follow him, wondering in your heart if at some point he will tell you that you are wrong.

And yet you continue to live your lives with such grace, such compassion, such sympathy, such simpleness, and in doing so you show the rest of the Christian world just how much we have to learn about love.

So thank you, from the bottom of my heart.  Thank you.

~L

Small note on comments:  I DO NOT WANT this thread to become an opportunity to tell these women that they are sinners.  Anyone who does so will have their comment immediately deleted.  Wait a few days, and we will have another opportunity to discuss homosexuality in those terms.  Please simply note the tone of this post, and if you must disagree hold your tongue until later.  Thank you for respecting me and my readers in that way.

This will be my final post on the subject for a little while, I think.  I’ve already laid the basis for this post, explaining a little of my own journey and some observational “wisdom” if one can call it such.  Now I’d like to try to lay things out very, very clearly.

I’ve witnessed three kinds of attraction:  Romantic, Physical, and Emotional.  One might be drawn to someone out of simply one of these, or all three.  Some people seem to gravitate towards one kind of attraction and operate off of it alone.  And let me be clear:  I’ve seen women who only care about physical attraction and men who only care about emotional- so it isn’t as set in stone as one might think.  While men do appear, as a whole, to have a much stronger physical pull and women are stereotyped as being romantics, I think that all people operate off of a combination of degrees of all three.

Ask someone, anyone- male or female, gay or straight- what their ideal relationship is, and they will likely offer examples of shared interests, shared dreams, shared experiences, shared family, shared anything.  The point being that we all want to be able to share our lives with someone else, and to do so uninhibited.

Why, you may ask, am I belaboring this point?  Because recently I had an experience where someone kept talking about homosexuality and how sexual it was.  They literally emphasized the “s-e-x” as if that were somehow the most significant thing in the world.

I was a bit put off.

Because all of us share experiences.  I can remember as a young girl, doing the common role-play of “mommy and daddy” with a neighborhood boy, play holding his hand and play kissing his cheek and pretending to have the kind of relationship my parents shared.  And one day, while talking to a gay friend of mine, I discovered that he had not had that experience.  Why?  Because he’d never had any interest in gender-stereotype role-playing, not even as a very small child.  And the fact that he’d never had any emotional interest in girls had always made him feel marginalized and different.  He’d felt like a freak.

And it breaks my heart, because so many people don’t realize the pain and confusion that can come from not only a lack of physical attraction to people of the opposite gender, but from a lack of emotional and romantic interest as well.  A lot of people seem to believe that the physical aspect of attraction is the only way in which gay people are different from straight ones.  They seem to think that people can simply overlook their lack of physical attraction and engage with people of the opposite gender on a romantic and emotional level- and it simply isn’t there.

There is a fundamental difference.

So again, I will call to Christians to think about these issues of sexuality not in legalistic terms, but with compassion.  Think about the many different ways in which our sexuality influences us, from the womb to our death, and be opened up for a real discussion.

We all have a lot to learn from each other.

While physical attraction is based solely off looks, romantic attraction is based off of potential. First I’d like to talk about the old standard “women are emotionally attracted and men are physically attracted”. I think that is far too simplistic. I don’t think that every married man out there today married his wife solely based off of her physical appearance. At some point his physical attraction to her must have morphed into a deeper longing. Women may hit this curb more quickly, causing the stereotype, but both men and women eventually get to the place where they want both the body and the potential for deeper relationship.

I think one of the things that causes the stigma against homosexuals is the thought that homosexual men are somehow solely physically attracted and stimulated. Thus heterosexual men feel odd about the thought that homosexual men may be physically appraising them. I find it a little humorous that the same fear of physical attraction doesn’t create a stigma against single heterosexual women, who likely also feel an initial physical attraction to a man who is physically attractive.

No one can help feeling appreciation of an attractive person. That rush of endorphins does not mean that one suddenly feels an urge to have sex with someone, especially when one has the knowledge that there is no potential for any fulfillment. I have, at times, noticed the physical attractiveness of married men who are not my husband. That initial attraction never developed into a crush or any desire. Before I was married I would be attracted to men, but yet all of that attraction never developed beyond an acknowledgment that they were attractive. Why? Because there was no desire on my part to develop a relationship.

Gay men don’t want to steal heterosexual husbands and fathers away from their families. Sure, maybe there are a handful of gay men out there who would do that, just as there are heterosexual women who would like to steal husbands- but is it the norm? As a gay friend of mine famously said to our congregation, “gay men don’t want to have sex with you. You aren’t their type.” He joked about young fathers with potato chip bellies and burp rags on their shoulders. Sure, they may be attractive, especially to their wives, but gay men are looking for more than a bump in the coat closet. Most of them would like there to be some mutuality beyond sex- and they aren’t going to find that with a heterosexual.

I have more I could say but I’m starting to get tired, so I’ll stop it there. Thoughts, comments, additions?

So something we have all heard is that Gay people aren’t just asking for civil rights, they are asking for “special” rights.

In light of California’s recent ruling, I thought maybe we can all talk about that a little. First off, I would like to address what Marriage is in religious and civil terms. In religious terms, it is two people consecrating themselves before God and entering into a holy union, going on a journey through which they will be taught more about love and temperance than through any other relationship they have. In civil terms, a marriage is two people combining possessions and resources, and being afforded several civil rights. Marriage means being on each other’s insurance plans and being able to visit each other in the hospital and being able to make decisions about the way in which their children are raised and educated.

Now… Here is where things get sticky. One could give gay people “equal” rights through affording them every civil right that marriage encompasses, but calling it something other than marriage. When gay people say, “hey, hold on, why can’t we just get married” people get irritated. Sometimes the reply is, “what, are you trying to make society put a stamp of approval on your relationship? What, you’ve got to have special rights?”

That infers, then, that marriage is special somehow. Because homosexuals aren’t asking for rights above and beyond what heterosexuals have been afforded, they simply want the same thing we have. So is what we have really so special?

One can point to thousands of years of tradition in which marriage has been between a man and a woman. Okay, that makes sense. But let’s also look at what that marriage between a man and a woman was. A man needed children to inherit his wealth, or work the fields, or keep the family name alive. A man could not get that through another man. So marriage was both “holy” and a civil arrangement that met certain needs. And throughout the ages men left their wives to carry on relationships with other men.

Our society has grown beyond marriage being defined by the production of children. We marry for love now, something which throughout history was not a primary concern when it came to heterosexual union. Were marriage solely about procreation, obviously homosexuals could not enter into it.

But if it is about love and unity, they can.

I’m not going to give a ruling on what I personally think. I just want everyone to ask themselves a few basic questions:

1. Is the marriage certificate awarded by the State a stamp of approval on heterosexual coupling?
2. Is civil marriage truly equal to religious marriage?
3. If homosexuals were to be awarded every right afforded to heterosexuals but we simply called it something else, would what we have still be a special kind of “marriage?”
4. Or shall we not give homosexuals all the same rights?

Just think about it.

I live a “heterosexual lifestyle”.  I dated and then married a man.  I gave him two children, a happy home, and homecooked meals every night.  The fact that I am heterosexual is present in my life, every day.  While I may not be fully aware of this fact, it colors how people relate to me and how I am percieved in society.

Fortunately for me, the average person has no innate bias against twenty-something young married mothers.  When I am in the grocery store, I am met with smiles.  People I have never met before (and may never see again) want to talk to my kids and pat them on the head.  My heterosexual lifestyle is a good one.

There are other sides of me, other “lifestyles” I’ve lived, that have had less fortunate consequences.  When I was sixteen I went on a bit of a terror, I dyed my hair vampire red, painted my nails black and borrowed my brother’s t-shirts.  I became one of those “creepy goth kids”.  The greater misfortune was that this personal transformation of mine happened in concert with such events as the Columbine school shootings.  It is rather unfortunate that a teenager who molds their physical attributes to reflect the internal isolation they feel is, in turn, isolated because of their physical appearance.  My friends that knew me well rolled their eyes and bore with me.  Strangers were terrified of me.

A few years later my “goth” look softened to a more all-around punk-rock fiesta, I had pink and blue hair and sometimes simultaneously pink-and-blue hair.  I patched my jeans with safety pins and bought my clothes solely at goodwill.  I wore beat-to-the-bone keds sneakers and carried my bible on my back in a hemp backpack that smelled faintly unpleasant.  My personal heroes were people like Jay Bakker, tattooed punk Christians that didn’t mind getting their hands dirty.

I, myself, was a tattooed punk Christian.  One could crassly call this a new “lifestyle” of mine, but I think that’s unfair.  I think that the “lifestyle” tag, when applied to any aspect of someone, is cruel.  Either someone is a certain way, as in I am a tattooed punk rock Christian, or they show behaviors, as in she goes to rock shows in bars and hangs out in tattoo parlors.  Neither of those things are a “lifestyle” either they are who I am or they are what I do.  Don’t underplay their value by making it sound as if it’s merely something I tried on at a certain time in my life.

After all- the fact that I have pink streaks in my hair or a ten inch long tattoo on my back (MISERICORDIA, the latin word for mercy) is not only an aspect of my appearance, it affects how people on the street percieve and relate to me.  It tells you something about who I am, if you care to listen.  And the fact that I married a man, have his children, live with him, have chosen to sacrifice personal goals in order to be a housewife- these things aren’t just a “lifestyle”, they are who I am.  They tell you a story about me and my priorities, my needs and my ability to love.

Now- think about the people we marginalize with labels.  We call someone an emo punk or goth, and we forget to think about who they are beyond what the label encapsulates.  We call someone a sinner, or lost.  We forget to think about every aspect of their life that moves beyond how we percieve their spirituality.  We refer to the homosexual “lifestyle” as if homosexuals somehow do not have relationships of value, need and sacrifice.  We talk about sexuality in terms of good or bad, forgetting the way it colors our lives.

We judge off of taste, appearance, short glimpses that do little to address entire realities.  Humanity comes in a myriad of shapes, colors, sexualities, needs, occupations, backgrounds, ethnicities, abilities and desires.  None of them fit neatly in labeled spaces.  Instead they jumble up against each other frantically, like a basketful of kittens each fighting for the superior spot where they can be seen and touched.

This week, forget labels.  Forget simplicity.  Talk to the kid with eyes lined in charcoal long enough to define them beyond your assumptions.  You may be surprised at what you find there.

Unless someone rapes us, we always have a choice over whether or not to have sex.

Whether or not to have sexuality is a whole different bowl of noodles. I can say with some certainty that I am at peace with (or one with) my sexuality now, as a married woman. This has not always been the case. As a pre-pubescent child my sexuality was still forming. I was not in control of every experience I was exposed to at that point. I was sexually abused by an older boy, something that had a far reaching effect on my still forming sexual identity. Not only could I not control it; I wasn’t even fully aware that it was happening. It wasn’t until after I was married and trying to explore some of my personal problems that I realized the intense, deep effect that this series of events had on who I identified myself as sexually and the way I related to my spouse, other men, and family.

One could not reasonably say that I “chose” to have the approach to sexuality that I did. One could not say that I chose fear and withdrawal as instinctive responses or that I chose bitterness towards others. While I had full control over what to do with these feelings and instincts as an adult, after I was made aware- I did not “choose” them.

In the same way one cannot say that any person, anywhere, “chose” their sexuality. A homosexual person, one might argue, has become so as a result of a series of events that happened in important formative years. Thus, one might argue that homosexuality is not inborn or intended. But that does not mean it is a choice. One might argue that as I chose to reinvent my own sexuality in response to my spouse that any homosexual can reinvent themselves. I won’t say that I agree or disagree, as that is not necessary to this discussion, but I will say that it is as unfair to blame a homosexual for their homosexuality as it is to blame me for having been abused and to have adapted harmful patterns as a result.

As in all things, open communication is the single most important thing as we learn how to relate to each other. For open communication to begin, we must first develop compassion and trust.

Which means that Christians who truly wish to minister to homosexuals have to start by laying down their preconceptions and trusting in the truth of what they are told. If a homosexual says, “I didn’t choose this” don’t belabor them.

Just listen.

In a recent comment on another post, someone who is Christian and questioning their sexuality asked the million dollar question:

“Can someone be Homosexual and Religious?”

Oh, that hurts me.  Right in my gut, I feel it.  If someone can be addicted to Porn and religious, a gossip and religious, be cheating on their spouse Saturday night and still preach with conviction Sunday morning- how is homosexuality different?  “But wait, Lindsey”, I can just hear someone say.  “Those people are clearly not all that religious, or they wouldn’t be guilty of such obvious sin.”

Oh, Really?

As long as there has been faith, there have been flawed people of faith.  As long as there has been sin, there has been sinners.  And as long as there has been Jesus, there has been God’s love poured out on a weak and undeserving people.  Who was it that said that thing about healthy people needing no doctor?  Who was it that said, “he who has not sinned…”  When we start to put prerequisites on faith we abolish the need for it entirely.  Broken and hopelessly flawed people have to be able to live out religion, it’s they that need it!

Now, to continue on to some of Renegade’s other questions, we will go on a journey together.  It starts with conception and birth.  God is weaving together all of the fine strands that make the potential for who a person is.  He weaves A with B even though A and B mean “gay”.  Do you think he meant to?  I think he probably did.  Now we can argue about whether or not this is “unnatural” or whether God meant it as permission or a test all day long.  Some people contest that Homosexuality is not found in nature- they are wrong.  I’ve seen very nice, cuddly, obviously gay dogs that prefer to sniff the underparts of other boy dogs more than girls.  (Whether or not that is a fair comparison to human sexuality is another post entirely.)

Is the act of homosexual sex inherently sinful?  I’m not a scholar, so I will refer you to a wonderful page on SisterFriends-Together.org, which discusses in depth the meaning and intent of passages used to describe homosexuality as sinful.  This page, “The Bible and Homosexuality“, makes a far better argument than I would expect to on my own.  I will repeat the words of that site’s founder and simply say, “Christian and Gay?  It’s not a contradiction, and neither are you.”

I realize that not everyone agrees.  Some Christians will say that homosexual feelings are not sinful, but acting them out is.  Or they would say that the feelings are sinful.  They would say that we must “unbend” our sinful nature and return to the straight and narrow that God intended.  Perhaps this is what you, oh commenter, feel.  Perhaps it is not.

This is what I would suggest:

Find a quiet place.  Sit down, and center yourself with God.  Pray.  Ask these questions:

1. God, do you see me struggling with this?
2. What was your intent in giving me this burden?
3. Who do you want me to be?
4. Should I be gay, straight?  Stranded in between?
5. Am I sinning?

You may not hear an audible answer right away.  You may spend days, weeks, months, even years continuing to ask these questions of God over and over.  But trust in the fact that when we ask in sincerity God always answers.  It may not be the answer you expect, I expect, anyone expects, and it may not come in a form that is easily recognized.  But the answer is out there.

In the meantime, rest in Christ’s love for you.  Rest in the people who love you.  Rest in the knowledge that you will be cared for, and your needs will be met.

You will find love.

God is love.

You will be held by God.

The last few posts I’ve done have shown me something.  Whatever people believe, for whatever reason they believe it- when they feel it is threatened they also feel they must vocally defend it.  That can lead to endless cycles of fruitless arguments and hurt feelings.

In some ways, many of us are the same.  Regardless of whether or not we believe homosexuality is sin, we still believe in loving and serving our neighbors.

So I want to have an experiment.  I will ask a series of questions that ANYONE is welcome to answer in the comments, and expound on as they see fit.  I do not want there to be a single argument in this thread, so any comment that attacks the words of another will be immediately deleted.  Feel free to say things such as, “person X- could you clarify this statement” or “person Z, are there Bible verses to back that sentiment” but do not say, “person Y, I think you are wrong” or I’ll delete.

We can all live together peaceably.  We MUST learn to.

So here are the questions:

1. Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?  Can you clarify why/why not?
2. Do you know anyone who is(has been) in a same sex relationship?
3. Have you known anyone when they were first discovering or questioning homosexual feelings?
4. If you are the member of a church body, do you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed towards homosexuals in your church?
5. If you are a Christian or follower of a particular faith- if someone came to you expressing interest in your faith but was unwilling to leave a homosexual relationship in order to do so, would you still offer to teach them?

Let’s really think about these things, and think about their implications.  I’m interested to see what you all believe, and why.

Every time I see those two words beside each other in that order I wonder what in the world it means. “Unnatural Relations”. It implies, “relations that go against nature.” What is that? If you look at nature, like nature on a farm, you’ll see that nature seems to go for any relations it can get. Dogs will have sex with rubber balls, stuffed animals, a stray foot pointing out in a convenient direction, other male dogs or female dogs or whatever is convenient. Most animals are that way. They have a lust, they fulfill it.

In that way I’ve always thought of human sexuality as transcending “natural relations”, because we have made sex about more than fulfilling a lust or procreating. Sex, to me, is about two people learning to be one. It is about give and take, sacrifice and dominance, learning to be in control and out of it, giving of yourself and taking of another. That is far more than simply nature, it is a metaphor for all things real and spiritual. It is the dance of creation itself- not because it makes life but because it IS life.

So what is unnatural? Is it unnatural to have sex in a way that doesn’t lead to procreation? Is it a sin to use birth control? Is it a sin when a married and committed couple engage in mutual masturbation or anal sex? Where exactly is the line between natural and unnatural? Is the only holy sex that which is done in the dark with socks still on and both feeling a little embarrassed afterwards?

I really do wonder about these things. When someone tells me to beware of unnatural relations I always want to ask, “what defines natural?” That which is found in nature, that which is primal and crude, or is “unnatural” that which one simply finds distasteful?

Because in my opinion there are a lot of Christian couples that engage in distasteful relations. Maybe I’m still a bit of a heathen.