Where are the bible passages condemning Homosexuality

[Petersmate]

Can anyone tell me where exactly in the bible it speaks of homosexuality, I’ve been told that there are eight different bible passages.

 

[thistle]

Can anyone tell me where exactly in the bible it speaks of homosexuality, I’ve been told that there are eight different bible passages.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Rom 1:26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

Jude 7 Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

 

[Church_Militant]

Genesis 18
[bibledrb]Leviticus 20:13[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Leviticus 18:23 [/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Leviticus 18:22[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 6:10[/bibledrb]

There are probably more, but these are pretty concise.

 

[St_Francis]

Can anyone tell me where exactly in the bible it speaks of homosexuality, I’ve been told that there are eight different bible passages.

However, as Catholics, we do not look to the Bible alone for our Faith. The Bible is just one of three sources of Church teaching, and all three are in agreement. The other two are the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church which ultimately comes from the Pope) and Tradition (the teachings from Christ that were not written).

 

[Contarini]

An orthodox approach doesn’t just rely on prooftexts, but on the overall principles of Scripture and Tradition.

The specific texts, on their own, could probably be explained away. The problem is that there’s no way to fit same-sex unions into the Christian framework. You either have to argue for the legitimacy of non-marital sexual unions, or you have to define marriage in terms that exclude gender. Neither of these makes any sense in an orthodox framework.

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

An orthodox approach doesn’t just rely on prooftexts, but on the overall principles of Scripture and Tradition.

The specific texts, on their own, could probably be explained away. The problem is that there’s no way to fit same-sex unions into the Christian framework. You either have to argue for the legitimacy of non-marital sexual unions, or you have to define marriage in terms that exclude gender. Neither of these makes any sense in an orthodox framework.

Edwin

If there was the will, accommodation always could be found in church doctrine – for example, in the same way the church does not forbid marriage between a man and a menopausal woman. The unitive/procreative in sexuality could be deemed mandatory, except in cases where procreation is, by definition, impossible.

You may say that it’s precisely this impossibility that makes homosexual marriage illicit in the eyes of the church. I would argue that the unitive aspect of a homosexual marriage would still be there, and that the “thwarting” of the procreative aspect is not accomplished through artificial means (as it would be with artificial birth control).

If the will were there, an accommodation could be made – just as an accommodation is made for the case of the marriage between a man and a woman, where the woman has no means of conceiving naturally (whether through menopause, removal of her uterus, etc.).

I mention this simply by way of maintaining that there is no “cannot” in the doctrine of the church. If, too, it ever needed to justify the ordination of women doctrinally, I am sure it could find the means to do so.

 

[Petersmate]

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Rom 1:26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

Jude 7 Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

well thats seven quotes at least, there are eight apparently. Since the bible was put together by an estalished church founded by Jesus and hand down to Peter then homosexual acts are " an abomination"

for our Catholic friends who struggle with homosexuality and live a chaste life may God be with you. And please find a voice in our church.

 

[bauerice]

If you are using it as proof text, you must illiminate the OT texts. Those are the same scriptures that also say you cannot wear clothing made of 2 different materials, eat pork or shellfish, and stone to death those caught in adultery. You must concentrate on the NT verses. Also FYI pro-gay christians are going to ask, what did Jesus say on the subject?

 

[Nelka]

If you are using it as proof text, you must illiminate the OT texts. Those are the same scriptures that also say you cannot wear clothing made of 2 different materials, eat pork or shellfish, and stone to death those caught in adultery. You must concentrate on the NT verses. Also FYI pro-gay christians are going to ask, what did Jesus say on the subject?

Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’

Nothing here about two people joining together.

Jesus states man and woman become one flesh.

 

[Petersmate]

Jude 7 Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

This led me to look up Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.

Genesis 19: 3-7 He prepared a meal for them, baking unleavened bread, and they had supper.
They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the townspeople, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception.
Calling out to Lot they said, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them.’
Lot came out to them at the door and, having shut the door behind him,
said, 'Please, brothers, do not be wicked.

 

[Portofino]

I agree with Contarini that these Scripture passages can – and have, in fact – been explained away by those Christians who interpret Scripture differently.

The passages in Leviticus and elsewhere can be brought into question by all of the examples of laws that are no longer observed such as the abstaining from shellfish, the stoning of an adulteress, and even the stoning of misbehaving children.

Paul’s words against homosexuality can be brought into question by the fact that Christians generally do not obey words attributed to him as regards the conduct of women in church, which were pointed and unmistakable:

1 Corinthians 14: 34:

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

Paul anticipates grumbling about this and reiterates that this commandment comes not from him, but from God.

Even homosexuality in connection with Sodom and Gomorrah had not to do with monogamy and commitment but with casual lust, which would have been damnable even if it pertained to sexual relations between men and women.

And Matthew 19: 4-6, where Jesus speaks of God having made them male and female, and having joined them together, so they may become one flesh, may also be questioned. Was not Jesus acutely aware of the audience to whom he was speaking? The social order to which he was addressing himself? Perhaps he no more spoke to them of a “profound and unalterable homosexual orientation that could be redeemed through lifelong monogamy and commitment, and fear of the Lord” than he did of the abolition of slavery or the rights of women, because the time had not yet come (just as it was not the time to affirm the rightness of “representative democracy” or “no taxation without representation”).

It’s also notable that Jesus did not condemn same sex unions, per se; he merely reinforced the rightness of the permanency of marriage, as regards the only marriages that existed among the Israelites at the time – those between a man and a woman (nor, I might add, did he intend these words to forbid non-marriage and the practice of lifelong celibacy, as a violation of the commandment “be fruitful and multiply”!) Some things he condemned in the society around him, and other things he left as they were. He didn’t tell them to free their slaves, or to empower their women (menstruating women were believed to be unclean and there was an enforced separation from their husbands during their “unclean” periods, a rule that few of us today would find to be in harmony with the spirit of God). It could have been the society itself that had not yet caught up with God’s will.

Retired Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu proclaimed, in July 2012, “in the future, the laws that criminalize so many forms of human love and commitment will look the way apartheid laws do to us now – so obviously wrong.” I don’t think the quoting of Biblical passages would convince him otherwise, anymore than Catholics would be swayed in their Mariology by solely Scriptural arguments.

 

[TimothyH]

The basis for the teaching against homosexuality is found in the very fabric of creation itself.

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

The author of this scripture didn’t just add the fact that they were male and female as an interesting detail. He could have chosen to mention that they had blue eyes and brown eyes, or blond hair and black hair, but the author chose male and female as a visible sign that we are created in the divine image.

Our masculinity and femininity, and our ability to create new life are the visible signs of our having been created in the image of God.

All other Biblical texts on the issue are illuminated by this text. This is the basis for all other Biblical texts on the subject, Jesus’ teaching, Judaism’s teaching and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

-Tim-

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with Contarini that these Scripture passages can – and have, in fact – been explained away by those Christians who interpret Scripture differently.

We are members of the Church Christ founded. Protestants are members of ecclesial communities founded by men or women on their own interpretation of Scripture. Because Christ promised to protect His Church from error, and because we have always retained all that Christ taught–oral and written–these other interpretations are in error.

The passages in Leviticus and elsewhere can be brought into question by all of the examples of laws that are no longer observed such as the abstaining from shellfish, the stoning of an adulteress, and even the stoning of misbehaving children.

Paul’s words against homosexuality can be brought into question by the fact that Christians generally do not obey words attributed to him as regards the conduct of women in church, which were pointed and unmistakable:

1 Corinthians 14: 34:

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

Paul anticipates grumbling about this and reiterates that this commandment comes not from him, but from God.

Even homosexuality in connection with Sodom and Gomorrah had not to do with monogamy and commitment but with casual lust, which would have been damnable even if it pertained to sexual relations between men and women.

And Matthew 19: 4-6, where Jesus speaks of God having made them male and female, and having joined them together, so they may become one flesh, may also be questioned. Was not Jesus acutely aware of the audience to whom he was speaking? The social order to which he was addressing himself? Perhaps he no more spoke to them of a “profound and unalterable homosexual orientation that could be redeemed through lifelong monogamy and commitment, and fear of the Lord” than he did of the abolition of slavery or the rights of women, because the time had not yet come (just as it was not the time to affirm the rightness of “representative democracy” or “no taxation without representation”).

It’s also notable that Jesus did not condemn same sex unions, per se; he merely reinforced the rightness of the permanency of marriage, as regards the only marriages that existed among the Israelites at the time – those between a man and a woman (nor, I might add, did he intend these words to forbid non-marriage and the practice of lifelong celibacy, as a violation of the commandment “be fruitful and multiply”!) Some things he condemned in the society around him, and other things he left as they were. He didn’t tell them to free their slaves, or to empower their women (menstruating women were believed to be unclean and there was an enforced separation from their husbands during their “unclean” periods, a rule that few of us today would find to be in harmony with the spirit of God). It could have been the society itself that had not yet caught up with God’s will.

Retired Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu proclaimed, in July 2012, “in the future, the laws that criminalize so many forms of human love and commitment will look the way apartheid laws do to us now – so obviously wrong.” I don’t think the quoting of Biblical passages would convince him otherwise, anymore than Catholics would be swayed in their Mariology by solely Scriptural arguments.

All these differences are explained by the difference between discipline and morality. For example: in my house, no one is allowed to search through my purse. My friend lets her children do that. However, neither of us allows *stealing *from the purse.

 

[St_Francis]

If there was the will, accommodation always could be found in church doctrine – for example, in the same way the church does not forbid marriage between a man and a menopausal woman. The unitive/procreative in sexuality could be deemed mandatory, except in cases where procreation is, by definition, impossible.

The nature of the two people joined in heterorsexual marriage is oriented towards procreation, whether the individuals themselves can or not is rooted in their persons rather than in their nature.

You may say that it’s precisely this impossibility that makes homosexual marriage illicit in the eyes of the church. I would argue that the unitive aspect of a homosexual marriage would still be there, and that the “thwarting” of the procreative aspect is not accomplished through artificial means (as it would be with artificial birth control).

The nature of a homosexual union is not oriented towards procreation; the relationship itself is missing some parts. Homosexual marriage is not merely illicit in the eyes of the Church, it doesn’t exist as a concept. If I put a pile of wood in my yard and called it an airplane, that would not mean that an airplane would exist in my yard, would it?

If the will were there, an accommodation could be made – just as an accommodation is made for the case of the marriage between a man and a woman, where the woman has no means of conceiving naturally (whether through menopause, removal of her uterus, etc.).

It is objectively a mortal sin for a person to do something which frustrates the end of the marital act (the end being procreation). That a woman has gone through menopause or is naturally unable to conceive does not change her *nature; *menopause is part of her nature and infertility is considered to be a personal brokenness.

I mention this simply by way of maintaining that there is no “cannot” in the doctrine of the church. If, too, it ever needed to justify the ordination of women doctrinally, I am sure it could find the means to do so.

The Church *cannot *ordain women. The Church cannot ordain boats, or the moon, or elephants, or sabre-toothed tigers, because they lack the nature required to have the ordination work on them. In the same way, women’s souls are not the material which can be ordained.

There are many “cannots” in Church doctrine, to say otherwise is calumny. To imply that the moral teachings of the Church are subject to the decisions of those in authority is so wrong that it is like saying that the Mathematical Association could say that 2+2=17 if they really wanted to.

 

[Portofino]

The nature of the two people joined in heterorsexual marriage is oriented towards procreation, whether the individuals themselves can or not is rooted in their persons rather than in their nature.

It depends on how you define “nature.” Apparently you do not consider a women without a uterus to be compromised in “nature” vis-a-vis procreation, but rather in her person only. It is an open question whether you consider a woman with a XXY chromosome to be compromised in her “nature”, or in her person only. This argument depends upon a distinction between “person” and “nature” as regards human identity, and not everyone subscribes to this particular distinction, nor would everyone define it identically.

The nature of a homosexual union is not oriented towards procreation; the relationship itself is missing some parts. Homosexual marriage is not merely illicit in the eyes of the Church, it doesn’t exist as a concept. If I put a pile of wood in my yard and called it an airplane, that would not mean that an airplane would exist in my yard, would it?

Homosexual marriage does exist as a concept, for a great many people, those same people that do not accept an arbitrarily defined distinction between “nature” and “personhood.” If to be human is our nature or essence–as many believe–then it is an accident of our personhood (our gender) that makes procreation in marriage impossible. You are making a distinction between “male” nature and “female” nature; and, on the other side, “male” personhood and “female” personhood. Supporters of same sex marriage who subscribe to this argument need only make the distinction between “human” nature–the human soul–and “male” and “female” personhood. Since, by your definition, differences in “personhood” alone do not make a union illicit, only differences in nature, your argument stands or falls with universal agreement as to whether men and women have not merely different personhoods, but different natures. If not everyone is convinced that male or female genitalia or hormones define one’s nature–only one’s personhood–then the conclusion drawn will not be in agreement.

Church *cannot *ordain women. The Church cannot ordain boats, or the moon, or elephants, or sabre-toothed tigers, because they lack the nature required to have the ordination work on them. In the same way, women’s souls are not the material which can be ordained.

Boats, the moon, elephants, or sabre-tooth tigers cannot speak and exercise reason; read, write; nor do they have immortal souls. This is because the moon, elephants, and sabre-tooth tigers are not human beings. That ordination of women is compared with such far-flung examples as the ordination of a boat or an elephant, is a sad testament to me of how much antipathy there is against it.

Great Britain didn’t have a boat, the moon, elephants, or a sabre-tooth tiger at the very top level of its hierarchy; but it had Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II, and Margaret Thatcher.

And men and women–as members of the species homo sapiens–are much more similar to each other than either of them are to boats, elephants, sabre-tooth tigers, piles of wood, or any other animate or inanimate objects one cares to name.

are many “cannots” in Church doctrine, to say otherwise is calumny. To imply that the moral teachings of the Church are subject to the decisions of those in authority is so wrong that it is like saying that the Mathematical Association could say that 2+2=17 if they really wanted to.

Religious liberty as a promulgated principle was once a “cannot” in church doctrine, until Vatican II. As recently as the 1950’s, John Courtney Murray was ordered to cease and desist in his advocacy of it. Until Vatican II, the promulgation of religious liberty and of separation of church and state was considered impossible.

To compare religion with mathematics is unfortunate, in my mind. Mathematicians, qua mathematicians, might have a few things to say about the Holy Trinity, as it is a violation of simple arithmetic for all those who would maintain that they are monotheists.

 

[St_Francis]

It depends on how you define “nature.” Apparently you do not consider a women without a uterus to be compromised in “nature” vis-a-vis procreation, but rather in her person only. It is an open question whether you consider a woman with a XXY chromosome to be compromised in her “nature”, or in her person only. This argument depends upon a distinction between “person” and “nature” as regards human identity, and not everyone subscribes to this particular distinction, nor would everyone define it identically.
…

I have decided to quit debating this topic, and stick only to explaining the Catholic view and answering questions where my answers are not clear or comprehensive.

If you have questions about the Catholic point of view, I will do my best to answer them; however, I find that debating the issue with extremists who write as if they are considering the Catholic point of view only so as to order their own debating points to be too difficult for me to do while maintaining a charitable mien.

 

[Contarini]

If there was the will, accommodation always could be found in church doctrine – for example, in the same way the church does not forbid marriage between a man and a menopausal woman. The unitive/procreative in sexuality could be deemed mandatory, except in cases where procreation is, by definition, impossible.

You may say that it’s precisely this impossibility that makes homosexual marriage illicit in the eyes of the church. I would argue that the unitive aspect of a homosexual marriage would still be there, and that the “thwarting” of the procreative aspect is not accomplished through artificial means (as it would be with artificial birth control).

But the unitive aspect isn’t possible. “Unitive” doesn’t just mean “uniting any two people.” Then marriage wouldn’t be different from friendship. And in fact, as I see it a same-sex relationship is just “friendship with benefits.” It’s not even a flawed approximation of marriage. It has its own proper good (plus the distorted sexual element) which is distinct from that of marriage.

The problem is that our culture has bought into the idea that marriage is just two people who love each other. Downplaying the procreative element is part of that, but the point in the orthodox view is that you can’t separate procreative, unitive, and sacramental. They all make sense in light of each other.

I mention this simply by way of maintaining that there is no “cannot” in the doctrine of the church. If, too, it ever needed to justify the ordination of women doctrinally, I am sure it could find the means to do so.

As I see it, the ordination of women is different, because there are good reasons from within the Church’s tradition to ordain women.

Those who defend both and those who oppose both claim that the two cases are the same, but I find this hard to see. If they were the same, I’d be more likely to oppose both, because it’s quite possible that my disagreement with the Church on women’s ordination is affected by the distorted cultural norms that surround me.

You seem to view doctrinal positions as a matter of arbitrary “will.” I see no good reason to take such a cynical position.

There isn’t any good theological/philosophical reason to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. There are emotional reasons to do so, because a significant minority of our fellow human beings demand this as key to an acknowledgment of their dignity. But that’s all the more reason to make sure that there really is a good reason for such a major change, rather than just doing it so as not to seem heartless.

Edwin

 

[MJDorry]

If there was the will, accommodation always could be found in church doctrine – for example, in the same way the church does not forbid marriage between a man and a menopausal woman. The unitive/procreative in sexuality could be deemed mandatory, except in cases where procreation is, by definition, impossible.

You may say that it’s precisely this impossibility that makes homosexual marriage illicit in the eyes of the church. I would argue that the unitive aspect of a homosexual marriage would still be there, and that the “thwarting” of the procreative aspect is not accomplished through artificial means (as it would be with artificial birth control).

If the will were there, an accommodation could be made – just as an accommodation is made for the case of the marriage between a man and a woman, where the woman has no means of conceiving naturally (whether through menopause, removal of her uterus, etc.).

I mention this simply by way of maintaining that there is no “cannot” in the doctrine of the church. If, too, it ever needed to justify the ordination of women doctrinally, I am sure it could find the means to do so.

No. No. I’ve heard this used before and it’s plain bologna. Menopause and barrenness in women are incidental. They are technical exceptions which prove the rule. Whether they be barren or not, they are still precisely women who happen to be infertile. This does not prevent them from being able to marry as the intent is still to create a family the way a family ought to be created. To say what you said is to say that the whole familial principle in the Bible rests on whether a woman is fertile. You’ve wrested the man from the equation, who has a biological orientation toward women. Gay men are not essentially women who happen to be infertile. Gay men are precisely men who are most certainly potent, and engaging in homosexual acts is necessarily perverted not because some men can’t incidentally conceive with each other, but because all men can’t and never will be able to. A gate unlocked, two keys do not make. And the same goes for homosexual women. If you plug an appliance into an electrical socket and the socket is dead (Or vice versa), it doesn’t then mean that it makes sense to rub two plugs together because they both equally yield no electrical output. A plug always and forever belongs in a socket.

 

[benjohnson]

Don’t get sidetracked!

If someone is asking you to use the bible to “prove” that practicing homosexuality is a sin, don’t let them badger you into just using the bible.

The Catholic Church is more than the bible, it also is tradition and the Magisterium - so you can simply say “The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. We also have many people that have same-sex attraction in our Church are are not engaging in sinful behavior.”

 

[MJDorry]

There are emotional reasons to do so, because a significant minority of our fellow human beings demand this as key to an acknowledgment of their dignity.

This is what gets me! There’s nothing dignified in trying to justify it. A gay man has endless more dignity who can muster the strength to bear his tragic defect and never cave to it. I can’t imagine how hard it is for a gay man or woman because I know personally how strong the sexual and bonding desires are as a straight man, but I can have hope to marry. In many people, these desires are as needs like food and water and here, physiology has played one of the cruelest tricks on them.