Is Homosexuality a Sin?


T. B.

Is Homosexuality a Sin?



I am not writing this message to glorify anybody, or for any other reason than to glorify God. The only cause I represent is God's freedom which he provides through the truth of his Word; which is found in the Bible.

Let me first start by examining the definition of the word "homosexual". To be honest with you, I want somebody to tell me what the definition of "homosexual" is, because I don't know what it is.

As it pertains to men, I see two possible meanings:

1. a man who has anal intercourse with other men

2. any man who has sexual feelings for other men.

Which definition is correct?

If we say that the first definition is correct, then it is true that homosexuality is a sin. This can be seen from Leviticus 18:22. It says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

In this passage, we see that for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination (an extremely terrible sin). The phrase "lie with" in the Bible means to have sexual intercourse with a person through the act of penetration. Therefore, in this verse, it is referring to a man having anal intercourse with another man. So, it is the act of a man having anal intercourse with another man that is the abomination (extremely terrible sin) that God is speaking of in this verse. This verse is not speaking of having sexual feelings for another man.

Another passage that people use to condemn homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27. It says, "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: 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." The natural hole for a man's penis to penetrate is a woman's vagina, not a person's anus. So when the Bible says, "men with men working that which is unseemly," it is not speaking of a man having sexual feelings for another man being a sin. It is making referrence back to Leviticus 18:22: stating that it is the act of a man having anal intercourse with another man being a sin.

Now, let's examine the second definition.

If the second defintion is actually the correct definition for the word "homosexual," then we need at least one verse from the Bible to show that homosexuality is a sin: if it is indeed a sin. Some people try to use Leviticus 18:22 to say that it is a sin for a man to have sexual feelings for another man; however, we just saw from Leviticus 18:22 that it is actually speaking against anal intercourse: so Leviticus 18:22 does not consider definition two of Homosexuality to be a sin. Well, some people would say, "How about Romans 1:26-27?" Well, we just saw from that passage that it is talking about anal intercourse also.

So what we find is that there are exactly ZERO VERSES IN THE BIBLE calling definition two's meaning of homosexuality a sin. So, for a man to admire another man's body, touch another man's body, feel another man's body, kiss another man (on the lips, or with the tongue), share a bed with another man, cuddle up with another man, or even ejaculate on top of another man is not a sin. IN OTHER WORDS, for a man to have sex with another man is not a sin: as long as he does not allow his feelings to lead him to have anal intercourse with another man.

So what does all this teach us? It teaches us that if a homosexual is a man who has anal intercourse with other men, then homosexuality is a sin.

HOWEVER, if a homosexual is a man who has sexual feelings for other men and maybe even expresses his feelings to a person he loves in a physical way without anal intercourse, then homosexuality is not a sin. So is homosexuality a sin? You tell me.

T. B.

Bill Weintraub

Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


Thank you T. B.

In an email to me, T. B. added this note:

Many men are concerned about their relationship with God, and don't want to do anything to damage their relationship with Him. For so long, they have been told that all forms of homosexuality are sin.

This, of course, is not the case. However, because they don't know any better they end up believing this lie: many of them end up being miserable by depriving themselves of a relationship that God is providing for them. My purpose was to just let these guys know that if they are concerned about all forms of homosexuality being sin, then they don't need to be concerned with that, because all forms of homosexuality are not sin; therefore, they can feel free to be involved in a homosexual relationship knowing that they are not displeasing God.

[emphasis mine]

"many of them end up being miserable by depriving themselves of a relationship that God is providing for them."

That's beautifully put, and true.

It reminds me of what Plutarch said, ca 100 AD: that a male lover is "a friend inspired by God."

Thank you T. B.!

I want to point out, as I do in the post titled Kristoff Agrees, that like "gay," the term "homosexual" didn't exist in Biblical times.

The word "homosexual" was coined in 1869, and didn't come into widespread use until the 20th century; and, as T. B. says, it was understood to refer to people who had a more or less exclusively same-sex "sexual orientation" throughout their lives.

No specific sex act was linked to the word, the way anal is to "gay" in many quarters nowadays.

Rather it referred only to an erotic interest in one's own sex.

Prior to 1869, most people, including the ancient Hebrews, and the ancient Greeks and Romans, thought in terms of same-sex erotic *acts*, not of actors who were exclusively "homosexual"; and on the whole, they didn't have a concept of someone being exclusively homosexual.

The word "sodomite" does occur in the Bible, but it usually refers to men who were anally receptive, often for money, as part of Caananite religious ceremonies.

Thus you'll often read, in books like Kings, that some Hebrew king or other rid the land of the idols and places of worship of those who were worshipping false gods -- including sodomites.

For example, "For [the people of Judah] also built them high places and images and groves ... and there were also sodomites in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel."

But again, in context, sodomites doesn't mean "homosexuals"; it means men who participated in anal penetration.

In the later Middle Ages, theologians like Thomas Aquinas often used sodomite to refer to those who took part in *any* non-marital, non-reproductive sex.

But by our era, the term "sodomite" had come to mean, once again, men involved in anal penetration.

So: the Bible condemns certain very specific acts, and as Patrick explains in Kristoff Agrees, for a reason.

Despite what the "religious" right wants you to believe, there's no Biblical condemnation of same-sex affection per se -- on the contrary, the Bible sets forth models of men loving men faithfully and heroically.

If that sort of same-sex affection were forbidden, the Bible would say so.

David sinned on a number of occasions, most clearly when he sent Uriah the Hittite to his death, and the Bible is clear that his actions angered God and brought forth punishment.

Nowhere in Samuel is there even a hint that either Jonathan or David had done anything wrong.

Rather they are presented as role models in a number of ways: in their loving devotion to each other; in their willingness to die for each other; in David's intense grief after Jonathan's death; and in David's continuing concern with Jonathan's son.

Which tells us that a love between men which is exclusive and true, and which is not lascivious or licentious, but expressive of the Divine nature of humanity, is deemed worthy by the Creator.

Bill Weintraub

Bill Weintraub

Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


David and Jonathan: Kristof Agrees

God and Sex


The NY Times: October 23, 2004

The NY Times has two equally stupid columnists, Nicholas Kristof, a knee-jerk liberal, and David Brooks, a knee-jerk conservative.

Both however do support gay marriage.

And, in a column which appears today, Kristof agrees with our view that the Bible condemns anal sex while supporting other forms of homosex:

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex ... While homosexuality never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns ... (Leviticus 19:19).


Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay [sic] relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays [sic]. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs [sic] between David and Jonathan.

David and Jonathan did not have "gay affairs"; they couldn't, because there was no such thing as a "gay" person or "gay" sex, both of which are late 20th century AD constructs, in the 10th century BC.

They could have loved each other, as they without question did, and they may have expressed that love through sex; because men have loved each other and had sex with each other since the beginning of time.

But they weren't "gay"; the word is meaningless in their context.

Among other things, both men were married and had children.

Nor were they out hitting the bars every night.

So while the text in the first and second book of Samuel does not describe "gay affairs between David and Jonathan," it is unequivocal in describing a relationship of mutual love and devotion, with a strong suggestion of a sexual component, between two renowned warriors.

It states that "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David ... Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul."

There's no doubt of that: Jonathan risks not just his father's wrath, but his own life, to protect David.

Long after Jonathan's heroic death in battle, and throughout the vicissitudes of David's long rule, David consistently watches out for and cares for Jonathan's crippled son -- he never fails in that duty, "for Jonathan thy father's sake."

It's a beautiful story, and unequivocal in its description of a loving relationship between two men, both warriors, which endures long after one has been killed.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.


Jesus never rejected anyone.

We can contrast Jesus' attitude with that of folks in the "religious" right, many of whom have scurried off to Sub-Saharan Africa to care for the AIDS afflicted while ignoring rising HIV infection rates and the brutal toll taken by AIDS on the Black community right here in America, where AIDS kills more Black men between 25 and 44 than any other disease.

In both Africa and America, HIV / AIDS is spread by sexual promiscuity, which the Bible unequivocally condemns.

The only difference between Africa and America is that in the former the promiscuity is predominantly heterosexual, and here at home the promiscuity is mainly homosexual.

Yet just as the Bible is unequivocal in its praise of Jonathan and David's warrior love, it's unequivocal in its condemnation of heterosexual promiscuity, which often falls under the rubric of adultery -- that is, heterosex outside of marriage, *including* heterosex between divorced men and women.

The punishment for adultery is death by stoning.

Nevertheless, American evangelical churches are full of people who are divorced and remarried, and thus adulterers.

The churches wink at the adulterers in their midst because they have to.

If they started tossing out adulterers, the pews would be empty, as would the collection plates.

They set great store by those plates, despite another unequivocal admonition by Jesus: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth."

There's never been a greater group of hypocrites and frauds on this earth than the religious right.

Patrick adds:

What the Bible forbids is a person behaving as the opposite gender during a sexual act.

A man cannot emulate a woman and a woman cannot emulate a man -- to do so is truly fornication, just as heterosex outside of marriage is fornication -- which denies our Creation in God's own image, having the breath of His life in us. To act otherwise denies the Divine nature of humanity; instead of imitating the Divine, it imitates the animal.

Thus anal sex is a gross sin on more than one count -- it's fornication; and while it's not heresy, which is promulgating false doctrine, it imitates the animal, which is anathema to the Divine nature of humanity.

Thank you Patrick.

Life with Patrick becomes more wonderful each and every day.

By the way, the centurion whose servant Jesus heals is a warrior too, saying to Jesus, "For I am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

Remember that warrior dudes, and remember that


Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


Bill, like yourself and the writers above, I am concerned about my relationship with God. During my 40-some-odd years on this earth, integrating my same-sex attractions into my Christian spirituality has not been easy since the leadership of the my church (Catholic) and of other Christian churches has been fairly harsh on gay people. But it seems to me that the distinction made above (penetration vs non-penetrative sex) would be important to heterosexuals, as well as to homosexuals who are still struggling with their same-sex attractions, guilt, self-hatred, etc. It might make a difference in the way they view and accept people with same-sex attractions.

About a year ago, I caught a movie in New York City called "Trembling Before G-d." (sic) It's a documentary about Orthodox Jews who are gay and who are trying to retain their Orthodox Jewish faith. One guy struggled so much with it that he kind-of made a pilgrimage to Israel and found an Orthodox rabbi to counsel him. The rabbi affirmed the Orthodox Jewish teaching that homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of Torah, that penetration is for procreation, etc. The young man said, "Well Rabbi, actually my partner and I do not practice anal sex." The rabbi looked at him and said, "Well, what do you do?" The man told him that they embrace, they caress, they kiss (I don't remember if he mentioned anything about ejaculation). The rabbi asked, "Is that all you do?" The man said, "Yes, rabbi." And the rabbi said, "So what's the problem?" In other words, the rabbi saw no conflict with Torah. Now note: this was not scripted. It was a video of an actual session. When I heard it, I about fell out of my seat -- it was so funny, and yet innocent, without malice, and (in my estimation) irrefutable. It certainly helped me feel very much at peace with myself and with God.

I love what T.B. wrote above, and the follow-ups by yourself and Patrick. I have done a bit of reading on homosexuality and the Scriptures, and I think all of you are right on the mark. Those who use the Scriptures to condemn same-sex attraction and love are (1) ignoring or misconstruing the circumstances addressed by those Scripture passages, and (2) using the Scriptures in a way I don't think God ever intended.



Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


Hi everyone, this is my first time posting, but I saw this thread and decided I could contribute to it.

Asking whether or not homosexuality is a sin is kind of a ridiculous argument. God gave his only son, Jesus, to take away the sin of the world. Therefore if you believe in Jesus (and you have to if you are arguing about sin) and love him above all else then you are forgiven through his sacrifice. Sin, in this case, is rather a moot point.

The article below explains it much more thoroughly, and is the best and most well researched article on the subject I've come across to date. It even shows an example where Jesus (arguably) endorsed homosexuality.

I'm sorry I can't copy the text, but it is rather long and its format is unfriendly to cut-and-pasting. What surprises me the most is that I have never heard of the facts in it quoted by another person. Considering the validity and strength of the arguments it contains, I thought it would be well regarded as a critical wound to the rhetoric of the religious right. I guess it just goes to illuminate the Godlessness of the modern gay sub-culture, which is indeed almost completely devoid of Christians like myself.

But anyway, I'm rambling, and should close my argument. Best wishes to all of you,



Robert Loring

Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


George wrote: "Those who use the Scriptures to condemn same-sex attraction and love are (1) ignoring or misconstruing the circumstances addressed by those Scripture passages, and (2) using the Scriptures in a way I don't think God ever intended."

You're absolutely right George in my opinion!! Sadly we live in a modern world that has turned RIGHT into wrong and WRONG into right. Men have had sex with each other since the dawning of time. It is a part of the Warrior Bond as many of the articles posted on this site speak of. Sadly, in our modern society that Warrior Bond is weak and, frankly, most men are LOST because our society is so homophobic it condemns any affection shown between two men. How insane!

Many use the Scriptures to condemn anything and everything. They allow their prejudices and ignorance to interpret the Scriptures. Yet, God did NOT intend for them to be translated in the way some homophobics interprete them. Such people are ruled by fear, the opposite of love. The bible teaches "God is Love." Ever wonder who or what fear might really be?

The bible also teaches we are to love others as we love our ownselves. Sadly, many bible thumbing Christians do not love themselves. In fact, their whole faith is littered with self rejection. So how can they love others?

We find a BIBLICAL role model in the case of David and Jonathan who were two God believing Brothers of the Heart, Cymbrogi. Yet many glaze over or completely overlook this Biblical teaching of love shared between two men, two warriors!! God did not condemn David or Jonathan for their love shared between eachother. In fact, God was very close to them! God does not condemn us as modern day Davids and Jonathans either and that is a BIBLICAL FACT! Many of us on this site have come to be modern day Warriors sharing and valuing the ancient Warrior Bond. Resurrecting that bond and finding brotherhood, real brotherhood! Once we were alone in our quest, thoughts, and feelings but we stumbled across this site and found likeminded men and suddenly we discovered we were NOT alone at all.

Yes, many men worry about their relationship with God. But, those many men need to really meditate upon the teachings of the Bible and especially on the teachings of love that was so central and such a big part of the ministry of Christ. God is not the ruthless divine tyrant everready to sentence you to Hell. That view, in fact, is anti-biblical!! God is Love!!

Thanks to the plague of homophobia men today are lost. They are disconnected with eachother. Each goes their own way in aloneness. They feel no deep bonds with other men so they walk the road of their life alone and disconnected with other men. Historically this is the exception and not the norm. Biblically this is the exception and not the norm!! Jesus' inner circle was mostly composed of men. These men loved each other, they were close to each other, they were supportive of each other, and they even showed affection to each other.

Jesus and his dudes were not warriors marching into physical battle BUT they were Spiritual Warriors who marched into Spiritual Battle. But the FACT is they were WARRIORS nevertheless. And the BIBLICAL FACT is they were men who were close to eachother, who had strong bonds with eachother, and who were all Brothers of the Heart. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as teaching that ALL who follow him MUST do as he did and even more. We are suppose to take on Christ as our own personal pattern and example. So Jesus and his dudes are yet another example of how men should be in addition to the example of David and Jonathan.

The lack of bonding, the homophobia, the false doctrine and lying teachings concerning male bonding and homosexuality have served only to send many a man down to the sewar psychologically and spiritually. It is no real wonder that some men commit great sociopathic attrocities and no one should be surprised when they do commit such acts. Afterall, we have taken as a society what has traditionally been RIGHT and made it wrong and we have taken what has traditionally been WRONG and tried to pass it off as being right. BUT, there is something deep within a man that is still connected with the ancients. We all know all the homophobia is WRONG even though our lost and antiChrist society says it's "right."

+Sir Robert


Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


Thanks, TB, for bring this topic up.

For years, I thought there was a place reserved for me in hell. What could I do? Church and societal teachings made homosexuality so shameful (not to mention my parents...who never knew the real me because they were not interested) that I would rather blow my brains out than to be outed. My opinion of my self was so low that NO one ever really knew who I was.

Couple that with the religious zealots on TV and on radio who claim they are going to heaven along with anyone who agrees with everything they say. If anyone is different in any way, they are judged by these "Christians" to be B A D. Such sanctimonious smugness.

I am still active in my church. Everyone now knows my orientation including my ex-wife and my mother. I found a well of self-respect somewhere deep inside myself (therapy helps) and decided to LIVE. Nobody in our church (some of whom have known me for 30+ years) has given me any grief over it. These people have really walked the Christian walk.

Remember the bumper sticker that said, "the moral majority is neither"? My favorite.

I found that the only real sin there is is separation from God. We do not have to hide from Him. Just keep Him in your life. He has the grace to accept us as we are. After all, He made us with all of our foibles and variations. Sexual equipment is also part of the package along with our sexual urges and delights.

It seems to me that the world would be a much better place if men were allowed to FEEL and that includes true affection for other men. All I ever got from my father was sexual abuse, severe beatings with injuries and rage. When he passed on, it was a non-event to me. No joy, no sadness. Now, when I see men genuinely enjoying each other, my heart melts. Men are beautiful creatures, despite what some women say.

I now live with a wonderful partner and we enjoy each other's sexuality.

T. M.

Bill S

Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


What we believe in the LDS Church.

In The Pearl of Great Price Moses 6:57 (you can look that up on under "Scriptures") it reads about God, "MAN of Holiness is His Name." (Emphasis mine.)

There is a couplet that was first said by Lorenzo Snow (5th President of the LDS Church). "As God once was, man now is. As God now is, man may become."

We believe that God, the Almighty, the Supreme Being IS A MAN--an exalted, glorified MAN!! When He appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove in the year 1820, He was a man. A man that has a BODY of flesh and bone, but that is "quickened" by spirit rather than blood.

That implies He has a PHALLUS just as you and I do--and the men featured in the pics on this Web site--and, ANY normal man.

That God has a WIFE--there is a Heavenly Mother. And, that God has a Son--the Firstborn among MANY brethren: Jesus Christ.

God is the HIGHEST CLASSIFICATION OF ALL LIFE-FORMS!! Man IS GOD, but for now, we are LIMITED, to mortality and the conditons of an animal existence as part of the TEST by which we may qualify for EXALTATION as we gain ETERNAL LIFE through the Atonement made possible by Jesus Christ.

We belive in an ETERNAL PROGRESSION: an OPPORTUNITY FOR--INCREASE!!! God is, Himself, progressing in a continual process--in a sense, "becoming even more God".

The Universe was "organized" and formed out of chaotic, primeval substance THAT IS MATTER AND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED!!! When you quoted, in Phallic, Masculine, Heroic, what Danielou wrote, THAT STATEMENT IS "RIGHT ON THE MONEY"!! That cum is the ESSENCE of ALL THAT IS!!!

There are different mutations and metamorphases that occur in the phenomena of life. There are lower life forms that are simple and higher life forms that are complex.


So, we are Divine, but NOT, YET, Deity!!

People would say this is blasphemy, but what is more blasphemous--admitting what we are (Ps. 82:6)--or, sticking the VERY TOKEN of our Divinity up a shitpipe!!

God commands NOT to take His Name in vain. IN PRINCIPLE, this would mean NOT PROFANING what is HOLY!!!

To treat the phallus in this manner is just as much a sacrilege as saying, "Oh, shit!" in invoking God!!

Shit is so vile, that--the thought of any connection between shit and the dick or cum IS UTTERLY ABOMINABLE!!!

THAT'S why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:12 condemn ANAL--saying, "This is abomination."

THAT'S the abomination--NOT FROT!! I wish those lunkheads (like Bush and those in Congress and the clergy and the First Presidency of the LDS Church) could get that straight!!!

There are lower life forms created for a specific purpose and that's as much as their function. Some are higher and more complex.

But, WE are the SONS OF GOD!! Being put through a test NOW--to determine our worthiness to qualify for ALL THAT HE HAS TO GIVE IN THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM OF GLORY!!!

I may feel my life is no more meaningful that a maggot. But, IT IS--AND SO IS YOURS AND EVERYONE ELSE'S!! When you look up at the stars at night--do you think to yourself about how there is a little bit of YOU waiting out there?

That's why you have an intellect--a MIND: to THINK, to REASON, to MAKE DECISIONS!!! And, a BODY that RESPONDS to the MIND!!!

The only reason why some self-proclaimed experts claim the BRAIN as a SEX ORGAN is because we're the ONLY life form that can control BY THE WILL our SEX ORGAN!!! Think about that.

The spirit entity inhabiting your body and your body combined IS the soul--THAT IS YOU!!!

When we're resurrected, we'll be immortal, and, depending on our performance during this PROBATION, will be given the measure of glory that we deserve. Some will never be resurrected but consigned to outer darkness with the Devil and his angels--FALLEN sons of God who NEVER received bodies and, thus, that Divinity that is PHALLUS!!!

That's WHY they HATE the dick so much--and, if you notice, EVERYTHING IN OPPOSITION by the Adversary is about that HATRED of the dick!!!!!

And, if men fail to appreciate that manhood I wrote is the GREATEST GIFT, they'll be consigned to that AWFUL FATE!!! That's why these effeminates and sodomites, as well as the religious right, fight us so. Because they have a SENSE of what awaits them VERY SOON NOW!!! SO, they gotta "get their last licks in" before it's too late. Alas, they WILL be foiled FOREVER!!! And, then, WHAT A GLORY TIME FOR THE SONS OF GOD!! HALLELUJAH!!!

Bill S

Bill Weintraub

Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


Thanks guys.

Just to clarify two things that Bill S said:

In an earlier post, titled The Greatest Gift, Bill S wrote that thanks to our Man2ManAlliance sites,

I already see where I am coming back to my old self because of the confidence I have about my manhood. This is *the greatest gift* God has given after life and, someday, immortality and eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Bill S also mentioned a passage from Alain Danielou, author of The Phallus: Sacred Symbol of Male Creative Power, and who I quote in Phallic, Masculine, Heroic:

It is only when the penis stands up straight that it emits semen, the source of life. It is then called the phallus, and has been considered, since earliest prehistory, the image of the creative principle, a symbol of the process by which the Supreme Being procreates the Universe.

This is not the case of a symbol plucked at random but the recognition of the continuity of the process that links all the various levels of manifestation, according to cosmological theory. The phallus is really the image of the creator in mankind, and we rediscover the worship of it at the origin of every religion.

A source of pleasure, the phallus evokes divine bliss, the Being of Joy. Within the microcosm of the living being it represents the progenitor, which is always present in its work.

Contempt for this sacred emblem, as well as degradation and debasement of it, pushes man from the divine reality. It provokes the anger of the gods and leads to the decline of the species. The man who scorns the very symbol of the life principle abandons his kind to the powers of death.

Regarding Christians and sin: Patrick says that Christians obtain salvation through Grace and Grace alone.

You cannot merit Grace by the Law or any other means.

But the Law still exists as a moral guideline.

In other words, if we look at Jesus' sacrifice as a "license to sin," we don't understand what's going on.

While it's true that once you're among the elect, you cannot fall from Grace, God wants you to abstain from sin.

Now, when we look at what Scripture says about same-sex sexual acts, the references are all to anal penetration.

Anal penetration is a sin, and one should abstain from it.

Also true of promiscuity.

But there's no reason to believe that Frot, within the context of a loving and exclusive relationship, is sin.

It's also misleading to speak of "homosexuality" and the Bible.

Prior to 1869, neither the word "homosexual" nor the concept of "homosexuality," existed.

There were just sexual acts.

The Bible condemns certain types of sexual behavior, specifically anal penetration, effeminacy, fornication, and adultery, and is silent on others.

NOWHERE does the Bible condemn people of the same sex loving each other.

To the contrary, in several places, Scripture celebrates that love.

I wanted to get these posts on homosexuality and sin up this weekend in light of the news that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is planning a major purge of gay men from the Church, particularly guys in seminary.

I'm often critical of the gay male community, but it should be understood that I'm critical as a gay man and a member of that community, and that I recognize that these sorts of homophobic actions by people purporting to be religious have a tremendous negative impact on gay people.

I can't help but be bemused also by the role of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, in this purge.

In his writings, Cardinal Ratzinger, who grew up in Nazi Germany and is the scion of a prominent German intellectual family, has attributed the rise of Nazism to moral relativism.

Though I am by no means a moral relativist myself, I find Ratzinger's to be a remarkably shallow reading of history, and not congruent with his reputation as an intellectual.

In point of fact, the Nazis were absolutists -- not at all relativists.

To the Nazis, there was a superior race and inferior races, and the superior race was meant to rule the world, while killing or enslaving everyone else.

That's not a relativist position, nor could one confuse that with multi-culturalism, which is a prime component of the moral relativist world view.

What's more, Nazi imagery and language often very consciously echoed and imitated Christian imagery.

Whether Hitler was the anti-Christ, there's no question that he thought of himself as the anti-Christ: he planned to lop off all the crosses on German churches, and replace them with swastikas, while similarly replacing the Bible with Mein Kampf and, to the left of the altar, a sword.

This is how Daniel Goldhagen, author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners" and "A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair" (Vintage, 1997), puts it:

Benedict's conflation, under the rubric of "relativism," of the horrors of Nazism, a creed of extreme intolerance, with modernity and pluralism today is self-evidently bizarre. It also ignores several facts:

Contrary to Benedict's explicit claim in his memoirs, the church hardly "stood firm" against Nazism. Although dissenting from Nazism in many matters, the church, in the name of its true God, willingly collaborated with Nazism and fascism on others. Christian intolerance -- its anti-Semitism -- was the sine qua non for the emergence of Nazi racial anti-Semitism and for the Nazis' capacity to enlist so many Christians in their war against the Jews. And although the Catholic Church was not responsible for the Holocaust, it is also a fact that, in many ways, substantial parts of the church avidly aided various aspects of the Nazis' persecution of the Jews. The church, for example, supported the Nazis' and fascists' anti-Semitic race laws, and the Slovakian episcopate explained to the Slovakian nation why its government, headed by a priest, must deport the country's Jews. With regard to Jews, the church was not the fundamental antidote to the problem, but part of it.

A man living through this period and witnessing the destruction of Hungarian Jewry -- as Benedict has conceded -- and the German episcopate's support of the Nazis' war of conquest would know how fallible the church's true path has been.

Now, not even a year into Benedict's papacy, we find the new Pope carrying out plans apparently laid under his predecessor, Pope John-Paul II, to purge the seminaries of men NOT on the basis of what they've done, but of who they are.

No equal treatment there.

If you're gay, you're ipso facto guilty.

And that is precisely what the Nazis did with the Jews.

They purged the German professions and business of Jews not on the basis of what individual Jews may have done, but simply because they were Jewish.

Of course the Nazis didn't stop with purging; they went on to kill.

Nevertheless ...

What the Church is doing is morally repugnant.

And it's being directed in those actions by a German-born prelate who claims to understand the lessons of 20th century history when he clearly does not.

As a Gay Liberationist, I have a problem with priests who are gay yet continue to teach Church dogma on the innate sinfulness of homosex.

But I have a much bigger problem with a Church which seeks to stop men from being priests simply because of their sexual orientation.

I thank all the guys who've posted in this thread.

Bill Weintraub

Robert Loring

Re: Is Homosexuality A Sin?


Sin is a term from archery meaning "missing the mark." To sin in archery is to miss the bulls eye. To miss the bulls eye is to err and make a mistake. Therefore, to sin is to make a mistake.

God is Love, the Bible teaches. How can it be a mistake, a sin, to love? To love is not a mistake. For two masculine men to love each other is not a mistake. Love is never a mistake because God is Love and God is not a mistake.

Think about it!

Add a reply to this discussion

Back to Personal Stories


Warriors Speak is presented by The Man2Man Alliance, an organization of men into Frot

To learn more about Frot, ck out What's Hot About Frot

Or visit our FAQs page.

Warriors Speak Home

Cockrub Warriors Site Guide

The Man2Man Alliance

Heroic Homosex

Frot Men


Frot Club

Personal Stories

| What's Hot About Frot | Hyacinthine Love | THE FIGHT | Kevin! | Cockrub Warriors of Mars | The Avenger | Antagony | TUFF GUYZ | Musings of a BGM into Frot | Warriors Speak | Ask Sensei Patrick | Warrior Fiction | Frot: The Next Sexual Revolution |
| Heroes Site Guide | Toward a New Concept of M2M | What Sex Is |In Search of an Heroic Friend | Masculinity and Spirit |
| Jocks and Cocks | Gilgamesh | The Greeks | Hoplites! | The Warrior Bond | Nude Combat | Phallic, Masculine, Heroic | Reading |
| Heroic Homosex Home | Cockrub Warriors Home | Heroes Home | Story of Bill and Brett Home | Frot Club Home |
| Definitions | FAQs | Join Us | Contact Us | Tell Your Story |

© All material on this site Copyright 2001 - 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.