Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

On Homosexuality And Sin

9 Comments

Andrew Klavan makes a good point, I think:

I did not mean the sentence as the expression of a factual duality: either sex is this or that in actuality. I meant it as a response to Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality — a sort of mental argument with Phil, if you will. Robertson talks about homosexuality as a sin, while describing it in purely physical terms. What I should have said is something more like: “If Robertson thinks homosexuality is a sin, then he should address its spiritual aspects. If he just doesn’t like the physical nature of it, he’s welcome to express his displeasure but he shouldn’t pretend he’s making a larger spiritual point.” I used blogger shorthand and the meaning got blurred. My bad.

I agree. Whether (male) homosexuality is disgusting (as I find it) is a completely separate issue from whether or not it is sinful (I don’t think it is, but I have problems with the very concept of sin). Phil Roberts muddied the waters by conflating them. One can imagine an (unfortunate) homosexual who believes that his behavior is sinful, but by definition, doesn’t have any other problems with it. As I’ve noted in the past, and even the recent past, I think that many people who think it sinful are in fact bi (and therefore are tempted themselves), but consider themselves morally superior to homosexuals who they believe have a “choice” (as they do).

9 thoughts on “On Homosexuality And Sin”

  1. If a Christian believes that the Bible is the word of God, then he believes homosexuality to be a sin no matter what his personal repulsion or attraction. Just as adultery is a sin no matter how normal and attractive the act might be. It is a simple matter of who decides. I didn’t God did. If you are not a Christian none of this applies to you.

  2. Well, he is a layman, not a preacher, and he didn’t bring it up, the journalist hitman did, in hopes of causing such hate and discontent. He was not the one muddying the waters, merely being used as a tool by those who want the waters muddied.

    As to “If they think it’s a sin, it’s probably because they are bi”? That’s just silly. If that were the case, then why is the proscription almost completely universal? In the early days, when societies were forming, surly the direction would be in the “fun” direction, yes? So let us think this through. You do not believe in “Sin”, and yet it is a universal concept. So why is that? Postulating that the Divine did not give these directives, why do we have them? I would say that they are learned by humanity over thousands of years, not by any one person, but by society. “This is bad and harmful, even if you don’t see why”.

    1. That’s just silly. If that were the case, then why is the proscription almost completely universal?

      It’s not, actually. In fact, Dennis Prager is working on a very long essay on this topic.

    2. I can’t seem to post my reply; even if I split it and try posting a part, the spam filter whacks me.

  3. In this particular case, I note that vast amounts of crime is motivated by Nookie, to the point we have odd part of the law, “Crimes of Passion”. Nookie is dangerous. On the other hand, Society needs new members, so you can’t just ban it. So we would expect it to be allowed under tightly controlled conditions, for the purpose of having children, and otherwise forbidden. That would seem to follow how “Sin” describes and directs sex. So “Homosexual” Nookie is a sin, because no children can be created, but you still have the very strong possibility of the “bad stuff”. A very bad thing when one “lover’s quarrel” could take out the whole village……

  4. I’m Catholic. The first commandment of God to Man in the Bible is ‘spread forth and multiply’. Homosexuality flies straight in the face of it. So of course it is a sin. Not only against God, if you believe in Him like I do, but against the laws of Nature themselves. Any species which nerfs its own reproduction capabilities is destined to fail as a species.

    1. I dunno about that. First, it’s not a commandment. Second, being single is a sin? Would priests be sinning, too? Or nuns?

      Raised Catholic myself, I never really saw the bible as my primary source of rules.

      1. The whole thing about priests having to be single doesn’t come from the Bible at all. It was something Emperor Constantine came up with so that when he promoted his generals into bishops of the Catholic Church he wouldn’t have to be concerned about them amassing power and wealth into their families in perpetuity. The Apostle Peter, who the Catholic church claims was their first Pope, was married. Even Saint Augustine was married before he had his sudden lapse into religion and became a monk. You know what? Saint Augustine wrote both of his master pieces by extrapolating concepts from the Genesis so why can’t I do the same?

Comments are closed.