Homosexual orientation is not a sin

That is my belief. Nor do I care one fig what sexual activities consenting adults engage in.

How libertarian of me.

0

Author: Bryan G. Stephens

Bryan G. Stephens is a former executive on a mission to transform the workplace. He is the founder and CEO of TalkForward, a consulting and training company, utilizing Bryan’s clinical and management expertise to develop managers and teams in a corporate environment. As a licensed therapist with strong understanding of developing human potential, he is dedicated to the development of Human Capital to meet the needs of leaders, managers, and employees in the 21st Century workplace. Bryan has an Executive MBA from Kennesaw State University, Coles School of Business, and both a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in Psychology.

71 thoughts on “Homosexual orientation is not a sin”

  1. Bryan G. Stephens:
    How libertarian of me.

    Well, libertarians aren’t much into the concept of sin.  Sin is defined in a wide variety of ways by different religious traditions, and has changed in its definition even within a given religious denomination over time (I’m old enough to remember when Roman Catholics thought they’d go to Hell if they ate meat on a Friday and didn’t confess that mortal sin, and then…it wasn’t a sin any more).

    Libertarians are all over the map when it comes to religion: some are deeply religious and observe scriptural laws (I know a number of libertarians who are observant orthodox Jews, for example), and some are stone atheists.  But what they agree on is that the state should not be in the business of regulating, punishing, or encouraging behaviour which does not constitute the initiation of violence by one person upon another.  This includes most forms of consensual sexual behaviour.

    A libertarian may consider homosexuality deviant, damaging to those who engage in it, sinful according to their religious beliefs, and perhaps condemning those who engage in it to eternal damnation in the afterlife.  And they have no problem with shunning such people or denouncing those who advocate what they consider to be a pernicious lifestyle.  But what they oppose is the coercive state getting into the act, either to prohibit and punish homosexuality (as in much of the Islamic world) or to promote it (as in the United States).

    10+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  2. Who does say homosexual “orientation” is a sin, or immoral, or wrong ?

    Pretty rare to find anyone who is much concerned about what consenting adults get up to, either.

    Who are you arguing with? And what is the argument actually about?

    If your argument is that homosexual relationships should be supported and encouraged in law and social institutions as equivalent to heterosexual relationships in every way that matters, then I disagree.  Vehemently. Because mothers and fathers matter and making babies is a unique responsibility.  The natural family matters and erasing it from law and culture is as despicably destructive as anything humans have ever done.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  3. “Homosexual orientation is not a sin”

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    That is my belief. Nor do I care one fig what sexual activities consenting adults engage in.

    How libertarian of me.

    The Bible does not address “orientation.”   It does address sexual activities.   In the Law of Moses, the Bible says that male homosexual sex acts are an abomination.

    When Jesus, Peter, Paul and James addressed sexual immorality, they were using a definition drawn from the Law of Moses.

    I think a proclivity to homosexual leanings is one of many coping mechanisms that are the result of defective genes.   I think a variety of circumstances might trigger such proclivities.

    Still, acting on such leanings is in the control of the person who experiences them.   It may be a dreadful burden, but those feelings should not be acted on by anyone who wishes to live in accord with Biblical rules for righteousness.

    I do not have a problem with those who struggle with this burden.

    I do have a problem with those who teach that the church is wrong to believe and uphold the Bible.

    11+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  4. Why do people who say they don’t care what happens between adults care enough to tell me? Is it because they want to tell me how open they are?
    On the face of it the statement cannot hold up. A lot of betrayal can be done by two consenting adults. Often one of the adults don’t realize they are being manipulated till later.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  5. I’ll use the word “sin” from time to time, but for emphasis, with no expectation that people take me as speaking on behalf of the Almighty.

    If I argue about religious topics qua religion, I do so for argument’s sake, and I try to keep in mind that typically my counterparty is arguing not for argument but from religious conviction.  Obviously arguments which involve religion can be had on any number of topics, either party in which may feel that the other party is drilling on the slant (“I drink it up!”) under their own home ground.  Such is the nature of overlap.

    I have no religion of my own, yet contra my beloved Dennis Prager, I do have a well-founded morality.  One of the commenters at another site said of my pronunciations that he was “not familiar with your utilitarian conservatism,” which I thought was a remarkably apt description.

    I don’t know whether homosexuals are born that way, develop that way, or choose.  I suspect all are possible, and I know that there is not a single answer to the exclusion of all others.  But I do have some firm opinions about propriety, the risk of predation upon the young , and what’s good for society in a society which has freely chosen to exist as a society.  I don’t wish any individual ill will based on being gay (whatever that is), yet I do not recognize homosexual “marriage” as the real deal.  It’s not marriage to me any more than Mohammed “marrying” a six-year old was valid, nor would it be today, prophet or no.

    That fight in a legal sense is over for this round, but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it become incumbent on me to accept anything that is repugnant to my own values.

    George Orwell in 1984 has Winston Smith say that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four.”  There is a corollary, which is that it also requires that we be able to say that two plus two makes five.  I may be wrong, but it is my right.

    The expression of free speech termed by our Orwellian illiterate ruling underclass “hate speech” is important because it is a liberty to speak according to one’s own judgement, and to not be compelled to cease speaking for saying unpopular things.  If a thing is demonstrably wrong, then it is easily shown as such to reasonable people.  Catering to the audience of least mental faculty is a proven recipe for gulags and massacres — I am listening to Solzhenitsyn again.  If reasonable people cannot discuss unpopular topics now, then unreasonable people will shoot about them later.  Note how the urge of the censor waxes when only when they are confident of their victory by force, but wanes when defended only by reason.  And so “hate speech” is the indispensable component of liberty, more so than powerful oratory, more so than moral rectitude, more so than the bearing, much less the keeping of arms.  Because property you may have or may not, likewise family, arms, papers and possessions, lodging, appurtenances, curtilage — but you will always wander this Earth as a being contained in one skin and no other, with thoughts which are yours and no one else’s, regardless of the mad efforts made to transmit and receive these thoughts through all the forms of human expression.

    Guns are speech.  Money is speech.  Association is speech, property is speech, dance, fashion, and architecture are speech.  Code is speech.  While different domains for various legal purposes, these are all communication channels which allow you to live as you wish, which *are* you living as you wish, and if we take seriously our freedom to do any thing, then we must take just as seriously our freedom to not do a thing.  If I do not feel like joning your God-Damned club, then I cannot be made to, and so on for wearing your clothing, shooting your gun, or speaking your words.  I will use my words, thank you very much, without a second thought for gaining the approval of people who do not like me and do not support me, and who sometimes oppose me — sometimes perhaps with lethal force.

    Hate speech is less clear-cut than mathematical error, yet when I say that two plus two makes five, I coerce nobody.  And that is exactly who is entitled to compel a change in my mind, to force me to adjust my speech, or to silence me — nobody.  How much more secure then should I be in my liberty to merely say things which are not objectively wrong?

    We have been treated to a political machine rolling over science and then using the resultant chimerical non-science beast to roll right over us.  Science remains what it is, but like any field of human endeavor, it is filled with humans, who are not Science any more than Catholics are God.  “The science is settled!” scream the totalitarian harpies, wielding it as just one more interchangeable argument to compel silence until they marshal the force to do us in once and for all.  “Us,” I hear you say,  “Who is us?”

    Disagree and find out.

    Great legal and cultural victories have been won by suppressing, oppressing, compelling speech patterns of a supposedly free people.  The born-that-way crowd cannot point to a single two-plus-two fact which supports their claim.  And have no doubt — the minute they found a gay gene, an undeniable single-site difference, they would be beset by the hordes of those for whom it simply is a choice — they tell us that they exist, that they choose this and that (rather this, not that), and who would be run even further into the desert?  You and I, for daring to point up the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

    So I do not appreciate the vast crime which has been perpetrated upon my generation and more cruelly, upon the two which have followed so far.

    It’s a sin.

    8+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  6. It has always been a church teaching that same sex attraction isn’t a sin. It only becomes a sin if acted upon, but that goes for any sexual sin. So it isn’t libertarian, it is basic Catholic teaching.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  7. No it’s not a sin,  and no I don’t care how anybody else wants to get off, either.
    But it’s perverse.  Thats not my opinion, that’s because  heterosexual attraction is how we all got here.

    And I don’t want to be forced to celebrate it on any level.

    0

  8. Mate De:
    It has always been a church teaching that same sex attraction isn’t a sin. It only becomes a sin if acted upon, but that goes for any sexual sin. So it isn’t libertarian, it is basic Catholic teaching.

    What does the church teach about coveting? That seems to be what one does in one’s heart without action.

    2+
    avataravatar
  9. 10 Cents:
    Why do people who say they don’t care what happens between adults care enough to tell me? Is it because they want to tell me how open they are?
    On the face of it the statement cannot hold up. A lot of betrayal can be done by two consenting adults. Often one of the adults don’t realize they are being manipulated till later.

    Once in a while you drop the banter and actually say something insightful. Bryon, OTOH, as far as I can tell, is constantly looking for a fight. For someone with psychological “insight” that is “unusual”.

    1+
    avatar
  10. I have long held that homosexuality represents deviant behavior. I base that on both the science and religion.

    Scientifically it clearly doesn’t result in the propagation of the species. That is the basic reason for sex, is it not. Enjoyment is a side effect, that aids, sometimes, in achieving the primary purpose.

    Religiously, it has been proscribed behavior for many millennia. This of course does not mean it hasn’t happened; men are notoriously fickle in keeping faith, no matter which one they choose. Since I hold myself to be a Christian, I hold homosexuality to be sinful in nature. Among males it often is a question of dominance. Certainly it was that in ancient times, in Greece and Rome.

    One of the other characteristics of Christians is that they are tolerant. So, in this case, where people choose, in the privacy of their domiciles, to act out homosexuality, I can be tolerant. I dislike, however, the public display of it. But I tend to dislike public display of affection as basically crass behavior. Not the simple kiss of greeting, but the far more obvious displays we seem to be treated to these days. I would much prefer that such acts be kept private. In that same way, I dislike that my tolerance be thrown in my face with open homosexuality displays.

    That said, I do not accept that there are such things as “homosexual rights” or “transgender rights”. All these things are deviant behavior. Whether or not one is “born” with such “tendencies” is irrelevant. I am sure a serial killer is also “born” such, yet it is no less despicable a behavior.

    I also believe society has a role to play in the keeping of serious psychiatric patients. FAR too many of them have been “emancipated” by the ACLU, to the point we now have a permanent homeless class which has no ability to care for itself and is NOT better off wandering the streets, a target for the myriad of predators out there.

    9+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  11. Jojo:

    Henry Castaigne:
    On the plus side, homosexual sex doesn’t create human spawn.

    Same goes for sex with old ladies (cough.)

    A successful society organizes itself for spawning, though.

    Can’t we value children and families and leave homosexuals to their lives. I think we can have our take and eat it too.

    0

  12. Devereaux:
    Once in a while you drop the banter and actually say something insightful. Bryon, OTOH, as far as I can tell, is constantly looking for a fight. For someone with psychological “insight” that is “unusual”.

    You mean your therapist doesn’t challenge you to duels?

    1+
    avatar
  13. Henry Castaigne:

    Jojo:

    Henry Castaigne:
    On the plus side, homosexual sex doesn’t create human spawn.

    Same goes for sex with old ladies (cough.)

    A successful society organizes itself for spawning, though.

    Can’t we value children and families and leave homosexuals to their lives. I think we can have our take and eat it too.

    Will we be left to our lives, Henry? Have you ever heard of the “Gay Mafia”?

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  14. Hypatia:
    No it’s not a sin,  and no I don’t care how anybody else wants to get off, either. But it’s perverse.  Thats not my opinion, that’s because  heterosexual attraction is how we all got here.

    And I don’t want to be forced to celebrate it on any level.

    Probably in the womb, homosexuals receive either testosterone or estrogen which gives them more masculine or feminine traits. Considering all the things that can go wrong with being born this doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me.

    I get your point that we can’t have a civilization where everyone is gay but I don’t understand the concern of letting gays be gay provided that we don’t cement the natural fallacy into our collective moral conscious.

    1+
    avatar
  15. 10 Cents:

    Henry Castaigne:

    Jojo:

    Henry Castaigne:
    On the plus side, homosexual sex doesn’t create human spawn.

    Same goes for sex with old ladies (cough.)

    A successful society organizes itself for spawning, though.

    Can’t we value children and families and leave homosexuals to their lives. I think we can have our take and eat it too.

    Will we be left to our lives, Henry? Have you ever heard of the “Gay Mafia”?

    What the left does is they find a group that isn’t doing too well and they infect them with their anti-western romantic ideology that destroys that group. I am aware that woke homosexuals would prefer to burn down the Church that you go to and force you into a reeducation camp. So would woke heterosexuals.

    There are many: libertarian, liberal and conservative homosexuals who are fine with leaving Christians alone. I don’t see the sexual orientation as the problem but rather the political and moral ideology.

    Look at what woke people are doing to Star Wars and Star Trek and nerd culture in general. The woke left won’t let us live our lives and enjoy what we like. We have to be forced to conform to their standard of virtue. Ironically, it is similar to forcing homosexual to live heterosexual lives.

    1+
    avatar
  16. 10 Cents:

    Mate De:
    It has always been a church teaching that same sex attraction isn’t a sin. It only becomes a sin if acted upon, but that goes for any sexual sin. So it isn’t libertarian, it is basic Catholic teaching.

    What does the church teach about coveting? That seems to be what one does in one’s heart without action.

    Yes, I know what you are saying Dime. When Christ said in Matthew “that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” From what I understand, that is allowing a desire to stir in you. That one would contemplate an action with no compunction to stop.  However, a feeling or attraction to which one has no control and that person also does what they can to temper that desire, is different.

    I hope that makes sense.

    1+
    avatar
  17. Henry Castaigne:

    Jojo:

    Henry Castaigne:
    On the plus side, homosexual sex doesn’t create human spawn.

    Same goes for sex with old ladies (cough.)

    A successful society organizes itself for spawning, though.

    Can’t we value children and families and leave homosexuals to their lives. I think we can have our take and eat it too.

    It would be nice if the homosexuals would allow everyone else to live their lives in peace without shoving their lifestyles on the broader culture. It seems that the activist don’t want to do that. It’s not conservatives pushing this agenda. It seems we can’t have our cake and eat it too.

    1+
    avatar
  18. Henry Castaigne:

    Hypatia:
    No it’s not a sin,  and no I don’t care how anybody else wants to get off, either. But it’s perverse.  Thats not my opinion, that’s because  heterosexual attraction is how we all got here.

    And I don’t want to be forced to celebrate it on any level.

    Probably in the womb, homosexuals receive either testosterone or estrogen which gives them more masculine or feminine traits. Considering all the things that can go wrong with being born this doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me.

    I get your point that we can’t have a civilization where everyone is gay but I don’t understand the concern of letting gays be gay provided that we don’t cement the natural fallacy into our collective moral conscious.

    Just to challenge the in utero theory of any kind of sexual attraction. How do they know the hormone levels of babies while in the womb? How have they tested that? What methods did they use to obtain such information? I’ve had two babies and hormone testing of babies in the womb isn’t normally done and I’m not sure how they would do it without putting the pregnancy at risk.

    So much of what we know about sexuality was done by a bunch of people who called themselves “scientists” but were actually a bunch of perverts and deviants. Many of them wanted to justify their own deviant desires and to alleviate their consciences by saying that what they do is “normal” and “part of nature”.

    2+
    avataravatar

Leave a Reply