arc-t | Debates | References Concerning Homosexuality

Debates | References Concerning Homosexuality
The Steel Wolf and Bobby

Plain text was written by The Steel Wolf
Italicized text was written by Bobby

Loving God and morality go hand in hand,

I wholly agree. I believe I said as much in my post.

for instance the unrepentant sin of homsexuality which is found in Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1corinthians 6:9, can separate a person from God, and is a form of idolatry, and by doing so you are not loving God.

Let me deal with the three parts of this statement separately.

First, that homosexuality can separate a person from God. As we know, there are many sexually active homosexuals who are also faithful Christians (though you might replace "also" with "otherwise"). If they are able to be close to God while still being "unrepentantly" gay, this serves as de facto evidence of the untruth of the claim that this condition separates a person from God.

Second, that it is a form of idolatry. Idolatry is the worship of an idol. Clearly, we're talking about religious devotion. This makes a great deal of sense, as homosexual temple prostitution was common in the pagan religions of the time (as was heterosexual temple prostitution, for that matter). But as I'm sure you can see, if homosexual sex isn't used as a part of worshipping a false god it isn't idolatry. And while it very well might be out there, I don't hear about a lot about homosexuality in pagan rites these days.

Thirdly...well, see below.

Does being homosexual prevent one from loving God?

Yes, because by being unrepentant of a sin, you are not following God, and not loving God.

But when Jesus said that on the two Great Commandments hang all the law and the prophets, he was in fact making a very interesting statement with regard to the law. He was effectively saying that the law and the prophets were *subservient* to the principles of love for one's neighbour and love for God. This implication is very important, because as Jesus' conduct demonstrates, obedience to what has been written down as the law of God is not always in accordance with these principles.

When Jesus performed healing on the Sabbath, he violated the commandment--reiterated numerous times and in numerous different ways in the Old Testament--that required a person to rest and do no work on that day. When he prevented the crowd from stoning the adultress, he did so not only in violation of the law that people who commit adultery are to be put to death, but also in violation of the law that states a person is not to cause *others* to violate the law.

What is the common denominator between these two instances? It's pretty clear to see, really: it was more important to Jesus to care for others than to obey laws which would interfere with that care. We can thus inductively determine that whenever a law which does not pertain to love for one's neighbour conflicts with the principle that one should love one's neighbour as oneself, the law is not binding, all other things being equal.

Now, let us assume that the laws referring to homosexuality do indeed apply to homosexuality in its myriad forms, and not *strictly* to temple prostitution as is often argued. I posit that this law does indeed conflict with the principle of love for one's neighbour as oneself. Romantic love is a joyous thing to be much celebrated, and greatly desired. Moreover, the sexual drive is one of the most powerful biological imperatives. To deny homosexuals the ability to fulfill either of these desires is to rob them of a great potential for happiness.

Given that we have established the good of both of these things, the question we must ask ourselves is this: Would we heterosexuals deny this same happiness to ourselves? The Apostle Paul encouraged celibacy, but he also acknowledged that many people were not suited to such a lifestyle. He encouraged those people to be married and to enjoy the two aforementioned goods of romantic and conjugal love. Thus the answer to our question is therefore a resounding no.

It is thus clear that to deter homosexuals from finding the style of love that they desire in accordance with the law is in violation of the principle of love for one's neighbour as oneself, and serves no greater good which would compel obedience to this law above loyalty to that principle. Under the previously established moral rule instituted by Jesus, therefore, the law as pertains to homosexuality in its modern form is unbinding and the obedience thereof is not required of homosexuals.