It should be common sense knowledge that many Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin. The following already asked questions should be more than enough to prove the point: - [Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual) - [What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35233/what-is-the-biblical-argument-that-homosexual-attraction-is-sinful-by-itself) - [What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7598/what-is-a-christians-justification-for-a-legal-prohibition-of-homosexual-marria) That said, I'm not sure if I've ever heard Christians who claim that homosexuality is a sin also claim that homosexuals can be freed from their (claimed) sinful condition. Logic tells me that they should expect this to be the case, in light of passages such as: Romans 8:12-17 (ESV): > 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, **but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live**. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Galatians 5:16-24 (ESV): > 16 But I say, **walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh**. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 **Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality**, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 **But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness**, 23 **gentleness, self-control**; against such things there is no law. 24 **And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires**. If homosexuality is a sinful desire of the flesh, as many Christians believe, does this mean that homosexuality, as any other sin, can be reversed by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, as the passages above seem to indicate? Is this the standard view among Christians who condemn homosexuality as a sin? An alternative way of phrasing the question: Can God heal homosexuality (according to those who view homosexuality as a sin)?

In the New Law, is the death penalty for sodomy (or other sins of lust, like fornication or adultery) a proportionate punishment? In other words, do Catholic theologians say legislators are morally permitted to write a law requiring the death penalty for homosexual or other acts of lust? Under the Old Law, Lev 20:13 did proscribe sodomy with capital punishment. cf. this post to the CathInfo thread "What Trump policies show he is pro-abortion or pro-sodomy? "

I have been a member of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for most of my life. My problem is that now, as a middle-aged man, and for the last five years, I have realized that I am a gay man. I am not thrilled about this and I wish it was not the case. I also have not done anything in furtherance of it either. I believe the Bible condemns it as sin. However, in being a member of a conservative denomination such as mine, I have nowhere to turn for help. I live in daily fear of God's wrath and worry that I'm in danger of being "given up" as mentioned in Roman's 1:24. I have a great pastor but I don't feel like I can come talk to him about this because I don't know what would happen. Thus, I am reluctant to ring a bell that can't be unrung. Any references to literature, etc. Would be most appreciated.

For the purpose of this question, assume a liberal Protestant perspective which does *not* consider homosexuality to be inherently sinful. 1 Corinthians 6:9: > Ἢ (Or) οὐκ (not) οἴδατε (do you know) ὅτι (that) ἄδικοι (the unrighteous) θεοῦ (of God) βασιλείαν (kingdom) οὐ (not) κληρονομήσουσιν (will inherit)? Μὴ (Do not) πλανᾶσθε (be deceived): οὔτε (neither) πόρνοι (the sexually immoral) οὔτε (nor) εἰδωλολάτραι (idolaters) οὔτε (nor) μοιχοὶ (adulterers) οὔτε (nor) μαλακοὶ (effeminate/passive partners in sexual immorality) οὔτε (nor) **ἀρσενοκοῖται** (???). > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor **men who have sex with men**. (NIV) 1 Timothy 1:10: > πόρνοις (for the sexually immoral), **ἀρσενοκοίταις** (???), ἀνδραποδισταῖς (for slave traders), ψεύσταις (for liars), ἐπιόρκοις (for perjurers), καὶ (and) εἴ (if) τι (anything) ἕτερον (else) τῇ (to the) ὑγιαινούσῃ (sound) διδασκαλίᾳ (teaching) ἀντίκειται (is opposed). > For the sexually immoral, for **those practicing homosexuality**, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (NIV) --- "ἀρσενοκοίτης" can literally be translated as "male-bedders", i.e. people practicing male homosexuality. However, it would be the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) to assume this meaning based on no other evidence. My question is: For liberal Protestants who do not consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin according to God, how is the word "ἀρσενοκοίτης" understood and/or translated into English? Please provide a reference to either the teachings of a mainstream church or a widely accepted apologist. --- I will accept answers from: * The perspective of people who do not view Paul as being the word of God and/or who disregard Paul's writing for any other reason. * The perspsective of people who accept Paul as being the divinely inspired word of God but who do not interpret these passages as saying that homosexuality is always a sin. I will not accept answers from the perspsective of people who believe homosexuality is inherently sinful -- that is not the purpose of this question. I am specifically **not** asking whether, for example, gay sex outside of marriage is a sin, or whether adultery is a sin -- that is out of scope for this question. I *will* accept answers along the lines of "ἀρσενοκοίτης means homosexuality but in the specific context of ...".

Scripture... does not approve of homosexuality. On the other hand, I know of no prohibition against loving (in a non-carnal manner!) and living with one's parents or siblings, and certainly many, many people spend years of their lives living with one or more thereof. In some cases, "siblings" might even be adopted. Historically, cohabitation of persons of the same sex is hardly unusual (schools, militaries, monasteries/nunneries). This got me wondering... I can't offhand think of any scripture that forbids living in the same household with a person of the same sex, *provided* that one is not engaged in... inappropriate activities. *Does any denomination* teach that this is forbidden, even among people that "love" (but not carnally!) one another? (Does Scripture?)

Let's imagine a gay man which tries to be a good Catholic and who is trying to develop all the virtues except for 6th Commandment virtues that are related to his fate. And even then - he tries to adhere to the 6th Commandment as much as it possible, e.g. by committing to loving and monogamous relationships. We can also assume that he has read some theological articles which suggest discernment and care for his situation (there are some in the Catholic academic journal which I will not link here, because they can be offending and divisive for the general audience and which is just theology in the development, no surprises). My question is - can this man go to the confession and acknoweldge all the sins and be ready to do penance for all of them, except that he is not giving promise not to sin again in the matters of 6th Commandment. Can priest give at least a partial absolution to his man and nurture at least all the other spheres of his spiritual growth? Of course, partial absolution may be not much worth - i.e. - it still won't allow to participate in the Communion. But - from the other side - this can be step in the right direction and least partial holiness can be achieved. And the Salvator will take care of the remaining. What can the attitudes of priest can be? Of course, this man will have long life in parish and he will go to the Confession each month and again and again the priest will have to listen that there is part that is not being corrected and improved stubbornly and the absolution can not be given again. But still - maybe that is possible?

Are there any Christian denominations that teach a complementarian view of opposite-sex marriages (the husband should lead and the wife should submit), while also recognizing same-sex marriages? If so, do they teach that one spouse in a same-sex marriage should submit to the other, or that both have equal roles?

Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology?

Today President Obama came out as the first U.S. president to support gay marriage. In his address, he even quoted scripture to support his change of view. Love him or hate him, it seems clear that he has struggled personally over the issue, which leads me to think that Obama probably personally opposes homosexual behavior, but has come to the conclusion that permitting homosexual marriage is the right thing, and even the Christian thing to do. This question is not about Obama's motives or his personal feelings. I simply bring this up as context, and to help explain the same intellectual struggle I'm dealing with personally. I suspect many Christians find themselves in a similar situation of opposing homosexual behavior, but feeling caught in the debate over whether their moral/personal objection to homosexuality ought to have the force of law. So for this question, I am seeking answers from the view point that homosexual behavior is a sin (there are [many](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality) [other](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual) [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1086/does-god-create-some-people-heterosexual-and-others-homosexual) that deal with this issue already, so please don't debate this issue here). My question, then, is: *Given that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, what is a Christian's justification for the legal prohibition against homosexual marriage?* I'm hoping for answers that cite Biblical principles, or at minimum theological and doctrinal principles. I'm not interested in "slippery slope" arguments. Strictly "social" justifications ("I don't want my kids growing up in that sort of society," "Legal marriage benefits exist because traditional marriage helps society in ways that homosexual marriage does not," etc), may be valid reasons to have such a view, but I don't consider them *Christian justification*, so I would ask that such answers be omitted here (unless they can some how be tied specifically into Christian doctrine). I'm also curious what, if anything, makes the homosexual marriage issue distinct among other moral issues that are legal, but not condoned by Christian teaching. Adultery, sex outside of marriage, pornography, strip clubs, gambling, smoking, etc. Should a Christian oppose the legality of all of these things as well?

Recently a lesbian couple who are both priestesses in the Church of England received the first formal ***blessing of a same-sex partnership in a C of E service.*** Upon reading this, I thought to myself, at least the Catholic Church has resisted the pressure to bless same-sex partnerships. Apparently that is no longer the case. [Catholic priests can now bless same-sex couples](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8) >19 December 2023: ROME (AP) — Pope Francis formally approved letting Catholic priests bless same-sex couples, the Vatican announced Monday, a radical shift in policy that aimed at making the church more inclusive while maintaining its strict ban on gay marriage. >But while the Vatican statement was heralded by some as a step toward breaking down discrimination in the Catholic Church, some LGBTQ+ advocates warned it underscored the church’s idea that gay couples remain inferior to heterosexual partnerships. >The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if the blessings weren’t confused with the ritual of marriage. Up until this point I thought the Catholic Church viewed homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” i.e., that such a union is not as God structured creation. Perhaps I am mistaken? I have no desire to be contentious (although this is a contentious issue for many Christians) but I really want to know ***the official Roman Catholic position on the blessing of same-sex partnerships.*** and where does the Roman Catholic Church go from here? P.S. I asked this question on same-sex marriage in October 2020: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/79466/what-is-the-official-catholic-position-on-same-sex-marriage-and-same-sex-civil-p P.P.S. I was unable to find a tag about same-sex partnerships so I have created one.

[It is in the news](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/church-of-england-backs-plans-for-blessings-of-same-sex-weddings) that the Church of England is conducting standalone services to bless the weddings of same-sex couples. These are described as trials/experimental. I know nothing about how such things are done in the theological world, but I know a little about how clinical trials are prepared in the biomedical world. When doing clinical trials in the UK for example there is a [whole convoluted procedure that one must go through](https://www.ct-toolkit.ac.uk/routemap/) , some of the important points that must be documented and approved before the trial is authorised: - What is the objective of the study - What data will be collected - How that data will meet the objective of the study - What magnitude of effect is expected - How likely the study is to demonstrate the effect given the true magnitude of effect Is this sort of information published about this sort of study? Do we know precisely what question they are trying to answer, how the trial will do that and what the chance of getting a conclusive result is given various underlying realities?

According to this page , it briefly describes this: > Queer theology begins with an assumption that gender non-conformity and homosexual desire have always been present in human history, and are present in the Bible. It is a way of unraveling structures and stories that have been oppressive. It is also a way of understanding the Bible as a source of stories about radical love. It seems to me that this type of theology is strictly limited to academia; however, I may be wrong. Are there any denominations that follow "queer theology", and who are they? I know denominations that are open to LGBT Christians, but they do not seem to be focused on this style of interpretation of the Bible.

I've been pondering this for several weeks and I believe that the reformed church (really, the church in general) is woefully unprepared to answer the following question: *How would the church deal with a gay couple that were not Christians when married, that then become Christians?* Specifically when we have passages like 1 Corinthians 7:17 (NIV) > 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. I'm looking for relevant biblical quotations, relevant quotes from reformed scholars past and present, and any statements by reformed churches or denominations that have come out in recent years. I'm also interested in how circumstances and views change when 1 partner becomes a Christian, when there are children involved, and when both partners become Christians. As gay marriage becomes more prominent, legal and prolific in our society, questions like this are going to be more and more relevant and the Church must be prepared to deal with an answer these queries. I'm specifically interested in reformed sources here as they are most relevant to me, but I would be open to other sources that take a similar view of homosexuality.

The Old Testament is clear on male homosexual activity. From Leviticus 20:13: >If a man lies down with a male as one lies down with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus changes some of the rules. He is allowed to because he is the Messiah. If earlier scripture says something, and Jesus says the opposite, then we give Jesus priority. That is what makes it Christianity. This is used for example to justify why Christians do not keep Kosher or circumcise their children. For rules not mentioned by Jesus, some say the rules remain the same. Others say the rules are no longer valid, as Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled the old covenant between man and god. The Old Covenant is gone, and the new one is what Jesus said. But the New Testament is not just the life and teachings of Jesus. There are loads of stuff after the resurrection about the establishment of the Church. Some of that says homosexuality is bad. For example Romans 1:26, 27: >God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Or 1 Corinthians 6:9 >do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men These were written by Paul years after the resurrection. Perhaps the above reflects some teachings of Jesus that were not included in the earlier gospels. Without justification, however, we can only believe the above is Paul's personal view. Suppose one was interested in living life only according to what Jesus said and did. Not the scripture and prophets that came before. Not the saints and missionaries that came after. In that case are there any rules on homosexuality? Is it good bad or neutral?

Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality? I have not heard nor found any. One is tempted to make the comparison with the "conditional nature of the private property rights" that are expressed, e.g. in https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html article 120. There is no dogma about the private property rights (AFAIK), there is strong Church teaching on the conditional nature, but nevertheless, there are attempts to question this conditionality. I am not aware of any official (*.va) list of all dogmas, but there is one non-official list http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/ and it has 2 dogmas for marriage.

I don't want to spark a debate, but I'm curious how Christians in support of gay marriage interpret seemingly anti-gay Bible verses? See the following: **Leviticus 20:13** > If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. **1 Corinthians 6:9-11** > Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. **1 Timothy 1:8-10** > Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...

The Catholic Church's current teaching regarding homosexuality is that homosexual acts are *peccatum contra natura*. More precisely, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) states: > Although the Catholic Church recognizes that homosexual attraction is not chosen, and therefore the orientation in itself is not a sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358), it has been the constant tradition in Church teaching, based on Scripture and natural law, that homosexual activity is morally wrong. ... Magisterial Church teaching states that homosexual genital relations are objectively immoral because they ‘‘lack an essential and indispensable finality,’’ namely, the procreative function of sexuality, the openness to new life (Declaration on Certain Questions concerning Sexual Ethics [Dec. 29, 1975] #8). Homosexual activity annuls the goals and meaning of the Creator’s sexual design. My question: **is this teaching infallible?** I found [this article](https://www.newwaysministry.org/2020/09/01/polish-bishops-claim-church-teaching-on-homosexuality-is-infallible/) debating a claim by Polish bishops who argue positively about infallibility. Yet, the article challenges this position. I have found surprisingly little material about it (at least from some superficial google search).

When I was younger it was quite common to hear that the crimes of Sodom had nothing to do with gayness, but was about pride, and they would quote Ezekiel 16:49. > Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of > bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, > neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Has any liberal theologian commented on that verse and the change, for example, of "gay pride" month becoming simply "pride" month?

Many Protestants, though not technically or officially [Reformed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) , are nevertheless strongly influenced by Calvinistic theology; as such, they espouse the doctrine of [total depravity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) , teaching that all men are born under the power of sin (Psalm 51:5). However, a large part of them are also [politically active](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right) , and I couldn't help but notice that this important segment (ascribing to [conversion therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy) and associated with the [ex-gay movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement)) also holds to the notion that [no one is born gay, trans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation) , etc., but rather, they embrace certain [discarded psychoanalytical ideas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) about the latter being a product of upbringing; in other words, of [nurture, rather than nature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture) . Granted, I am not exactly arguing that all sin is inborn, and that no vices are learned or (self)taught, but the (religious) zeal with which they (communally) cling to this opinion seems to border on dogma. My bewilderment stems from the (apparent or perceived) contradiction between the two views. Am I missing something? If so, then what?

How did the Early Church Fathers view the act of homosexuality, did they condemn it or did they interrupt the verses differently than we do, verses such as: > You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. **Leviticus 18:22** > 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of > God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor > adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor > covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit > the kingdom of God. **1 Corinthians 6:9-10** > 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their > women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 > Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in > their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, > and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. **Romans 8:9-10**