Why not? Is the desire for premarital sex a sin? What about cheating on one's spouse? The common denominator here is that these (including homosexuality and transgenderism) all represent desires that are contrary to nature; contrary to God's design. Desires which are contrary to God's design must be categorized as sinful. Sin, after all, encompasses not only actions but also the desires of our hearts. If God created us in a particular way and we harbor desires to be contrary to that design, it reflects a prioritization of self over obedience to God. That's the
essence of sin.
Jesus calls us to deny ourselves and take up our cross (
Matt. 16:24-26), which involves waging war against such desires, perhaps
especially those which one chooses to associate with their personal identity. I grant that there is a difference between a desire and acting upon that desire. We all struggle with our own unique sinful desires. And my desires for my own sinful struggles are not different, fundamentally, from someone else's desires to be someone other than who God created them to be. But that doesn't make the desire itself okay. Even if we choose not to act upon our sinful desires, they are still sinful desires, hence
why it is necessary to deny oneself.
Consequently, I don't find your shift from "not sin" (with regard to the feeling) to "I don't know" (with regard to the act) to be very coherent. How can an action be sinful if the desire for it isn't? Do you have any clear examples of this? What's something that is sinful to do/perform/behave, but not sinful to desire to do/perform/behave?
They are, indeed. I don't doubt it. One of my best friends growing up is gay. But every nice person is a sinner. Amiable behavior isn't an argument against the notion that one is sinful (and maybe it isn't your point that it is; I'm just pointing this out). While I don't think treating LGBTQ+ issues as particularly sinful (i.e. more so than other issues) is warranted, I simply don't find the acceptance and normalization of it to be at all capable of substantiation on a biblical worldview, either. The fundamental point of Paul's message in
Romans 1:18ff. is that
all manner of things that are contrary to nature (vv. 29-30) -- i.e., contrary to God's design; contrary to his precepts -- are to be repudiated. The desire to be someone other than who God created me to be is an example of this.
And if I can just briefly anticipate the objection of some, who will say, "but God created me this way" ... no he didn't.
Romans 1:26-27 (re: homosexuality).
Genesis 1:27 (re: transgenderism). There is no "gay gene." Studies have concluded that sexuality, to what extent it is determined by genetics at all, is
polygenic, meaning there are thousands of genes that have minor impacts on sexuality. And yet no single one of them, nor the whole of them collectively,
determine sexual orientation. It is but one of many factors that go into determining homosexual and transgender tendencies, most of which are environmental and psychological. The influence that biology has on sexual orientation is virtually no different than the influence it has on one's inherent proclivity to perhaps have more lustful thoughts than the average person, or to be more prone to anger, etc. There can be genetic reasons for having a proclivity to such things, and yet that wouldn't excuse them as not being sinful.
What do you mean by supporting it? If what is meant is loving them, as all sinners are to be loved, then no that's not a sin. We ought to do that. But what does that entail? I don't believe that regarding sinful behavior (or desires) as normal and okay is an act of real love, especially when they choose to
identify by that behavior or desire. I think it's the opposite, actually. It's an appearance of love, but perhaps only to garner the acceptance and respect of the other, to have it returned to us. We don't want to offend and alienate. So, our solution is to accept and refuse to call it sin. That's not love. Real love for the LGBTQ+ community, just like real love for anyone, is shown in the proclamation of the gospel, which involves, graciously and carefully, the identification of sin,
so that the good news of deliverance from that sin and its consequences can be known and experienced.
I read your post at the link provided. I'm a little baffled by the suggestion that homosexuals are included here. What is your evidence for this? "There are eunuchs who have been so from birth" is hardly evidence of same-sex attraction. A literal eunuch is someone who has been castrated. But it's also appropriate to use the term of anyone who, for one reason or another, does not have sexual
capacity (for instance, a birth defect). That's all that we can conclude is being said here. It's a huge stretch to bring inclination into this, and we need much more evidence for that idea than an anachronistic reading of the expression, "he was that way from birth."
The actual three categories are:
- Those who, by no choice of themselves or anyone else, were born without reproductive capacity (i.e. birth defect).
- Those who, by choice of others, were castrated (for punishment, or for working in harems, etc.).
- Those who, by their own choice, castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom (or, possibly the identification of eunuch here is simply meant figuratively to represent celibacy).
The difference is choice; i.e. the reason behind their sexual incapacity. The difference does not pertain to
kinds of eunuch, in the sense of defining what a eunuch is (e.g. introducing a differentiation between physical incapacity versus inclination/orientation), but rather
why or
how they became a
sexually incapacitated individual.
In context, Jesus is discussing the problem of following the letter of the law. The example he uses is divorce, because Jewish law permitted divorce, but his point is that this should be reserved for an absolute last resort, and should not be pursued as an easy way out of a difficult marriage just because Jewish law technically permits it. The disciples struggle with this teaching, because they interpret it to mean that no matter how badly a marriage was going, there is no way out of it. This is what prompts them to suggest that in that case "it is better not to marry" at all (v. 10). It's not worth the risk. Jesus' response is to say that not everyone can receive this teaching. So what is it that some can't receive? The idea of marrying someone of the opposite sex? No; the idea of marrying at all without having the option of divorce if things don't go as expected. That's the context. The point is simply that some aren't called to marriage. Jesus brings up the example of eunuchs to illustrate the point, which is that some are called to
abstinence from sex, for various reasons. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
