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. Look at this a different way. Animals have homosexuality. They tolerate it – until it gets to some size where the tribe/pack/herd no longer finds it reasonable, then they kill off the gays. Procreation has a purpose. As Mate De pointed out, ALL past decadent civilizations died away.

    ?And what do we have today. The birth rates of Europe & Japan are such that those cultures will wither away. America is barely hanging in there, and it’s mostly because of the evangelicals; the lefties are too into their own self-satisfaction. You have to see a future and desire a future to have children. If you have grandchildren you know what I. speak of.

    0

  2. Henry Castaigne:

    MJBubba:

    Haakon Dahl:
    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.

    Yes.   When it comes to sexual orientation and related issues, I do not think any of the supposed research from the previous century can be trusted.

    In the past 20 years, there have been a few studies that seem to be better-quality work.   Few researchers dare to enter the field, and the ones who do know they must tread very carefully for the entire field is a minefield.  Partisans on both sides are watching like hawks for flaws in data and methods.

    And Big Gay will try to destroy anyone who publishes findings that run counter to their narrative.

    As for the work of the previous century, the work of the 1950s and ’60s, as Mate De pointed out, cannot be trusted due to major flaws built in by the “researchers” who sought to normalize perversions and deviancies.   Work from 1970 through 1999 is also suspect.  Methods improved, recordkeeping improved, but bias in experiment design still favored the normalization of what was not normal.   It is better work, but still not trustworthy; especially not trustworthy for the formulation of public policy.

    Deborah Soh who has a P.H.D. in human sexuality refers to this theory as having the most evidence behind it. The more male children you have the more likely that the later children will be homosexual. This has been documented in many different countries and the idea is that women tend to have more estrogen in later births.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/

    But why are you so interested in science now? When the discussion of genetics in the role of I.Q. and other observable traits came up you seemed disinterested in the the scientific evidence of how genes determine our personality.

    I was never un-interested in science. But I think that our understanding of genetics is still very much a work in progress. I think traits that are clearly linked to genes can be expressed in different ways that are poorly understood, and that such expressions are swayed by circumstances such as emotional stress or poor nutrition or other possible experiences. There is a large body of evidence that shows genetic influences are dramatically influential over human behavior, but there are also exceptions that do not conform to expectations. There are interactions that are not known, and the researchers are only now asking some very important questions.

    And, even if genetics are highly influential over our personalities, we choose our actions.

    And, genes are no indication of God’s approval. Adam and Eve had perfect genes. But sin corrupted the transmission of genes ever since, and now we live with a host of genetic disorders that were not designed by God. So, just because some trait may be genetic, it is not therefore moral to act in accord with every genetically-driven impulse.

    1+
    avatar
  3. 10 Cents:
    How do you understand how Jesus defined sin?

    Jesus used the Torah. He said that none of the Law of Moses was invalidated. He quoted Torah on a number of occasions, and he also quoted Psalms and passages from the Prophets that were commentaries on the Law of Moses. He knew that His listeners would all use the Torah definitions for everything he taught.

    If you want to know how Jesus defined sin, read the Torah.

    1+
    avatar
  4. [This is a comment that was in reply to a prior comment that was subsequently deleted.]

    When the church sponsors a BSA scout troop, the actions and messages of the BSA matter. We had long been concerned about the BSA syncretistic attitude towards religion, expecting all scouts, whether Christian or something else, to jointly pledge to honor “God.” With scouts whose definitions of God so dramatically different, there has been a latent concern for many decades about the potential for muddled messaging about the Gospel that the church must proclaim.

    In the past ten years there has been very public debate about scout policy on moral issues, and the debate did not go well for traditionalist Christians. BSA made statements that directly contradict part of the message of the church regarding moral standards. These could not be ignored because they were so public.

    Yes, the publicity was a dramatic part of the problem. Mass media trumpeted their victory over BSA. They were very much in our faces, and in the faces of our people, and in the faces of our community. Media celebrates the victories of the Left over the people of God. The surrender of the BSA was another trophy for the Left’s continuing assault on western civilization, and mass media was making sure that every America was aware that BSA had endorsed moral confusion.

    Our partner in scouting chose the wrong path. BSA chose to confuse the message of what it means to be “morally straight,” and they did it in a way that forced the church to react.

    I hate this division.

    But however much I hate the division, I must protect my church and the flock gathered here. When it finally came to a vote, I could not vote to pull the plug on the Boy Scouts, but I did not vote in opposition, either. It was clear that BSA was only going to get worse, and that the church would never get to an end of fighting to clarify and correct muddled messaging about moral standards.

    You can blame me all you care to. My loyalty is to the faithful people of my congregation, over any loyalty I have to scouting.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  5. Bryan G. Stephens:
    I was absent because I was AFK.

    I used sin to mean sin. As in acts which are wrong in the eyes of God and Man.

    My bottom line is that I don’t think consensual sex acts that do not result in harm, to be “bad”. I further think that shaming people for their sexual orientation is a sin. I think denying someone any sexual expression is also a sin.

    I just don’t buy the Old Testament as written. The Earth is not flat, it is not 6000 years old. There is no evidence half a million people spent a generation in the desert and left no trash behind (I suppose God could have picked up after them). And proscriptions on homosexuality have long been a part of semetic cultures. That same part of the Bible also tells me not eat certain foods, and to avoid my wife during certain times of the month. Heck, I won’t follow commands to conquer and murder people either. Not looking to get into a point by point debate on any of these things, but I use them as examples.

    This hostility to the Old Testament, from a self-identified Christian, amounts to a neo-Marcionist heresy.   I will engage with this is a separate post.

    I can be disgusted at the behavior of another person. That does not make what they do a sin. I will say, I am not particularly disgusted by most sexual practice. I just don’t care. But, just because I am not looking to be strapped to a cross and whipped, does not mean I care much if someone else does it.

    This is a really confused comment.  Your disgust or not has no bearing on whether an act is a sin.   There is an objective standard for what sin is, and your opinions and attitudes have no bearing on the matter.

    And, we are way beyond the days when homosexual sex acts were illegal.  Nobody has advocated that for thirty years.

    We are approaching the time when homosexual sex acts will be compulsory.

    I have seen too many people of homosexual orientation be rejected by their families. I will not treat them as less than fully human. And no matter how loving you claim to be, denying someone any and all sexual expression is not a loving way to treat another human being. Your sexual orientation is innate. So, for many, is theirs.

    I have also seen homosexuals rejected by their families.

    I had a period of lengthy interactions with a young man who was confused by his sexuality.  He was even more confused by other matters in life.   I tried to help him, which he appreciated even though there was no question that I disapprove of homosexual sex.  My counsel was that it seemed that homosexuality was a way for him to act out his own rejection of his father.   He agreed that that was at least part of what was going on in his life.   The division that resulted from his homosexuality was only a reflection of a deeper division that had already happened as he was growing up.

    The whole situation was very sad.   I don’t think I ended up being all that helpful, but I don’t know.   At least I was able to serve as a sounding board for some of his questions about life.  I wished at the time that I had been trained for such a role.

    He took a new job and moved out of state.   I also took a new job and moved to a different other state.  We lost touch.   I wish him well and pray for him from time to time.

    I never treated him or any other gay person as less than human.   That is a terrible accusation, to which I take offense.

    Telling him that I think homosexual sex has corrosive spiritual consequences may be hard for him to bear, but then, how would it be loving of me to encourage him to engage in a spiritually corrosive lifestyle?

    2+
    avataravatar
  6. 10 Cents:
    Brian, sin is what YOU think is unfair.  It is not about God and Man.  You are disgusted with people who don’t see things your way. One cannot question sexual expressions that don’t hurt you. If others are hurt, they need to see things your way.

    Is the above correct?

    OK, First off, as the name says it is BrYan, not Brian.

    Second off, I defined sin for you. I think it is not cricket to come along and say that is not what I meant.

    Third, if you think that I am disgusted with people who cannot see things my way, I have either not been clear, or you are engaged in some sort of projection onto what I have said, or both. Most likely both.

    So, to answer your question, no, none of what you typed is at all correct.

    • My name is Bryan
    • Sin is what is wrong before Man and God
    • My interpretation of homosexuality is that it is not wrong before Man and God. People have differed on what is and is not wrong before Man and God for ages, so I think I am allowed to have an opinion on this as much as any student of the Bible. Maybe I am mistaken.
    • I am not disgusted with people who see things differently than me. I do think some beliefs are, to put it bluntly, nuts. That is not disgust though.
    • Others can question any sexual activity they want to question. I don’t much care, personally. To be honest, I don’t even understand how you read what I said as anything telling people they cannot question sexual activity. I spoke how it was for me.
    • Nothing I said had anything at all to do with others being hurt having to see things my way. I have no idea where that comes from at all.

    Frankly, the OP is a really clear statement.

    0

  7. MJBubba:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    I was absent because I was AFK.

    I used sin to mean sin. As in acts which are wrong in the eyes of God and Man.

    My bottom line is that I don’t think consensual sex acts that do not result in harm, to be “bad”. I further think that shaming people for their sexual orientation is a sin. I think denying someone any sexual expression is also a sin.

    I just don’t buy the Old Testament as written. The Earth is not flat, it is not 6000 years old. There is no evidence half a million people spent a generation in the desert and left no trash behind (I suppose God could have picked up after them). And proscriptions on homosexuality have long been a part of semetic cultures. That same part of the Bible also tells me not eat certain foods, and to avoid my wife during certain times of the month. Heck, I won’t follow commands to conquer and murder people either. Not looking to get into a point by point debate on any of these things, but I use them as examples.

    This hostility to the Old Testament, from a self-identified Christian, amounts to a neo-Marcionist heresy.   I will engage with this is a separate post.

     

    I’ll address it here, since you posted it here, in my thread.

    You can call me a heritc all you want. The Earth is not 6000 years old. All the evidence is on my side. No one who is a young earth creationist can honestly expect me to believe anything they say about science. I will believe in the Tic Tac before I believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

    There was no Adam and Eve. That is a myth. I can believe in a God who rules a universe as we understand it. I don’t need to believe in a literal Bible to have faith in that grand being.

    0

  8. It is really quite amazing to me the level of pushback I am facing based on a simple statement I don’t find Homosexuality is a sin.

    I don’t think it is a sin. I don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

    I suppose I should be cast out in to the outer dark as a heathen.

    MJBubba:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    I was absent because I was AFK.

    I used sin to mean sin. As in acts which are wrong in the eyes of God and Man.

    My bottom line is that I don’t think consensual sex acts that do not result in harm, to be “bad”. I further think that shaming people for their sexual orientation is a sin. I think denying someone any sexual expression is also a sin.

    I just don’t buy the Old Testament as written. The Earth is not flat, it is not 6000 years old. There is no evidence half a million people spent a generation in the desert and left no trash behind (I suppose God could have picked up after them). And proscriptions on homosexuality have long been a part of semetic cultures. That same part of the Bible also tells me not eat certain foods, and to avoid my wife during certain times of the month. Heck, I won’t follow commands to conquer and murder people either. Not looking to get into a point by point debate on any of these things, but I use them as examples.

    This hostility to the Old Testament, from a self-identified Christian, amounts to a neo-Marcionist heresy.   I will engage with this is a separate post.

    I can be disgusted at the behavior of another person. That does not make what they do a sin. I will say, I am not particularly disgusted by most sexual practice. I just don’t care. But, just because I am not looking to be strapped to a cross and whipped, does not mean I care much if someone else does it.

    This is a really confused comment.  Your disgust or not has no bearing on whether an act is a sin.   There is an objective standard for what sin is, and your opinions and attitudes have no bearing on the matter.

    That comment is not confused at all. The underlined is exactly the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing with me on that. As I stated sins are wrong actions in the eyes of God and Man. Sounds like we are on the same page there. We disagree on what the sin is. You don’t get to be more right than me on this, just because you want to be. I have as much right to my relationship with God as you do.

    And, we are way beyond the days when homosexual sex acts were illegal.  Nobody has advocated that for thirty years.

    I was not aware I was arguing that was about to come back. Please point that out so I can clarify.

    We are approaching the time when homosexual sex acts will be compulsory.

    I assume that is hyperbole.

    I have seen too many people of homosexual orientation be rejected by their families. I will not treat them as less than fully human. And no matter how loving you claim to be, denying someone any and all sexual expression is not a loving way to treat another human being. Your sexual orientation is innate. So, for many, is theirs.

    I have also seen homosexuals rejected by their families.

    I had a period of lengthy interactions with a young man who was confused by his sexuality.  He was even more confused by other matters in life.   I tried to help him, which he appreciated even though there was no question that I disapprove of homosexual sex.  My counsel was that it seemed that homosexuality was a way for him to act out his own rejection of his father.   He agreed that that was at least part of what was going on in his life.   The division that resulted from his homosexuality was only a reflection of a deeper division that had already happened as he was growing up.

    The whole situation was very sad.   I don’t think I ended up being all that helpful, but I don’t know.   At least I was able to serve as a sounding board for some of his questions about life.  I wished at the time that I had been trained for such a role.

    He took a new job and moved out of state.   I also took a new job and moved to a different other state.  We lost touch.   I wish him well and pray for him from time to time.

    I never treated him or any other gay person as less than human.   That is a terrible accusation, to which I take offense.

    You sure seem fast to tell them that there very nature is sinful in a way that yours is not.

    Telling him that I think homosexual sex has corrosive spiritual consequences may be hard for him to bear, but then, how would it be loving of me to encourage him to engage in a spiritually corrosive lifestyle?

    You are dancing on a razor edge. Telling someone their fundemental sexual impulses are sinful and corrosive is only a hair off telling them they are just a bad person. And please, the message has not been “We are fine with gays as long as they don’t have sex”. That has never been the message received from the Church.

    If one of my children were to come out as homosexual, I would love them no less, and want them to find a partner to share their lives with no less. You would have them spend their lives unmarried, in a constant fight with themselves and call that “loving”.

    Now, that is something I can say I find disgusting.

    1+
    avatar
  9. Bryan G. Stephens:

    10 Cents:
    Brian, sin is what YOU think is unfair.  It is not about God and Man.  You are disgusted with people who don’t see things your way. One cannot question sexual expressions that don’t hurt you. If others are hurt, they need to see things your way.

    Is the above correct?

    OK, First off, as the name says it is BrYan, not Brian.

    Second off, I defined sin for you. I think it is not cricket to come along and say that is not what I meant.

    Third, if you think that I am disgusted with people who cannot see things my way, I have either not been clear, or you are engaged in some sort of projection onto what I have said, or both. Most likely both.

    So, to answer your question, no, none of what you typed is at all correct.

    • My name is Bryan
    • Sin is what is wrong before Man and God
    • My interpretation of homosexuality is that it is not wrong before Man and God. People have differed on what is and is not wrong before Man and God for ages, so I think I am allowed to have an opinion on this as much as any student of the Bible. Maybe I am mistaken.
    • I am not disgusted with people who see things differently than me. I do think some beliefs are, to put it bluntly, nuts. That is not disgust though.
    • Others can question any sexual activity they want to question. I don’t much care, personally. To be honest, I don’t even understand how you read what I said as anything telling people they cannot question sexual activity. I spoke how it was for me.
    • Nothing I said had anything at all to do with others being hurt having to see things my way. I have no idea where that comes from at all.

    Frankly, the OP is a really clear statement.

    Sorry about getting the name wrong.

    1+
    avatar
  10. Bryan G. Stephens:
    People have differed on what is and is not wrong before Man and God for ages, so I think I am allowed to have an opinion on this as much as any student of the Bible. Maybe I am mistaken.

    The mistake was mine.   I thought you were speaking as a Methodist Christian.

    You are, of course, free to invent any idiosyncratic religion you want for yourself.

    What you have said about the Old Testament puts you in the Marcionite camp.

    Now I think I understand better why the United Methodist Church is approaching a divorce.

    1+
    avatar
  11. MJBubba:

    10 Cents:
    How do you understand how Jesus defined sin?

    Jesus used the Torah. He said that none of the Law of Moses was invalidated. He quoted Torah on a number of occasions, and he also quoted Psalms and passages from the Prophets that were commentaries on the Law of Moses. He knew that His listeners would all use the Torah definitions for everything he taught.

    If you want to know how Jesus defined sin, read the Torah.

    Bubba, do you follow the Torah to the letter of the law? My guess is that you do not. You are missing some in your explanation.

    2+
    avataravatar
  12. Would you show your work, Bryan? You have stated that you have come to your conclusion because you are a student of the Bible. How did you come to that conclusion?

    1+
    avatar
  13. The bible cannot be the literal truth because it is in conflict with scientific evidence.  The Old Testament is a series of moral stories not a history of the world. Prohibitions therein are for a specific people who were in bondage at the time the books were written.  Different diets and such set people aside. We are a post tribal society.

    0

  14. MJBubba:
    I was never un-interested in science. But I think that our understanding of genetics is still very much a work in progress. I think traits that are clearly linked to genes can be expressed in different ways that are poorly understood, and that such expressions are swayed by circumstances such as emotional stress or poor nutrition or other possible experiences. There is a large body of evidence that shows genetic influences are dramatically influential over human behavior, but there are also exceptions that do not conform to expectations. There are interactions that are not known, and the researchers are only now asking some very important questions. And, even if genetics are highly influential over our personalities, we choose our actions.

    And, genes are no indication of God’s approval. Adam and Eve had perfect genes.

    Well I agree with everything that I quoted except the last two sentences. With regard to genetics there has been recent research into what was supposedly called ‘junk DNA’ to suggest that genetics is even more complicated than what we previously thought.

    With regard to the last two sentences. Do you actually believe in creationism or are you making a point using an important moral parable? I lack empathy so I often have a hard time understanding the religious experience of people.

    0

  15. MJBubba:

    Henry Castaigne [quoting Bubba]:
    …even if genetics are highly influential over our personalities, we choose our actions.

    You disagree with this ?

    Those aren’t the last two sentences of what I quoted. The last two sentences I refer to are.

    And, genes are no indication of God’s approval. Adam and Eve had perfect genes.

    0

  16. Henry Castaigne:

    MJBubba:

    Henry Castaigne [quoting Bubba]:
    …even if genetics are highly influential over our personalities, we choose our actions.

    You disagree with this ?

    Those aren’t the last two sentences of what I quoted. The last two sentences I refer to are.

    And, genes are no indication of God’s approval. Adam and Eve had perfect genes.

    OK; God made Adam and Eve to be perfect.   They allowed sin to enter and corrupt the world.  God allows this corruption to spread, because the remedy is to bring the end of the world.   He will bring it to an end at a time of His choosing.  Meanwhile, we live in a sin-corrupted world.  All is tainted, right down to our genes.

    0

Leave a Reply