If being homosexual is a sin, then why did God create homosexuals?

[GrayCat]

For those who are claiming an absolute moral reality independent of anyones thoughts or opinions- prove that this actually exists, and is not your belief.


Remember that a hypothesis about reality is that which becomes true when it can be repeatedly tested in a number of situations, yeilding the same results each time. Quite difficult to do when dealing with the abstract (ie, morals) and not the concete (ie, the physical world).


I've never understood what is so bad about simply being confident in and satisfied with your beliefs, without trying to make your beliefs into some sort of superior, ultimate truth and applying this "truth" across time to everyone. That to me suggests a fundamental insecurity with oneself, and a fear of other beliefs that other people hold, both of which tend to go hand in hand.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If you remember, I was talking about God's guidelines for marriage, not what he permitted men to do.

Please site the exact chapter and verse where God says polygamy is a sin

I’ll save you time and energy….God never condemns polygamy

Moses made a concession for divorce, maybe he made one for multiple wives as well. Either way, this doesn't show God's model of marriage. In this chapter, God isn't mentioned until verse 13.

Are you saying God is NOT the author of the old testament?
Here is what the Old Testament regarding divorce:
”If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies” Deuteronomy 24:1-3
This command comes from the book of Deuteronomy, one of the books of the Revelations sent to Moses. Throughout all of Moses' books, we see Commands such as "The LORD of Israel declares.....", and then He gives a series of commands similar to Deuteronomy 24:1-3:
"In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded him concerning them.” Deuteronomy 1:3
the verses were not speaking about polygamy. They were rather addressing divorce.
No where in the text is polygamy denounced
Now look at the teachings of Jesus on the matter in Matthew 19:1-12 Jesus is telling the men that they must just never divorce, because marriage is something Holy in the Eyes of God. And for those who act in this evil way, the consequences for them, according to Jesus' "new law", is that they can never marry again, because they have not honored the Holiness of marriage! But if the man doesn't divorce his wife, then no where in the text does it prohibit him from marrying another woman.

Again, not what God says, it's an IF. According to the rules in Exodus 21:10, the second wife's "food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage shall not be lessened." That takes a lot of attention from one man to handle two wives according to the law, I doubt it was an exploit to be taken lightly, especially compared to the commitment of marrying just one woman.

And clearly a second wife is not in any way prohibited by God. God is just being clear that all of a man’s wives must be treated equally.

Oh, so by completely bypassing the question into the heart of the matter, which was the resurrection of the dead, he gave his implicit blessing? Jesus addressed the more important issue, the point of the question, how does that imply his blessing? If anything, the matter of the Levirate marriage is of little consequence in the face of eternity, but that's neither here nor there.

Twist all you like Jesus not only declined to condemn polygamy and Levirate marriages he endorsed them

Well, if anyone can handle more than one wife without neglecting a single one, that would be Jesus. I'm pretty sure the virgins represent the virgin Israel - that whole metaphor about all of us Christians being Christs bride. . . it's a bit out of context for what we're talking about, which is God's original guideline for marriage.

Which remains polygamy.

He wouldn't have had any foreign wives if he only had one, would he? Even if he stopped at the first hundred. Also, according to the rules in exodus 21:10, it would be simply amazing for Solomon to handle his 700 wives without problems arising. We don't get to read about them, but they were probably there.

Once again, it was not the number of wives Solomon had that God took issue with it was the fact that some of his 700 wives (and 300 concubines) were foreigners.

I didn't say it was a sin to have multiple wives, I said (primarily) it's not what God intended,

An unsupported claim

and (secondarily) it causes problems.

Not according to the bible.

His marriage to Bathsheba caused him to sin. Had David stuck to one wife in the first place, he wouldn't have lusted after Bathsheba (which is a sin, whether stated in that particular chapter or not) to the point of making her his wife .

“For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord's commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.” 1 Kings 15:5
It was the killing of Uriah that was David’s only sin.
It was not having multiple wives
It was not having an affair with Bathsheba
It was not marrying Bathsheba

God is not the author of the bible, men authored the bible, God provided the material to write in it (for the most part, the law was apparently something Moses had to do because the Israelites' hearts were hardened and they just didn't get it from the first ten commandments.) and God was the publisher who made sure that what he wanted in was in, and what he didn't want in the bible didn't go in.

So obviously God didn’t want any condemnation of polygamy

Well of course these women were referred to as wives, they were.

And they were called wives by God….or are you going to try to claim God didn’t know any better?

I never denied polygamy in the bible,

Again polygamy is never condemned in the bible

I said it wasn't God's intention.

An unsupported claim

God's approval

of polygamy only goes so far as to permit it.

An unsupported claim

Until you offer a verse about polygamy as from the mouth of God himself, it is not his idea, but man's, which he allowed without punishment.

Please site the exact chapter and verse where God says polygamy is a sin or condemns polygamy for men in general

Judges 21:10-24 - totally not God's idea, men were scheming. . . it's a fairly involved story

What you are saying is that God is the author of the parts of the bible you like. However any parts of the bible you don’t like are OBVIOUSLY not the work of GOD. That is terribly convenient for you isn’t it?

Numbers 31:7-18 - Moses made a lot of allowances for the stupid things men did
This is the meat of it you're getting at: Num 31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." The Hebrew word used here, according to Strong's numbers means: causatively to revive: - keep (leave, make) alive, X certainly, give (promise) life, (let, suffer to) live, nourish up, preserve (alive), quicken, recover, repair, restore (to life), revive, (X God) save (alive, life, lives), X surely, be whole.

Moses told them to keep alive, that is nourish and revive, these women children as daughters!

Anther unsupported claim.

Why on earth would a Godly man like Moses ever condone something as wicked as giving women children over to men in the way you assumed?

You realize that Moses not only ordered the attack on the Midians he had just ordered that all the male children, teh adult male survivors of the war and the elderly men be slaughtered as well as any female no matter how old that couldn’t be proven to be a virgin. The Hebrews must have spent days killing all those women and boys for Moses

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Numbers 31:17-18

Numbers 31:35 numbers the women who were murdered by the Hebrews as over two thousand
I guess they didn’t want to adopt these women as “daughters”

Also be aware that 32 of the virgins were sacrificed along with many of the animals captured Numbers 31:36-41

That really doesn’t sound like your fantasy of wanting these virgins for “daughters”


The virgin women were the most likely group of people to be the least corrupted by Israel's enemy, and so they were integrated into the family rather than killed.

Next time you're going to list off a bunch of verses which you think apply to what you're saying, research them first. The rest I'll leave alone, because I don't think it's fair that I should have to research the verses you try to use.

It must have been too difficult to pretend that all the other verses listed indicated that raping young girls was a means of “adopting” them

Well of course, many are called, few are chosen, right? Just as the pharisees were hypocrites, so are plenty of Christians. A Christian who doesn't follow the teaching of Christ is not a true Christian at all, but they continue to call themselves that.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth, but I'd rather say them myself. If you mean that may way is the way put forth in the bible, then yeah, anyone who doesn't read the word and put it into practice doesn't have it right. The ones who aren't even Christians are those who simply ignore what God says, but put up a Christian front anyway.

So you admit that only people who agree with you personally can be True Christians™ and that anyone who dares to defy you could not possibly be a True Christians™

Uhhh, you said "Which doesn’t explain why conservative Christians have the highest divorce rates"

I was asking for figures on the quote which the question was under, and I was wondering if Christians really do have the highest divorce rate. . . although it would make some sense, I don't think many muslim couples would often dare devorce, and I figure plenty of people who have no theistic religion don't get married and just sleep around with whoever for however long.

The Barna research group found that Evangelical Christian have the highest divorce rate of any religion - 34%.
Atheists and Agnostics have a divorce rate of about 20%.
Among evangelicals the age group with the highest divorce rate are those Christians 53 to 72 years old
And the south is the geographical region with the highest divorce rate. (not surprising given the concentration of Evangelicals) In contrast the liberal New England states have the lowest divorce rate in the country. These numbers were confirmed in the last cencus.

 

[BigBadWlf]

First of all, are you Christian or not?

You’re saying that only True Christians™ are those who agree with you.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.


Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20


A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Even if you don't agree that God himself caused the bible to be written by man as God wanted it to be written, this is from Moses who met with God on the mountain. God's nature doesn't change, so if it was an abomination to God several thousand years ago, it still must be.

“These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” Leviticus 11:9-12

therefore dining on crab cakes is an abomination

I don't understand how you can be Christian, and defend an obvious sin.

“You can tell you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” -- Anne Lamott

I don’t see how you can be a Christian and defend such obvious sins as prejudice and discrimination

If you ever have a chance to judge by my fruits, go ahead.

Prejudice and discrimination are bitter fruits indeed

Why must you be so smug? It's one thing to oppose sin, it's another to impose my beliefs so as to infringe on one's rights as a citizen of this country. Homosexuals can be gay if they want to, just don't pretend it's the same as heterosexual marriage, cuz it's not. Likewise, if a man wants to be prideful and selfish, that's his perogative, but I won't pretend it's not sinful. I will not sit back and be quiet while sin is being so widely accepted and embraced.

The same “argument” was presented a generation ago defending discrimination against interracial couples.

Again you are just recycling

Attacking gays and lesbians in the same way as racist attack non-whites!? Would you like to start calling me names now? I mean seriously, that's going too far. Do you realize the implications of all the ways racists attack non-whites? That is a huge accusation to make, and I'm starting to feel like you actually hate me. If you don't hate me, I don't mean to insinuate, that's just what it seems like after that last bit.

The arguments presented in defense of racism are the same as those presented in defense of homophobia

I'm not condemning them, I'm pointing out their sin. My motivation for that is obedience to God and his Word, and by love so that the sin may be repented of and the sinner may turn toward God.

Which is exactly what racists claim they are doing.
You have stated that racists are motivated by hate but when you do exactly the same thing they do you claim a higher motivation for yourself. You do not like the association but I will ask once again: how exactly are they different from you?

Because homosexual sex is a sin, it is detestable by God, it is able to be forgiven and repented of. If it is able to be repented of, that means the sinners heart must be able to turn from it and sin no more.

Racists happily quote the bible and report that fact that racial equality is a sin, something detested by God. Why is your position morally superior to theirs?

This is completely and inherently different from skin color or gender or anything else that is a physical trait.

An unsupported claim.

Please provide actual published evidence that sexual orientation is not an inborn trait

What do you mean, and what groups are you referring to?

group A uses the bible to justify prejudice against a minority and group B uses the bible to justify prejudice against a minority. Please explain why either group is morally superior to the other

 

[BigBadWlf]

A homosexual couple cannot procreate.

Neither can an infertile heterosexual couple. Or are you going to say that this “fertility” argument applies only to minorities?

 

[BigBadWlf]

People choose how to act on their feelings despite what you say. Murders say the same thing, they were born with these feelings and can't help it.

Again this same tactic is and ahs been used by racists for generation. A racist will compare a person of color to a criminal, substance abuser or as a sexual deviant in order to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.

Despite feelings people choose the course they take, so you are wrong, have been fooled by the liberal mindset that exists today, and have taken a wrong path in your life, that is your choice. If you don't understand what is wrong with this choice or many others in life perhaps you should read Gods word and let Him lead you into His understanding instead of following the line of "I am not responsible for my choices" as dictated by the mores of liberal thinking. This is the path to self destruction whether or not you believe it that is the truth. Choose well!

Sealacamp

prejudice is a choice

 

[BigBadWlf]

All humans have weaknesses to certain sins, whether its lust, gluttony, gambling... ...its the same with homosexuality. Personally, I'm a alcoholic. God made me that way. Does that mean I can get drunk? No, I cannot, because drunkeness is a sin. "But God made me that way!" So what. I must master it. We all must master our weaknesses.

The problem with homosexuals is that they seem to not think their sin is a sin. That is the real danger for them.

Consider a kleptomaniac. He probably knows stealing is a sin, but he can't help himself. But he must learn to master that weakness. Homosexuals have been duped, in part, by a society that rejects the idea of sin more and more, and tells them that its all good. But they share in the blame themselves, because they willfully reject Biblical teaching on this and turn away from it.

Sin is sin. No sin is any better than another. But homosexual sex IS a sin. You'd better come to grips with that fact.

Again this same tactic is and ahs been used by racists for generation. A racist will compare a person of color to a criminal, substance abuser or as a sexual deviant in order to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.

 

[Andreusz]

The problem with homosexuals is that they seem to not think their sin is a sin. That is the real danger for them.
.

Why has God declared homosexual sex to be a sin?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

For those who are claiming an absolute moral reality independent of anyones thoughts or opinions- prove that this actually exists, and is not your belief.

Remember that a hypothesis about reality is that which becomes true when it can be repeatedly tested in a number of situations, yeilding the same results each time. Quite difficult to do when dealing with the abstract (ie, morals) and not the concete (ie, the physical world).

0 x 0 - 0.

Yet, that is not what we "observe" all around us, including things we have to go to great lengths to see, because they are too small to see with the power inherent in the natural eye.

I've never understood what is so bad about simply being confident in and satisfied with your beliefs, without trying to make your beliefs into some sort of superior, ultimate truth and applying this "truth" across time to everyone.

Tell that to the secular humsists that demand by laws that only non-godian belief systems are allowed in out education, public, and justice systems. That, to me suggests complete and utter superiority in reality.

That to me suggests a fundamental insecurity with oneself, and a fear of other beliefs that other people hold, both of which tend to go hand in hand.

That to me, suggests that Evolutionists that only hold to chaos to order instead of Intelligent Design, are fitting YOUR definition of a "superior, ultimate truth, and applying this 'truth' across time to everyone."

Literally, "figuratively," and legislatively.

Now what is the definition of totalitarianism? Or, closemindedness?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Why has God declared homosexual sex to be a sin?

Science.

 

[Andreusz]

Science.

'Sin' is not a category recognised by scientists.

 

[lawtonfogle]

'Sin' is not a category recognised by scientists.

Maybe he confused science and scientology.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Again this same tactic is and ahs been used by racists for generation. A racist will compare a person of color to a criminal, substance abuser or as a sexual deviant in order to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.

And you are using an argument tactic as old as arguing; drag the other guys argument though slime and hope no one would be willing to even consider it after the point.

Granted, I don't agree with the guys argument, attacking it like such just isn't the way to handle it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Again this same tactic is and ahs been used by racists for generation. A racist will compare a person of color to a criminal, substance abuser or as a sexual deviant in order to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.

And you do the same by doing this by grouping a sexual deviant the same as a criminal or substance abuser.

prejudice is a choice

Not always. Remember, neither nature nor nurture include choice, yet these are major factors in if someone will be a racist.

 

[LittleNipper]

Seriously? Homosexuality is what destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?
You may want to do a search on Sdom. It lists their sins, and "homosexaulity", or even "a man lyinng with a man" isn't on the list.

No, their sin was treating visitors as a piece of meat. "Bring them out that we may know them."

 

[lawtonfogle]

You’re saying that only True Christians™ are those who agree with you.

Is this any different than the majority of groups out there.

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

Bring in Deuteronomy, is a lot more 'fun' withs it's rape law (Deut. 22:28-29).

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.

Chalk up another one to human nature.

Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20

If you think that Homosexuals have it hard, just look at incestuous couples (the consenting ones where there isn't an abuse of power... not talking about the ones where one would call it rape if it wasn't for the victim being related to the perp.). But yeah... I don't see most people following this new covenant thing in it's entirety.

A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Over all, I don't care about verses out of the OT, but you need to remember that there are also verses in the NT, and you should talk about the translation flaws in them as well, else they will just mention them and your back at square one.

“These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” Leviticus 11:9-12

therefore dining on crab cakes is an abomination

Quick devil advocate: Moral laws still apply, non-moral don't.
/end

Actually, I'm not sure how that works, but it is what I'm standardly told.

“You can tell you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” -- Anne Lamott

I don’t see how you can be a Christian and defend such obvious sins as prejudice and discrimination






Prejudice and discrimination are bitter fruits indeed

But remember, many fruits are not shown online which would be off.

The same “argument” was presented a generation ago defending discrimination against interracial couples.

Again you are just recycling

I think it is a pretty obvious point. Don't see the application of it, but one marriage has two genders, one has one. Quite obvious, yes, but maybe the guy felt it needed to be pointed out.

The arguments presented in defense of racism are the same as those presented in defense of homophobia

What an argument is used for doesn't change the validity of the argument.

Which is exactly what racists claim they are doing.
You have stated that racists are motivated by hate but when you do exactly the same thing they do you claim a higher motivation for yourself. You do not like the association but I will ask once again: how exactly are they different from you?

Your breaking down into attacks against the usage of the argument, not of it's logic and/or premises.

Racists happily quote the bible and report that fact that racial equality is a sin, something detested by God. Why is your position morally superior to theirs?

And I can quote the Bible to show that child rape is wrong (though it isn't as clearly pointed out as one would assume). Your point that I can back up a personal prejudice (one I feel quite justified in having) with the Bible is to what mean(s)?

An unsupported claim.

Please provide actual published evidence that sexual orientation is not an inborn trait

Why must it be published? Anyways, we have a resident member who stated under their own choice, over an extended length of time, they were able to change their own orientation. Really, all I have seen now is that you can increase what you are sexually attracted to, but not decrease it.

But as for published research, if you look in '40 Studies that Changed Psychology', one covered is how you can 'hypnotize' a reflex, trick it if you will, to respond to stimuli different that what it was originally was set to respond to (though it still will respond to the main one all the same). This includes sexual attraction. You can, if you want, become sexually attracted to strawberries, thought the aspect of choice is obscure being that it isn't an immediate choice, but more like a resolution.

Now that I think about it, it was Plavov's Dogs, or some such name was the original study, though I don't know the names of later ones which came after it.

group A uses the bible to justify prejudice against a minority and group B uses the bible to justify prejudice against a minority. Please explain why either group is morally superior to the other

Because some prejudices are justifiable. If I found someone who was mistreated as a child, always abused by 'colored folk', and never met a nice one, I wouldn't consider him less of a person because he was racist, or even consider him morally inferior. Now, once he has met some nice 'colored folk', and he refused to change in evidence, I would begin to develop some apprehension against him.

 

[JediMobius]

To clarify:

Homosexuals are not inherently evil or any such thing because of their attraction to the same sex. The act of sexual intercourse is sinful between two unmarried persons. Marriage should be between one man and one woman, as prescribed by Paul to the early Christian church.

Scriptural support can be found here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

It doesn't matter how a person is made, we are called to overcome whatever vices we have. Through God all things are possible, so through God, a homosexual woman could learn to love and share passion with a husband. Otherwise, homosexuals are called to celibacy.

In reply to the question of infertile couples, there is still the hope and possibility through prayer and/or treatment for an infertile couple to have a child of their own. I mean c'mon, Abraham's wife was unable to conceive as far as they knew, but God gave them a child. The difference is that homosexual couples were never even made or intended to procreate.

 

[SiderealExalt]

And here in we see that after 32 pages we're still only getting, "Um Cause God sez so."

 

[JediMobius]

Does God punish sincere mistakes?

That depends on the interpretation of "sincere mistakes," and whether we are speaking of Christians or non-Christians.

 

[JediMobius]

No, their sin was treating visitors as a piece of meat. "Bring them out that we may know them."

Actually, the sins of the sodomites were many. It is inaccurate to say that any one sin was the reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

I agree with this site:

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).
​

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).” 9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

 

[JediMobius]

Why has God declared homosexual sex to be a sin?

Are you asking why God declares what is sin, or why the sin is a sin?