Nowhere in the Bible Does It Say Homosexuality Is a Sin

[Magenta]

Homosexuals and misogynists have adopted the term "orientation" in order to argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. People sleep with the same sex because they were born with that orientation. In this view, a person can't help being a homosexual, just like they can't do anything about being born a certain race or avoid being a certain age. Therefore, Sodomy laws are unjust because they are prejudiced against people with the immutable characteristic of same sex attraction.

That type of thinking could be applied to human nature in general. There are none good.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Mark ch. 10 verse 18 and Luke ch. 18 verse 19 “There is only One who is good.” Matthew ch. 19 verse 17b. There is no one who does good. fr Psalm ch. 14. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans ch. 3 verse 10. They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. fr Psalm ch. 53 verses 1-3. Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes ch. 7 verse 20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[CS1]

There is no orientation without desire. Orientation is based on desire. Orientation does not exist with indifference or apathy.

there is no desire without Lust and lust when it is filled is sin that leads to death.

 

[GWH]

there is no desire without Lust and lust when it is filled is sin that leads to death.

Yes, there is no EVIL desire that is not lust, which is evil desire, which is indeed sinful and results in spiritual death unless repented of.

 

[Roger316]

Please define both terms so we can see the difference you have in mind/desire to share/are oriented toward believing.

We all know desire, so no need to define it. The term "orientation" is a false mental construct that presupposes the false concept of "gender." Everyone knows or should know that there are two sexes: male and female, which indicate, among other things, a person's genitalia. A male or a man has the genitalia required for his role in reproduction, and a female, or woman, has the genitalia required for her part in reproduction. (I am purposely avoiding coarse language.)

The concept of "orientation" defines gender, not in terms of reproduction, but in terms of sexual preference. In this schema, terms like man/male and woman/female are redefined in terms of intimacy. It answers the question: with what sex do I prefer to get intimate?

The most significant implication of this line of thinking is the idea that, while everyone has a choice whether to sleep with someone of the opposite sex, a person has no choice in what orientation they are. And for this reason, it should be unlawful to discriminate against those who have a same-sex orientation.

Now, even if orientation is a real thing and even if a person couldn't help it that they have a same-sex orientation, it is still sinful to PRACTICE homosexual behavior. Homosexuality, as far as the Bible is concerned, isn't an immutable inner/emotioan disposition. It is a forbidden behavior. It is both wrong and evil for someone to sleep with the same sex. It not only violates the created order, but it violates God's purpose for marriage.

 

[Roger316]

I have no idea why you tagged me with this reply.

I only meant to include you in the conversation, since I am not convinced that posting to one person achieves a group conversation feel. I meant nothing by it except that I value your input and appreciate your posts.

 

[Roger316]

There is no orientation without desire. Orientation is based on desire. Orientation does not exist with indifference or apathy.

My point is that "Orientation" doesn't exist. It is language meant to fool, deceive, and excuse oneself.

 

[NightTwister]

That type of thinking could be applied to human nature in general. There are none good.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Mark ch. 10 verse 18 and Luke ch. 18 verse 19 “There is only One who is good.” Matthew ch. 19 verse 17b. There is no one who does good. fr Psalm ch. 14. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans ch. 3 verse 10. They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. fr Psalm ch. 53 verses 1-3. Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes ch. 7 verse 20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I only meant to include you in the conversation, since I am not convinced that posting to one person achieves a group conversation feel. I meant nothing by it except that I value your input and appreciate your posts.

I keep it simple. I was born a liar. God says don't lie. I believe people struggle with different sins more than others, but after we are born again we have the ability through the power of the Holy Spirit to resist and overcome.

 

[Roger316]

That type of thinking could be applied to human nature in general. There are none good.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Mark ch. 10 verse 18 and Luke ch. 18 verse 19 “There is only One who is good.” Matthew ch. 19 verse 17b. There is no one who does good. fr Psalm ch. 14. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans ch. 3 verse 10. They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. fr Psalm ch. 53 verses 1-3. Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes ch. 7 verse 20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I agree. But if the question is whether the Bible teaches against homosexuality, one can not argue, as the OP does that "A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation." This fails categorically because orientation doesn't exist. It isn't a real thing. If a person claims to have same-sex orientation, they aren't saying anything true; they are delusional and unjustly suppressing the truth about themselves. The bible DOES have something to say about people who deceive themselves. It is sinful not to face the truth about oneself.

 

[Burn1986]

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 are you really trying to say? The Bible also doesn’t explicitly say pedophilia is a sin, so are you gonna do it, or crusade for it? So, if we go the extra mile to make allowances for pedophilia, could that be considered a sin? “Well, show me where the Bible says it’s wrong?”

Really?

-Spending quality time using the Bible to talk about literal garbage

 

[GWH]

We all know desire, so no need to define it. The term "orientation" is a false mental construct that presupposes the false concept of "gender." Everyone knows or should know that there are two sexes: male and female, which indicate, among other things, a person's genitalia. A male or a man has the genitalia required for his role in reproduction, and a female, or woman, has the genitalia required for her part in reproduction. (I am purposely avoiding coarse language.)

The concept of "orientation" defines gender, not in terms of reproduction, but in terms of sexual preference. In this schema, terms like man/male and woman/female are redefined in terms of intimacy. It answers the question: with what sex do I prefer to get intimate?

The most significant implication of this line of thinking is the idea that, while everyone has a choice whether to sleep with someone of the opposite sex, a person has no choice in what orientation they are. And for this reason, it should be unlawful to discriminate against those who have a same-sex orientation.

Now, even if orientation is a real thing and even if a person couldn't help it that they have a same-sex orientation, it is still sinful to PRACTICE homosexual behavior. Homosexuality, as far as the Bible is concerned, isn't an immutable inner/emotioan disposition. It is a forbidden behavior. It is both wrong and evil for someone to sleep with the same sex. It not only violates the created order, but it violates God's purpose for marriage.

BOTH same-sex orientation and desire for same-sex violate both the obvious purpose of genitalia and God's Word.
BOTH are sinful if chosen and are mental illness if caused by a genetic defect.

Implied task? Conduct scientific studies to determine the cause, so we can know what is required for curing it.

 

[Roger316]

BOTH same-sex orientation and desire for same-sex violate both the obvious purpose of genitalia and God's Word.
BOTH are sinful if chosen and are mental illness if caused by a genetic defect.

Implied task? Conduct scientific studies to determine the cause, so we can know what is required for curing it.

Same-sex orientation isn't a real thing. It is a philosophical fiction. Do you know what a philosophical fiction is? I'll give you an example.

We often say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Is that true? No. The Earth rotates around its axis; the sun only appears to rise and set. The rising and setting is a philosophical fiction we employ in order to acknowledge the apparent phenomenon.

Why is this important? The Bible is speaking the truth when it says that homosexual behavior is wrong. One doesn't need a scientific study to determine whether the practice of homosexuality violates the created order. And we don't need a scientific study to determine whether orientation is an immutable human trait because orientation isn't a real thing.

Desire is a real human trait, but the prohibition against homosexuality isn't a prohibition against desire. It is a prohibition against the practice. People can't help what they desire, but they can keep that desire to themselves and avoid acting on it. A man's desire to procreate with a woman is a God-given natural desire. The desire itself is morally neutral. It is either good or evil depending on what is done with it. In the context of marriage, the desire is good. Outside the context of marriage. The desire is bad.

Orientation is not real. But our desire for approval is real. What people call "same-sex orientation" is actually the desire to be approved by the same sex and emotionally intimate with a same-sex partner. But emotional intimacy is not the same thing as physical intimacy. The latter can lead to the former, but not necessarily. A man can have a strong male bond with another man without being immoral. David and Jonathan, for example. Even so, it is NOT an immutable human trait.

 

[GWH]

Same-sex orientation isn't a real thing. It is a philosophical fiction. Do you know what a philosophical fiction is? I'll give you an example.

We often say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Is that true? No. The Earth rotates around its axis; the sun only appears to rise and set. The rising and setting is a philosophical fiction we employ in order to acknowledge the apparent phenomenon.

Why is this important? The Bible is speaking the truth when it says that homosexual behavior is wrong. One doesn't need a scientific study to determine whether the practice of homosexuality violates the created order. And we don't need a scientific study to determine whether orientation is an immutable human trait because orientation isn't a real thing.

Desire is a real human trait, but the prohibition against homosexuality isn't a prohibition against desire. It is a prohibition against the practice. People can't help what they desire, but they can keep that desire to themselves and avoid acting on it. A man's desire to procreate with a woman is a God-given natural desire. The desire itself is morally neutral. It is either good or evil depending on what is done with it. In the context of marriage, the desire is good. Outside the context of marriage. The desire is bad.

Orientation is not real. But our desire for approval is real. What people call "same-sex orientation" is actually the desire to be approved by the same sex and emotionally intimate with a same-sex partner. But emotional intimacy is not the same thing as physical intimacy. The latter can lead to the former, but not necessarily. A man can have a strong male bond with another man without being immoral. David and Jonathan, for example. Even so, it is NOT an immutable human trait.

I will number my comments for more efficient discussion:

1. Rog - Same-sex orientation isn't a real thing. It is a philosophical fiction.
GWH - Orientation and desire are synonyms.

2. Rog - The Bible is speaking the truth when it says that homosexual behavior is wrong. One doesn't need a scientific study to determine whether the practice of homosexuality violates the created order.
GWH - One does not need Scripture to know that the way homosexuals use genitalia is abnormal and perverse.

3. Rog - And we don't need a scientific study to determine whether orientation is an immutable human trait because orientation isn't a real thing.
GWH - Society needs scientific studies to prove whether the cause of homosexual desire/orientation is due to heredity or environment, so it will agree that it is mental illness or sin and seek the appropriate cure.

4. Rog - Desire is a real human trait, but the prohibition against homosexuality isn't a prohibition against desire. It is a prohibition against the practice.
GWH - The prohibition against murder was extended by Jesus to include hatred, so it is likely he would have extended the prohibition against fornication to include lust.

5. Rog -People can't help what they desire, but they can keep that desire to themselves and avoid acting on it. A man's desire to procreate with a woman is a God-given natural desire. The desire itself is morally neutral.
GWH - Whether or not people can help desiring drugs/sex is debatable, but Scripture indicates that the latter desire should be oriented toward a soulmate of the opposite sex.

6. Rog - It is either good or evil depending on what is done with it. In the context of marriage, the desire is good. Outside the context of marriage. The desire is bad.
GWH - Certainly murder is worse than hate, but it is better to nip bad in the bud.

7. Rog - Orientation is not real. But our desire for approval is real. What people call "same-sex orientation" is actually the desire to be approved by the same sex and emotionally intimate with a same-sex partner. But emotional intimacy is not the same thing as physical intimacy. The latter can lead to the former, but not necessarily. A man can have a strong male bond with another man without being immoral. David and Jonathan, for example. Even so, it is NOT an immutable human trait.
GWH - Friendship is not immoral.

 

[GaryA]

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.

I will agree that there is a "separation" between 'attraction' (in the sense of thoughts/temptations/etc. - but, not [necessarily] including 'desire' - it depends on how we choose to define 'desire' - if you would like, I will explain this further) and 'activity' - that makes the difference of being sin or not.

First, your objection concerning terminology confuses the scope of a word with the distinction I am making. The word homosexualitycan 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.

Now, you are 'backpedaling' - moving from a position of absolute definition as 'attraction' only to another which allows for a broadening of the definition - which, quite frankly, is more honest - therefore, it says well of you to be more willing and accepting of a broader definition that includes all aspects of what the word actually means.

I stand on my statement that the word 'homosexuality' covers all of the things in your broadened definition - except for the terms 'identity' and 'orientation' - which do not apply to the true reality itself according to God and His definitions and declarations.

The word 'identity' is simply solved - if you have 'XY' chromosomes, you are male - if you have 'XX' chromosomes, you are female.

The word 'orientation' is used as an excuse to try to make same-sex 'attraction' seem completely-and-perfectly normal. (It is not.)

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.

The idea of 'orientation' has only been 'established' by evil-minded men to distort the truth of the Creator - the One-and-only true living God. It only exists in the minds of those who wish to reject the ways of God and mollify the natural internal disconcerting sense of reproach and shame that comes with a direct-defiance of the common-sense understanding of what God intended for mankind. In other words, there is a part of you which absolutely knows it is wrong (because God put it in you to know it) but does not want to accept it. Romans 1:19-20 tells us of this very thing - and, the rest of the chapter describes the outcome of mankind resisting and rejecting God and His ways.

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.

Contemporary terminology is full of lies. Scripture is full of truth. Better to be acquainted with and have a good understanding of what scripture says.

I did not equate "every experience of same-sex attraction with a conscious decision to rebel against God" - I did in fact ascribe the existence of 'non-sin' circumstances and conditions of reality with regard to the inclinations, thoughts, and feelings of a person in the realm of this issue - which, even if "not necessarily sin", are still incorrect/wrong in the sight of God. In other words, even if the person has not sinned in the commission of an action - the very state they are in - having "gay tendencies" - is a state that is "broken"/"defective"/"improper"/"incorrect"/"wrong" - and, in need of correction. But, it is not the person themselves; rather, whatever does not align with what God says is correct/proper/wholesome/etc. - that needs adjustment/rectification.

When you read Romans 1 to examine carefully what it says about passions and desires, you need to understand that whatever circumstances and conditions may lead to those 'actions' are to be avoided - otherwise, you are actively "flirting" with [committing] sin - which is exactly why they need to be avoided.

If a person has "gay tendencies", they need to recognize and accept that it is against what God intended for mankind and work to correct the error - whatever the cause - that put them in that 'state' of thinking/feeling/etc. (i.e. it is wrong - period - it must be corrected - now work on correcting it rather than trying to justify it as being 'normal' - because it is not - God said so)

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.

I am not "collapsing" them - it is a good thing if you 'acknowledge' the "condition" but do not give moral approval or exercise conduct - as long as you also acknowledge that the "condition" is not 'normal' according to God - accepting what He says about it. God calls it [an] 'abomination' - and, in that particular sense, even 'attraction' is an abomination in the sense that it is not according to what God intended for mankind. That is what you need to understand.

Some of the passages have already been identified by other folks. You have been ignoring them - demanding that they actually say the words "same-sex attraction is an abomination" verbatim - or some such thing. You refuse to fully understand the concept(s) as they are given in scripture.

Do you really think that it is a righteous thing to have an inclination to steal as long as you do not actually steal? Or, is it wrong?

Do you really think that it is a righteous thing to have an inclination to rape as long as you do not actually rape? Or, is it wrong?

You need to look at the larger picture - where the righteousness of God is concerned - and, His ways and will for mankind.

The mere idea of 'homosexuality' is an 'abomination' to God - He did not intend that it should ever exist in any form.

It only exists - in any form - because of sin - which "breaks" the natural order of things. (Not that a person's thoughts/feelings of "same-sex attraction" are [necessarily] a direct result of their sin - but that - the "condition" exists because of sin - that/which has its affect on them.)

What is "broken" is because of sin - but, because it is wrong, still needs to be corrected/reconciled/repaired.

 

[GaryA]

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.

I did not say that scripture specifically promised or guaranteed it - I said God can correct it (if He chooses) for anyone who truly seeks it. You are correct in saying that a [corrective] change is not automatic; however, I will also add that it will not occur without full acceptance of what scripture says concerning the issue at hand. Moreover, as difficult as this may be to consider, it is entirely possible for God to allow a [certain] "condition" to exist if it ultimately serves His purpose. Scenario - a person with "same-sex attraction" thoughts/feelings - but, knowing it is not God's [perfect] will for them - and, acknowledging that it would be sin to act upon it - somehow turns that into leading many to Christ. It is a technical possibility...

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.

If you would like for me to explain the "cause" of the "phenomenon" of 'homosexuality' (relative to this thread) - I can do so in a future post.

I have already repeatedly stated that it is my belief that "mere same-sex attraction" (thoughts/temptations) in and of itself is not sin (if "innocently" experienced). I have also stated that - according to scripture - it is 'unnatural'/'abnormal' - and, an 'abomination' to God.

The Bible does not always answer our questions in the exact precise fashion and wording that we might like; rather, we gain understanding of its concepts and principles in part by [first] having a sufficient understanding of things like the character, ways, and will of God.

The "precise issue" is that you either do not have a sufficient understanding of the character, ways, and will of God - or, you do not have a true spiritual relationship with God by-and-through the Lord Jesus Christ (not saying this to "judge" your spiritual 'status' - just saying this is one contextual 'option') - or, you are choosing to reject outright what scripture says concerning this issue.

What you need to understand is that - even if a person thinks/feels or experiences "same-sex attraction" (which, again - in and of itself - is not [necessarily] a sin) - according to God, it is still "wrong" in His eyes. Whatever "side-issues" exist because of it need to be addressed in the knowledge and belief that it is wrong and needs to be rejected as being anything "normal"/"okay"/"valid"/etc. - and, needs to be resisted-with-all-your-might - and, corrected if-in-any-way-possible. (i.e. appeal to God for help in the matter)

You need to reach the point when/where you realize with certainty what scripture says concerning this issue (the full council of God in scripture) - which other folks in this thread have also been trying to get you to open your eyes to see...

 

[GaryA]

The question is whether Scripture explicitly condemns the mere experience of same-sex attraction, independently of conduct or deliberately cultivated lust.

'condemns' - yes, it does - and, it does so without stating "same-sex attraction is hereby condemned" verbatim.

 

[OMC]

"The question is whether Scripture explicitly condemns the mere experience of same-sex attraction, independently of conduct or deliberately cultivated lust."
Scripture doesn't have to say, 'same-sex attraction is hereby condemned' verbatim for the principle to be there.
We routinely recognize doctrines from the implications and descriptions of Scripture, not just from explicit formulaic statements.

 

[GaryA]

'condemns' - yes, it does - and, it does so without stating "same-sex attraction is hereby condemned" verbatim.

"The question is whether Scripture explicitly condemns the mere experience of same-sex attraction, independently of conduct or deliberately cultivated lust."
Scripture doesn't have to say, 'same-sex attraction is hereby condemned' verbatim for the principle to be there.
We routinely recognize doctrines from the implications and descriptions of Scripture, not just from explicit formulaic statements.

That was/is my point exactly/particularly/specifically.

 

[Anchorite]

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.

Orientation is the harbinger of conduct.

Orientation necessarily includes imagining a sexual or romantic act.

If I am theft-oriented, it means I have an attraction to stealing. In a given situation, I may act on my desire to steal, or I may not. But the theft-orientation is sinful.

Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction. If the orientation is toward an object that would be sinful for me to have sex with (person of the same gender, underage person, married person, non-human, etc.), that orientation is sinful.

An orientation might seem to be unchosen or a feeling you were born with, but if you fail to struggle against it and reject it, or if you tolerate it and embellish it with fantasies, you are responsible for harboring a sinful state of mind.

 

[GaryA]

I did not equate "every experience of same-sex attraction with a conscious decision to rebel against God"

I did not "equate every experience of same-sex attraction with a conscious decision to rebel against God"