Nowhere in the Bible Does It Say Homosexuality Is a Sin

[kv100]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity

Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.

The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.

Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.

4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences

Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.

5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7

Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.

Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.

6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?

Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.

What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

 

[DenDog]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity

Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.

The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.

Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.

4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences

Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.

5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7

Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.

Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.

6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?

Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.

What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

In the days of Moses, I'm pretty sure if two of the same sex had sex, it would be an abomination to the Lord and they would have been stoned.

 

[tourist]

It does say that such behavior is an abomination to the Lord.

Personally, I believe that there are those that are born that way or, due to their environment, made that way. I try to cut them a little slack and not condemn them or pass judgement on them.

I also believe that God understands the human condition quite well and is full of mercy and compassion. We all could use some of that.

 

[Gideon300]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity

Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.

The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.

Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.

4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences

Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.

5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7

Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.

Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.

6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?

Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.

What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

Romans 1:25-27

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.…"

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts..........."

Jesus said that even to look at a woman with lust is to commit adultery. The act does not define the sin. The same with hate. Why should homosexuality be any different?

Our fellowship does not consider any sin to be worse than any other. However, Lord Jesus came to set captives free. Same sex attraction is unnatural and a bondage. Jesus can set people free - if they are willing.​

 

[GaryA]

@kv100

First of all...

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity.

This statement is incorrect - the term 'homosexuality' does in fact refer to either-or-both 'attraction' and 'activity' - two aspects of the same 'realm' of what we might call a 'confusion' of the natural order of things that God designed and intended.

Also, contemporary usage - in any and every case - does not by any means override the meaning of the definition and usage in the context of the time and manner in which it was written in the original manuscripts and translations.

Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

The word 'orientation' is a misnomer of sorts - attempting to assign definition to where none can exist. In truth, there is no such thing as sexual 'orientation' - only 'natural'/'normal' and 'unnatural'/'abnormal' according to what God designed and intended.

While it may be considered that 'attraction' alone without 'activity' may escape the definition of sin in this context - 'acceptance' and/or 'support' of something God calls an abomination can most certainly constitute sin. It is rebellion against the natural order of things that God made.

You need to understand that "same sex attraction" is nothing more-or-less than an aberration - a deviation from the 'natural, normal, correct, and proper' way of things as defined and declared by God. It is 'unnatural'/'abnormal' by definition. What brings it about - how it came to occur - is another issue altogether.

If a person thinks/"feels" that they have "gay tendencies" - that in and of itself is not necessarily sin. However, to accept it as 'natural'/'normal' when God says that it is most certainly not - is rebellion against God. The best and proper question to answer is - 'How did it happen to become existent in the mind of that person?'. And, I will suggest, that 'in the mind' is the key thing here. Simply because it seems to exist - in the mind - does not make it natural, normal, correct, or proper - it is 'unnatural'/'abnormal' - God said so.

The good news is - God can correct it (I believe/know He can.) - turn 'unnatural'/'abnormal' attraction/desire into 'natural'/'normal' attraction/desire - for anyone who diligently seeks that correction from God.

Therefore, that person need not assume they cannot change and defend it because they think they are "stuck" with it - God changes lives!

That person needs to seek out God with the intent and willingness to correct that which is in error and follow after God and His ways.

 

[Lovette]

"Orientation" is a product of corrupt language, which leads to sinful thoughts, thoughts lead to words, words lead to attempt, attempt leads to action, action leads to habit, habit leads to character. It's a slippery slope. You think you're in control, you can keep the boundary, but you can't, there's a momentum that carries on.

 

[kv100]

@kv100

First of all...

This statement is incorrect - the term 'homosexuality' does in fact refer to either-or-both 'attraction' and 'activity' - two aspects of the same 'realm' of what we might call a 'confusion' of the natural order of things that God designed and intended.

Also, contemporary usage - in any and every case - does not by any means override the meaning of the definition and usage in the context of the time and manner in which it was written in the original manuscripts and translations.


The word 'orientation' is a misnomer of sorts - attempting to assign definition to where none can exist. In truth, there is no such thing as sexual 'orientation' - only 'natural'/'normal' and 'unnatural'/'abnormal' according to what God designed and intended.

While it may be considered that 'attraction' alone without 'activity' may escape the definition of sin in this context - 'acceptance' and/or 'support' of something God calls an abomination can most certainly constitute sin. It is rebellion against the natural order of things that God made.

You need to understand that "same sex attraction" is nothing more-or-less than an aberration - a deviation from the 'natural, normal, correct, and proper' way of things as defined and declared by God. It is 'unnatural'/'abnormal' by definition. What brings it about - how it came to occur - is another issue altogether.

If a person thinks/"feels" that they have "gay tendencies" - that in and of itself is not necessarily sin. However, to accept it as 'natural'/'normal' when God says that it is most certainly not - is rebellion against God. The best and proper question to answer is - 'How did it happen to become existent in the mind of that person?'. And, I will suggest, that 'in the mind' is the key thing here. Simply because it seems to exist - in the mind - does not make it natural, normal, correct, or proper - it is 'unnatural'/'abnormal' - God said so.

The good news is - God can correct it (I believe/know He can.) - turn 'unnatural'/'abnormal' attraction/desire into 'natural'/'normal' attraction/desire - for anyone who diligently seeks that correction from God.

Therefore, that person need not assume they cannot change and defend it because they think they are "stuck" with it - God changes lives!

That person needs to seek out God with the intent and willingness to correct that which is in error and follow after God and His ways.

Your response is interesting because, despite your objections, you have actually acknowledged the central distinction established in my post. You write that experiencing same-sex attraction without sexual activity is “not necessarily sin.” Precisely. My argument concerns whether Scripture explicitly condemns the possession of same-sex attraction independently of conduct. Your response has not identified a passage doing so.

First, your objection concerning terminology confuses the scope of a word with the distinction I am making. The word homosexuality can be used broadly in discussions of attraction, identity, and behaviour. My opening statement expressly identified the aspect under examination: romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. Saying that homosexuality describes orientation rather than sexual activity distinguishes what a person experiences from what a person does; it does not deny that broader discussions of homosexuality may include sexual conduct. A person can possess same-sex attraction without ever engaging in a same-sex sexual act. That distinction remains true regardless of the breadth of the umbrella term.

Second, you claim there is no such thing as sexual orientation. On what evidentiary basis? Sexual orientation is an established descriptive concept concerning patterns of romantic and sexual attraction. You may reject the terminology for theological reasons, but rejecting a term does not establish that the human phenomenon it describes does not exist. Furthermore, calling something “unnatural,” “abnormal,” or an “aberration” does not demonstrate that it is sinful. Those are classifications and moral judgments requiring independent justification. Repeating them with increasing emphasis does not constitute biblical evidence.

Third, your appeal to the original manuscripts does not answer my argument. I explicitly distinguished contemporary terminology from the ancient language of Scripture. That is precisely why my post examined Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 individually. I did not suggest that modern vocabulary overrides ancient texts. I asked whether those texts actually establish the particular conclusion being asserted. Leviticus describes prohibited conduct. Romans 1 also addresses passions and desires, which must be examined carefully rather than ignored. But none of that licenses you to equate every experience of same-sex attraction with a conscious decision to rebel against God.

Fourth, your claim that accepting one's orientation constitutes rebellion introduces another proposition you have not demonstrated. Accepting that one experiences a particular attraction is an acknowledgment of an existing condition. It is not automatically an endorsement of every possible action arising from it. Acknowledgment, moral approval, and conduct are three distinct things. You cannot collapse them into one category merely by calling the attraction an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 identifies a prohibited act; it does not state that acknowledging an attraction is itself rebellion. If Scripture makes the additional declaration you attribute to it, identify the passage.

Fifth, you assert that God will change same-sex attraction into opposite-sex attraction for anyone who diligently seeks it. Where does Scripture promise this specific outcome universally? Biblical teaching about spiritual transformation does not automatically establish that every person's sexual orientation will change. Nor can a person's continuing attraction be treated as proof that they have not sought God diligently enough. That would be an accusation about their spiritual sincerity without evidence. If you are claiming a universal divine promise, substantiate it with a passage that actually makes that promise.

Finally, your question about how attraction originates is separate from whether its mere existence constitutes sin. Explaining the causes of a phenomenon and establishing its moral status are different inquiries.

Let us return to the precise issue rather than repeatedly expanding the accusation. Which biblical passage explicitly declares that a person sins merely by experiencing same-sex attraction, without engaging in prohibited conduct or deliberately cultivating sinful intent?

You have acknowledged that the attraction itself is not necessarily sinful. If you now wish to argue that acknowledging its existence, accepting one's orientation, or failing to change it constitutes rebellion against God, those are additional claims. You bear the burden of establishing each of them from Scripture.

Accuracy is indeed a responsibility to Scripture. That responsibility includes refusing to present our own inferences as though God had explicitly spoken them.

 

[kv100]

Romans 1:25-27

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.…"

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts..........."

Jesus said that even to look at a woman with lust is to commit adultery. The act does not define the sin. The same with hate. Why should homosexuality be any different?

Our fellowship does not consider any sin to be worse than any other. However, Lord Jesus came to set captives free. Same sex attraction is unnatural and a bondage. Jesus can set people free - if they are willing.​

Your response raises relevant passages, but it does not establish the proposition my post challenges. The question is not whether Scripture condemns certain sexual acts or whether inward intentions can be sinful. The question is whether Scripture explicitly condemns the mere experience of same-sex attraction, independently of conduct or deliberately cultivated lust. Those are distinct claims, and they must not be treated as interchangeable.

First, Romans 1:25–27. I do not dispute that Paul describes same-sex relations negatively. Nor do I ignore his reference to dishonorable passions. But read what he actually describes: people exchanging sexual relations, men burning with desire for one another, and men committing sexual acts with men, within a broader account of idolatry. The passage addresses desires and conduct, but it does not define modern sexual orientation or explicitly declare that every person who experiences an unchosen same-sex attraction has thereby committed sin. You must demonstrate that conclusion rather than assume that Paul's condemnation of particular passions automatically encompasses every experience of attraction.

Second, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. The translation you quoted specifically says men who “submit to or perform homosexual acts.” Notice the word acts. The underlying Greek terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, have interpretive complexities, but neither straightforwardly denotes the mere possession of same-sex attraction. You cannot cite wording referring to sexual conduct and then claim it explicitly condemns orientation itself. The conduct-versus-attraction distinction remains unanswered.

Third, Matthew 5:28. Your observation that sin can involve inward intention is correct. I never argued that only physical actions can be sinful. But Jesus' statement concerns looking at someone lustfully, not simply recognizing that someone is attractive. Attraction and deliberately cultivated lust are not synonymous. If they were, experiencing heterosexual attraction would automatically constitute adultery as well. James 1:14–15 also distinguishes desire, enticement, and sin being conceived. The existence of an attraction does not, by itself, establish deliberate sexual intent.

Your comparison with hatred actually reinforces the need for precision. Jesus condemns morally culpable anger and contempt in Matthew 5:21–22. That does not establish that every involuntary emotional experience is identical to a deliberate moral violation. The moral content of an inward experience must be established; it cannot simply be assumed because the experience occurs internally.

Fourth, you describe same-sex attraction as unnatural and a bondage from which Jesus must deliver people. Those are additional claims requiring evidence. Which biblical passage explicitly declares that every person experiencing same-sex attraction is in spiritual bondage merely because of that attraction? And where does Scripture promise that every such person who willingly seeks God will experience a change in sexual orientation? Biblical transformation is real, but you cannot automatically equate it with a guaranteed change in whom someone experiences attraction toward.

Finally, declaring that your fellowship considers no sin worse than another does not establish that the particular condition you are describing is sinful in the first place. Before comparing the seriousness of sins, you must establish that the specific thing under examination constitutes sin.

I am asking a precise biblical question, not denying that Scripture addresses sexuality or inward moral responsibility.

Can you identify a passage explicitly declaring that experiencing same-sex attraction, without sexual activity or deliberately cultivated lust, is itself a sin?

If you cannot, then you have not refuted the distinction presented in my post. You have cited passages concerning sexual conduct and morally significant desires, but you have not established that every experience of same-sex attraction is morally equivalent to either.

 

[ZuluKono]

What's your goal here? Is this some kind of "gotcha!"? Do you think you've found a loophole? Is it your assertion that because Matthew 5:28 specifies lusting after a woman is committing adultery that lusting after a man is exempt?

Your little mini-dissertation reeks of Pharisaical legalism. We're supposed obey the spirit of the law, not merely the letter of it.

 

[GWH]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

........

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

Jesus addressed homosexuality indirectly in Matt. 19: 4-6, saying that the Creator made humanity male and female, so a man will leave his parents and be united to his wife as one flesh (cf. Gen. 2:24), and what God joins together man should not separate. We see from this statement that marriage is a spiritual union of a man and woman until death. The marital commitment is—or should be—signified by sexual union. There is no mention of legal matters such as licenses and traditional customs such as ceremonies, although these may be good to satisfy for the purpose of avoiding being a stumbling block (cf. 1Cor. 8:9), who do not understand the essence of marriage.

The phrase about leaving one’s father and mother indicates that a man (and presumably also a woman) should be ready for marriage by attaining a sufficient degree of independence from their parents, both financial and psychological. They also should be prepared to become parents themselves, even if they hope not to have a child for awhile. Since good parenting involves a lot more than procreation, readiness for parenthood implies a sufficient degree of spiritual maturity. It is a God-given responsibility.

We must assume that God enables people to remain celibate until they are married, because we know that fornication or extra-marital sexual activity is wrong. Jesus said not to look at a woman lustfully, because it is akin to adultery (Matt. 5:27), and Paul wrote (in 1Cor. 7:9) that people who cannot control themselves should marry rather than burn with passion (lust).

God intends for sexual union to express marital love and commitment. Pornography is that which encourages, recommends or promotes fornication, lust or extra-marital sexual activity. It is immoral because it subverts happy marriages and family values. Jesus sought to convey the severity of the sin of lust by saying it would be better to lose the offending part of the body (Matt. 5:29-30). The misery resulting from sexual immorality includes horrible illnesses, but ungodly people prefer to cure the physical disease rather than their spiritual sickness.

A logical observation of human anatomy teaches that heterosexual intercourse is the natural mode of procreation. It is physically impossible for homosexuals to be married in the biological and biblical sense of becoming “one flesh” (see TOJ #104 and the article on homosexuality). Both homosexual and heterosexual fornication (including adultery) are wrong or harmful to family values. The misery resulting from fornication includes illnesses such as AIDS, but ungodly people would rather cure the physical disease than their spiritual sickness (TOJ #24). The effect is also psychological. A person who is sexually immoral is less likely to become a faithful spouse; someone who has treated sex casually as recreation when dating will not be prone to view intercourse as expressing marital commitment.

Instead of having the wisdom to enjoy sexuality rightly as the bond of marriage and begetting of children, the ungodly idolize fornication and legalize abortion. They use lust (p.63f.) to make money by engaging in prostitution or by selling pornographic literature, movies and songs, which teach children to identify adulthood with fornication as well as with fighting, drug abuse and cursing (MT 18:6-9). The causes of fornication also include deficient parenting, a poor environment and genetic traits.

Overcoming sexual corruption (such as incest and pedophilia as well as other misbehaviors and mental conditions such as alcoholism and schizophrenia) is difficult, but possible (Matt. 19:26), because many people have done so, usually with the help of spiritual conversion, counseling and medical treatment. The fact that we should love and forgive people does not mean we should accept immoral behavior as a “viable alternative lifestyle”. However, all of us are sinners (Rom. 3:23), so we should be very careful to balance reproof with love (TOJ #42). Also, the Bible specifically prohibits fornication, incest, homosexuality and bestiality, but it does not have a commandment against “autosexuality” or masturbation, which implies that it is not necessarily wrong, although there is a societal taboo against it.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality, there are two relevant passages in the NT. In Matt. 19:4-5 Jesus cited Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 in teaching that marriage is the union of a male and female as “one flesh”, and in Rom. 1:26-27 Paul condemned homosexuality as shameful lusts, unnatural relations and indecent acts. In addition to these biblical passages, the anatomical differences between male and female bodies indicate heterosexual intercourse is the natural mode. Although the cause of gender preference remains unproved per the APA, the design of gender-specific parts implies the appropriate/normal use of those parts. Thus, homosexuality is not a “viable alternative lifestyle”, and homosexual “civil unions” are not biblical marriages.

Hopefully, science will find a cure if the cause of homosexuality is genetic, and therapy will help if the cause is environmental during the formative years of life. We all have our cross to bear or issues with ehich we struggle. Whether homosexual orientation is genetically or environmentally caused, the cure should be found.

Those who are concerned with the morality of sexuality should have equally loving concern for hetero-sexual wrong-doing/fornication (Rom. 1:24-27, 1Cor. 6:9&15-18, 10:8, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:31, Col. 3:5, 1Thes. 4:3, Heb. 12:13, 13:4). God wants platonic relationships until marriage, so the line between friendly touching and sexual expression should not be crossed until then. In heaven souls will be free of the sexual drive (Matt. 22:30). Although sexuality is a good thing when expressed appropriately, often people exaggerate its importance to the point of making it an idol to be worshipped. Sex is not synonymous with love.

 

[SACREDWARRIOR]

experiencing same-sex attraction without sexual activity is “not necessarily

That is called TEMPTATION, and it is not a sin to be tempted, However it is a sin to PARTICIPATE!! all of us have a "SIN" bend a particular susceptibility to give in to sin.. and those bends are very difficult to manage or evade. the Flesh or the enemy always finds a way to exploit those weaknesses.

[Jams 1:14-15 ] – 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it has run its course, brings forth death.

good topic for todays world!!!

THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION SOON ROARS!!
Clarence

 

[tablet123]

Homosexuality is wrong.

Jesus said if a man lusts after a woman it is the same as doing the act.

Whether a man lusts after a man or does the act it is wrong.

Whether a man's sexual orientation is men or having sex with a man it is wrong.

If homosexual is not wrong why are they punished.

And the Bible says it is wrong.

At Sodom and Gomorrah it was homosexuality which the Bible says going after strange flesh is what caused God to overthrow them.

Gen 13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Gen 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

Gen 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Gen 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

God sent 2 angels in the form of men to Sodom and Gomorrah to test them to find out how wicked they were by how they treated them.

They stayed at Lot's house.

The whole city compassed Lot's house and said bring out the 2 men that we may know them.

Which is a reference they wanted to have sex with them like Adam knew Eve.

Lot offered his 2 daughters but leave the men alone testifying that it was about sex.

Not one person cried out men let us not do this wicked deed but were all in one accord agreeing to the act.

God knew there was no righteous there and the 2 angels took Lot and his wife and 2 daughters out of the place and God overthrew it.

Gen 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

Not even Lot's sons in law of his daughters who were from there believed it would be overthrown and might of agreed to the act and did not leave with Lot.

Some people say it was not homosexuality that caused God to overthrew them but for not being friendly.

But crazy things spout out of the mouth who support homosexuality.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness.

Those who refuse to believe in a God that created all things which testifies of the 2 greatest laws love God, and love people, God will not work with them and they will only go by the flesh.

Which in the flesh dwells no good thing.

Which they become filled with all unrighteousness.

Which homosexuality is part of that for it a fleshy lust.

Charity, love in action, is greater than faith, and faith works by love, and love is the fulfilling of the law.

Homosexuality does not fall under the category of love and anything that is not love sin.

Homosexuality is straight up lust of the flesh, perversion, and an abomination.

Some men may say we love each other but God does not see it as love like a human wanting to marry a rock.

It means nothing.

The Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

 

[Gideon300]

Your response raises relevant passages, but it does not establish the proposition my post challenges. The question is not whether Scripture condemns certain sexual acts or whether inward intentions can be sinful. The question is whether Scripture explicitly condemns the mere experience of same-sex attraction, independently of conduct or deliberately cultivated lust. Those are distinct claims, and they must not be treated as interchangeable.

First, Romans 1:25–27. I do not dispute that Paul describes same-sex relations negatively. Nor do I ignore his reference to dishonorable passions. But read what he actually describes: people exchanging sexual relations, men burning with desire for one another, and men committing sexual acts with men, within a broader account of idolatry. The passage addresses desires and conduct, but it does not define modern sexual orientation or explicitly declare that every person who experiences an unchosen same-sex attraction has thereby committed sin. You must demonstrate that conclusion rather than assume that Paul's condemnation of particular passions automatically encompasses every experience of attraction.

Second, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. The translation you quoted specifically says men who “submit to or perform homosexual acts.” Notice the word acts. The underlying Greek terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, have interpretive complexities, but neither straightforwardly denotes the mere possession of same-sex attraction. You cannot cite wording referring to sexual conduct and then claim it explicitly condemns orientation itself. The conduct-versus-attraction distinction remains unanswered.

Third, Matthew 5:28. Your observation that sin can involve inward intention is correct. I never argued that only physical actions can be sinful. But Jesus' statement concerns looking at someone lustfully, not simply recognizing that someone is attractive. Attraction and deliberately cultivated lust are not synonymous. If they were, experiencing heterosexual attraction would automatically constitute adultery as well. James 1:14–15 also distinguishes desire, enticement, and sin being conceived. The existence of an attraction does not, by itself, establish deliberate sexual intent.

Your comparison with hatred actually reinforces the need for precision. Jesus condemns morally culpable anger and contempt in Matthew 5:21–22. That does not establish that every involuntary emotional experience is identical to a deliberate moral violation. The moral content of an inward experience must be established; it cannot simply be assumed because the experience occurs internally.

Fourth, you describe same-sex attraction as unnatural and a bondage from which Jesus must deliver people. Those are additional claims requiring evidence. Which biblical passage explicitly declares that every person experiencing same-sex attraction is in spiritual bondage merely because of that attraction? And where does Scripture promise that every such person who willingly seeks God will experience a change in sexual orientation? Biblical transformation is real, but you cannot automatically equate it with a guaranteed change in whom someone experiences attraction toward.

Finally, declaring that your fellowship considers no sin worse than another does not establish that the particular condition you are describing is sinful in the first place. Before comparing the seriousness of sins, you must establish that the specific thing under examination constitutes sin.

I am asking a precise biblical question, not denying that Scripture addresses sexuality or inward moral responsibility.

Can you identify a passage explicitly declaring that experiencing same-sex attraction, without sexual activity or deliberately cultivated lust, is itself a sin?

If you cannot, then you have not refuted the distinction presented in my post. You have cited passages concerning sexual conduct and morally significant desires, but you have not established that every experience of same-sex attraction is morally equivalent to either.

I don't know why you are trying to whitewash what is obviously evil in God's sight. Sin is sin. Read Romans 1:26 again. You might find some wriggle room in it. I do not.

 

[Anchorite]

Orientation is innocent? Only orientation that results in behavior is sinful?

Rubbish.

If a person has an orientation to murder, but has not yet killed anyone, that orientation is evil.

Sexual orientation is based on lust, a desire that grows. And lust is mental performance of a sinful deed.

Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[GWH]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity

Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.

The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.

Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.

4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences

Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.

5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7

Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.

Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.

6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?

Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.

What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

Nowhere does Scripture recommend homosexuality as a viable alternative lifestyle.
If chosen, it is a sin; if a birth defect, a cure is needed.

 

[Tolbar]

I think a lot of people believe that having a homosexual mind is a choice someone makes.
This almost never true.

1. Someone can be born with homosexuality as a brain disorder.
Something wasn't wired at birth the same as most people causing the contradiction.

2. The result from predator attack or grooming at youth.
The mind will always naturally try to understand why something is happening and a young developing person can reason s*xual attack as normal on some level.
Other times confusion about orientation is introduced by grooming, again teaching developing minds. Grooming through media, influential people, movies, predators etc.

It does not mean God does not love them nor should we ourselves not love them.
We should love others as we love ourselves.

If a hetero man is hooked on or prefers p*rn or lust then his sinful activity is no less than two of the same gender together.
In both cases this will necessarily require intervention from God the Holy Spirit to provide either a pathway from that sin, or abstinence altogether.

If the person into p*orn or homosexual activity try to hide it from God, rationalize it as normal and refuse to repent then yes it is open, rebellious sin against God.

With that said, caution is required regarding young people.
Yes, we should love and respect them as rational, caring people, yet with special safeguards (See #2).
Yes we would do exactly the same with hetero with a wired mind for similar.

 

[Suze]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity

Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.

The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.

Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.

4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences

Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.

5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7

Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.

Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.

6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?

Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.

What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

I'm pretty sure that we all have sinful thoughts most days , not just about sex but about all kinds of things . If we will b confined for our thoughts then I don't think any of us is gonna make it . I'm inclined to agree that , if we don't act upon our thoughts then we r ok , I think we should still acknowledge our thoughts as sinful and repent of them and try to not think them any more but , I'm mostly convinced that it is our words and deeds that we will have to give account for . Any single Christian , regardless of their sexual thoughts / feelings / desires , who manages to remain celibate while they r not married , I think is doing ok .

 

[NotmebutHim]

This has to be one of the biggest things which some people claim Jesus (and Scripture in general) never addressed.

And it's not hard to see why that is the case.

Genesis 3:1, 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Anchorite]

This has to be one of the biggest things which some people claim Jesus (and Scripture in general) never addressed.

And it's not hard to see why that is the case.

Genesis 3:1, 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Jesus never addressed lots of sins.

Jesus never condemned gambling, witchcraft, poisoning, harming the environment, naughty adult entertainment, war, kidnapping, torture, pollution, gluttony, various libido perversions, etc.

So claiming that Jesus never directly confronted a certain sin, so it is not so bad, is a fallacy.

 

[John146]

Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.

Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.

A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.

Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context

Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.

But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.

Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity

Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.

The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.

Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.

4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences

Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.

5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7

Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.

Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.

6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?

Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.

What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.

Conclusion — State the accusation accurately

“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.

A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.

Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.

Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.

What you are advocating is it's ok to be homosexual as long as you don't think about sex or act upon it. Yes?