What is the Biblical view on lesbianism vs. homosexual men?

[Lethe]

I mean, I know Catholicism views practicing homosexuals of either gender as sinning, but I so often see people refer to homosexual acts as sodomy when technically, that is not what is involved in most lesbian relationships… What exactly does the Bible say on lesbianism? Or would people view it wrong in the same way as premarital sex?

 

[1ke]

Romans 1: 26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The Church doesn’t distinguish between male or female homosexual acts as it relates to sinfulness. The acts themselves differ, but all fall under the same moral prohibition-- the Sixth Commandment. The Church views all persons with same sex orientation the same-- they are called to chastity.

Referring to the acts as “sodomy” is basically a euphemism for certain sex acts derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and comes from the Latin term for the “sin of Sodom.” Sodomy does not refer exclusively to male homosexual sex. It refers to anal intercourse and also to bestiality and oral intercourse.

 

[Cluny]

The word “sodomy” has been used to mean so many things that it’s meaningless.

One Christian writer used it to refer to marriage between a Christian and non-Christian.

Others have used it to mean marital sex not intended for procreation.

Some state laws have defined it to mean ANY sexual act, even between a husband and wife, except for vaginal intercourse, and that in one position only.

 

[Roman_Army]

The word “sodomy” has been used to mean so many things that it’s meaningless.

One Christian writer used it to refer to marriage between a Christian and non-Christian.

Others have used it to mean marital sex not intended for procreation.

Some state laws have defined it to mean ANY sexual act, even between a husband and wife, except for vaginal intercourse, and that in one position only.

Yes, it has been made much more vague in order to include any type of unnaturally infertile sexual sin. But, the fundamental meaning of male on male intercourse has not changed. It is not that much of a stretch to include any type of artificially infertile sexual act in the definition.

 

[CradleCath]

Romans 1: 26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[Tosk]

Well the punishment for homosexual men in the OT is death but there is no similar punishment for lesbians. I am guessing it is because not a single sperm gets wasted with lesbians so it is a lesser sin.

 

[johngh]

Well the punishment for homosexual men in the OT is death but there is no similar punishment for lesbians. I am guessing it is because not a single sperm gets wasted with lesbians so it is a lesser sin.

That is not a good way of looking at it. Both are equal in sinfulness.

 

[Tosk]

That is not a good way of looking at it. Both are equal in sinfulness.

Well one act is condemned with the death penalty and the other isn’t even specifically mentioned anywhere in the bible. The quote from Romans 1 26-27 seems to be women giving up natural intercourse with men for unnatural intercourse with men. Woman having sex with other women isn’t mentioned anywhere I don’t believe.

 

[brittrossiter]

St. Paul states that the abandonment of natural sexual relations is a consequence for those who have been haughty and impure; he does not differentiate between the genders (vv. 22, 24). When St. Paul then describes how men had engaged in relations with each other (v. 27), he is giving an example of this depravity. But it is apparent from the text that St. Paul thinks that women who abandon natural sexual “relations” are engaging in conduct that is just as depraved (v. 26), since he uses the word “likewise” (RSV) when transitioning from discussing the latter to the former in Verse 27.

 

[Roman_Army]

Well the punishment for homosexual men in the OT is death but there is no similar punishment for lesbians. I am guessing it is because not a single sperm gets wasted with lesbians so it is a lesser sin.

The condemnations in the Bible must be viewed in the context of the pagan culture that surrounded them. There perhaps was no such open practice of lesbianism back then in the culture. People perhaps never thought of it or openly exhibited or discussed it. They perhaps figured it was impossible due to the lack of a penis. The Book of Leviticus does not even mention anything about woman on woman sex, but it does condemn women who practice bestiality with male animals. Lesbianism was and is perhaps much more rare than male homosexuality. Even today when anyone mentions the term “homosexual” they usually think of males. Perhaps this perception or stereotype was even more prevalent back then.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You may be interested in “Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism” by Bernadette J. Brooten (see here).

 

[StillWondering]

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;5701182:

I think you made a great post. I did wanted to disagree on one point and hope I am correct on this. People with SSA are called to chastity not celibacy right? If it’s celibacy, than a man with affections for the male gender cannot honestly get marriage to a women and raise children in love. I mean it would be more risky, but love is greater than just sexual attraction and if a man can physical have sexual relations with a woman in a chaste way and chooses to do so, would that not be an option. I personally do not know if this is physically possible, but my understanding is that it should.

You are correct in the fact that, if a homosexual man can marry a woman & have sexual relations with her, he would be called to Chastity…just as any man within a heterosexual marriage would be. He would, however, be bound to tell the woman, before marriage, that he struggles with SSA or is bisexual. If he keeps his sexual orientation from his wife-to-be, that would most certainly be grounds for annulment if things went badly.

In general though, gay men do not marry women, nor do they find women to be the object of their affections. They prefer another man. (Just as Lesbians find other women sexually attractive & more likely to be the object of their affections) . In these cases, which are the “norm” for them, they are called to celibacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-orientation_marriage

However, that is not what I was speaking of when I

 

[StillWondering]

StillWondering;5707009:

You are correct in the fact that, if a homosexual man can marry a woman & have sexual relations with her, he would be called to Chastity…just as any man within a heterosexual marriage would be. He would, however, be bound to tell the woman, before marriage, that he struggles with SSA or is bisexual. If he keeps his sexual orientation from his wife-to-be, that would most certainly be grounds for annulment if things went badly.

In general though, gay men do not marry women, nor do they find women to be the object of their affections. They prefer another man. (Just as Lesbians find other women sexually attractive & more likely to be the object of their affections) . In these cases, which are the “norm” for them, they are called to celibacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-orientation_marriage

However, that is not what I was speaking of when I

While in general it may be true, I just wanted to be clear so that there is no confusion in case any young man or woman is reading and have SSA. They should know that having SSA and a true love to do what is best for someone of the opposite sex does not conflict. If the fulfill the requirements for marriage, do not have any impediment, and will fulfill all duties to the spouse including the right to sexual relations, they are free to marry. I would imagine there are relationships as such and it is build on deep love independent of sexual feelings.

I am reading the wiki article you linked. There are a great deal of complicated reasons some marry it seems. I guess I am naive to think that marriage is between a man and a woman who has a deep love that wishes the best for each other. Everything else is just fluff or human culture.

 

[Mintaka]

If a man and a woman marry with an honest will to be faithful to each other and to treat each other fairly, doing everything a married person should and not doing what they shouldn’t – of course they’re married. More married than a lot of people. Sexual attraction is not as important to this as being willing and doing right.

Thing is, this kind of honest will is actually love, even if it doesn’t feel like “falling in love” or “being in love”. It’s love itself, without any of the trimmings. (Though schmoopy feelings of some sort usually come along in time.)

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people out there with all sorts of schmoopy feelings, who don’t actually feel obliged to do what is best for their supposed beloved. A love that only drags the beloved down, and makes the lover and beloved sin and sneak around, is not love at all – no matter how it feels.

 

[Jason_1977]

hate the sin but not the sinner. this one was easy.