What is the justification for calling homosexuality a sin?

[Danmark]

Shutting down Exodus International, its founder Alan Chambers said:
"I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents," he added. "I am sorry that there were times I didn't stand up to people publicly 'on my side' who called you names like sodomite -- or worse."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/exodus-interna ... cjfM_bwLEM
June 20, 2013

The story goes on to report:
In a 2009 report, the American Psychological Association concluded that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."

Chambers, who is married to a woman, said in his apology that over the years, he had "conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions."

"They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away," he said. "Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there."

Since it is becoming more obvious to more people that sexual orientation is innate, what is the justification for continuing to call it a 'sin' as fundamentalist Muslims and Christians do?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 176 by bluethread]

In other words, female homosexuality is not naughty since it is not mentioned in the bible, whereas masturbation is naughty since it is condemned in the bible, even though all adolescent boys masturbate, or perhaps masturbators are beliya'al or havvah or ra instead of just naughty. But either way, I'm relieved that we've finally cleared that matter up and that the bible god approves of female homosexuality since it's neither naughty or beliya'al or havvah or ra.

I did not say that. I was just pointing out that it is inappropriate to make observations about the Scriptures based on modern terms that bear little or no resemblance to the terms used in the Scriptures. "Just naughty" is a modern hedonistic work around, that implies that it is acceptable to do something bad as long as it is all in fun. I am not aware of this concept anywhere in the Scriptures.

[Danmark]

The point of this subtopic was not to find or refute a scriptural basis for or against homosexuality. For the purpose of this subtopic it is assumed there is a scriptural basis for prohibiting homosexuality and for calling same sex intimacy a 'sin.'

The OP points out that a growing number of Americans, including former members and leaders of 'pray away the gay' organizations are realizing the scientific basis for homosexuality being something that is not a choice, but a human reality that involves perhaps 10% of the population.

Most heterosexuals agree they did not 'choose' to be straight, they just are.

So, in light of the scientific evidence that gender orientation is either set in the genes or so early in human development that it might as well be biological, what is the underlying basis for calling natural, behavior 'sin?' We understand the basis for prohibitions against stealing, lying, murder, rape, assault and so forth.

But the 'sin' of homosexuality is akin to sin of wearing blended fabric. There is no universal basis for prohibiting it, yet it is in the scripture. It is a 'law' most Christians ignore. As far as I know there is no big outcry among Christians screaming in horor about the evil ones who come to church wearing clothes made from a wool/cotton blend. But if a homosexual enters the sanctity of some churches... HORRORS! The world is about to end.

[bluethread]

The problem is the use of the word "sin" in the OP. It appears that you are asking for the justification for calling homosexuality immoral. "Sin" refers to a violation of Adonai's ways in specific and/or a religious code in general. To enquire regarding "sin" is to ask why something is part of a religious code. religious codes do not always recognize genetic propensity. For example, there are some in the scientific world who are presenting studies regarding nymphomania and promiscuity being genetic. The question is what is the overriding factor, physical makeup, psychological makeup, social stability, or some other factor. All for these things are at odds with each other to some degree.

[Danmark]

The problem is the use of the word "sin" in the OP. It appears that you are asking for the justification for calling homosexuality immoral. "Sin" refers to a violation of Adonai's ways in specific and/or a religious code in general. To enquire regarding "sin" is to ask why something is part of a religious code. religious codes do not always recognize genetic propensity. For example, there are some in the scientific world who are presenting studies regarding nymphomania and promiscuity being genetic. The question is what is the overriding factor, physical makeup, psychological makeup, social stability, or some other factor. All for these things are at odds with each other to some degree.

I think you make a good point about genetic differences and propensities. Certainly homo sapiens is genetically designed to be self maximizing or selfish. We have various moral codes (for arguably different reasons) that defy that predisposition and put value on helping others or putting our own immediate needs 2d at least in the short run.

My point is that almost every major 'law' in the Bible has some rational basis. I suppose that at one time there was even a rational basis for not selling shirts made with blended fabric. 'God' whether invented by man, or whether he really exists is a rational being. He has reasons for his rules... at least in general. I don't know why it was so important not to have priests with damaged testicles, but in general, at least in the NT after Jesus' 'treat others the way you want to be treated' and Paul's 'don't bother with the new moons and foods and feasts' bit, we have a general set of rules that all have to do with whether or not we hurt others.

Today it seems to most that the only harm done re: the homosexual issue is that done by the intolerant who want to exclude homosexuals or otherwise give them 2d class status. This seems at odds with all other morality that is currently advocated by Christians. In other words, why the 'blind obedience' on this one particular issue?

[mitty]

On

The problem is the use of the word "sin" in the OP. It appears that you are asking for the justification for calling homosexuality immoral. "Sin" refers to a violation of Adonai's ways in specific and/or a religious code in general. To enquire regarding "sin" is to ask why something is part of a religious code. religious codes do not always recognize genetic propensity. For example, there are some in the scientific world who are presenting studies regarding nymphomania and promiscuity being genetic. The question is what is the overriding factor, physical makeup, psychological makeup, social stability, or some other factor. All for these things are at odds with each other to some degree.

Although we don't fully understand why homosexuality and transgender conditions occur, there is no basis in the 21st century to call such natural conditions immoral. Do you call schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or other brain-function disorders immoral and sins. Jesus understood that some men are born homosexual and have no choice in their condition (Matt 19:12) and didn't condemn homosexuality, which was in stark contrast to his condemnation of adultery including that of remarried divorcees which is a choice. If you haven't already looked at this video, perhaps you should, which is only one of millions of similar testimonies of people who know what they're talking about and unlike those who are ruled by the outdated laws of over 2000 years ago. http://abc.net.au/news/2013-07-05/one-p ... or/4802564

[bluethread]

Although we don't fully understand why homosexuality and transgender conditions occur, there is no basis in the 21st century to call such natural conditions immoral. Do you call schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or other brain-function disorders immoral and sins. Jesus understood that some men are born homosexual and have no choice in their condition (Matt 19:12) and didn't condemn homosexuality, which was in stark contrast to his condemnation of adultery including that of remarried divorcees which is a choice. If you haven't already looked at this video, perhaps you should, which is only one of millions of similar testimonies of people who know what they're talking about and unlike those who are ruled by the outdated laws of over 2000 years ago. http://abc.net.au/news/2013-07-05/one-p ... or/4802564

I watched the video and, given your introduction to it, are you proposing that society place one's psychological state over one's physiology as a primary moral standard. For example, why do you call schizophrenia or bipolar "disorders" and not identities. Should we as a society not accommodate lifestyles that incorporate these psychological states, using surgery and drug treatments to make them even more pronounced, so the individual can live an unambiguous lifestyle? What of the transspecies individual, ie lycanthropy? Should we permit human beings to live as animals and even undergo surgery and drug treatments, so that their physiology matches their preferred psychological state? The number and variety of psychological states that such a society would need to accommodate without discrimination, would be myriad.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 183 by bluethread]Trying to change sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't work. It didn't work with David Reamer, so why should it work with anyone else including Cate McGregor. http://en.wiki-pedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer Same same with homosexuals. That 2000+ year-old book has little relevance to the 21st century, apart from as an historical record of a small group of people, about their customs and laws and myths including their imagined gods which they created in their images.

[Danmark]

Although we don't fully understand why homosexuality and transgender conditions occur, there is no basis in the 21st century to call such natural conditions immoral. Do you call schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or other brain-function disorders immoral and sins. Jesus understood that some men are born homosexual and have no choice in their condition (Matt 19:12) and didn't condemn homosexuality, which was in stark contrast to his condemnation of adultery including that of remarried divorcees which is a choice. If you haven't already looked at this video, perhaps you should, which is only one of millions of similar testimonies of people who know what they're talking about and unlike those who are ruled by the outdated laws of over 2000 years ago. http://abc.net.au/news/2013-07-05/one-p ... or/4802564

I watched the video and, given your introduction to it, are you proposing that society place one's psychological state over one's physiology as a primary moral standard. For example, why do you call schizophrenia or bipolar "disorders" and not identities. Should we as a society not accommodate lifestyles that incorporate these psychological states, using surgery and drug treatments to make them even more pronounced, so the individual can live an unambiguous lifestyle? What of the transspecies individual, ie lycanthropy? Should we permit human beings to live as animals and even undergo surgery and drug treatments, so that their physiology matches their preferred psychological state? The number and variety of psychological states that such a society would need to accommodate without discrimination, would be myriad.

Tho' the point you make is valid, the examples you give are inapposite. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorders render the patient disabled. They are dysfunctional mental problems carefully defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. One of the keys to determining whether some set of behaviors/beliefs is a mental disorder or not is whether it causes unhappiness or some other dysfunction to the person.

The DSM is now in its 5th edition and its history is interesting in that it shows examples of the very issue you make:

In 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was widely influential in the medical profession.[15] In 1956, however, the psychologist Evelyn Hooker performed a study that compared the happiness and well-adjusted nature of self-identified homosexual men with heterosexual men and found no difference.[16] Her study stunned the medical community and made her a hero to many gay men and lesbians,[17] but homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974.[18]
_ Wikipedia

[bluethread]

Tho' the point you make is valid, the examples you give are inapposite. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorders render the patient disabled. They are dysfunctional mental problems carefully defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. One of the keys to determining whether some set of behaviors/beliefs is a mental disorder or not is whether it causes unhappiness or some other dysfunction to the person.

The DSM is now in its 5th edition and its history is interesting in that it shows examples of the very issue you make:

In 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was widely influential in the medical profession.[15] In 1956, however, the psychologist Evelyn Hooker performed a study that compared the happiness and well-adjusted nature of self-identified homosexual men with heterosexual men and found no difference.[16] Her study stunned the medical community and made her a hero to many gay men and lesbians,[17] but homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974.[18]
_ Wikipedia

Is the unhappiness or some other dysfunction to the person caused by the psychological state or the unwillingness of society to accommodate the preferred behavior? How are happiness and well-adjusted defined by the APA? Isn't this an authoritarian structure? Isn't this just replacing the RCC council of bishops with a council of psychologists and the Scriptures with the DSM? Isn't this replacing one religion with another?

[Danmark]

Tho' the point you make is valid, the examples you give are inapposite. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorders render the patient disabled. They are dysfunctional mental problems carefully defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. One of the keys to determining whether some set of behaviors/beliefs is a mental disorder or not is whether it causes unhappiness or some other dysfunction to the person.

The DSM is now in its 5th edition and its history is interesting in that it shows examples of the very issue you make:

In 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was widely influential in the medical profession.[15] In 1956, however, the psychologist Evelyn Hooker performed a study that compared the happiness and well-adjusted nature of self-identified homosexual men with heterosexual men and found no difference.[16] Her study stunned the medical community and made her a hero to many gay men and lesbians,[17] but homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974.[18]
_ Wikipedia

Is the unhappiness or some other dysfunction to the person caused by the psychological state or the unwillingness of society to accommodate the preferred behavior? How are happiness and well-adjusted defined by the APA? Isn't this an authoritarian structure? Isn't this just replacing the RCC council of bishops with a council of psychologists and the Scriptures with the DSM? Isn't this replacing one religion with another?

I've set in 'bold' the answer to your first question. That answer is relatively easy; however, one could easily postulate a society where 'the lunatics run the asylum.' We have had societies like that wherever fundamentalist religion has dominated the society and taken over the role of secular government. Islamic theocratic governments and at times the 'Holy Roman Empire' are examples.

But psychologists understand that the definitions are not easy. That is one of the differences between science [even the 'soft' sciences] and fundamentalist religion. The former accounts for nuance and small gradations of distinction and urges cautious judgment. The latter sees things in terms of black and white.

Here are features proposed for the latest definition in DSM V:
DSM-V Proposal for the Definition of Mental/Psychiatric Disorder

Features
A
a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
B
the consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
C
must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals)
D
that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
E
that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society
F
that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment)
G
that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)
Other Considerations
H
no definition perfectly specifies precise boundaries for the concept of either “medical disorder� or “mental/psychiatric disorder�
I
diagnostic validators and clinical utility should help differentiate a disorder from diagnostic “nearest neighbors�
J
when considering whether to add a psychiatric condition to the nomenclature, or delete a psychiatric condition from the nomenclature, potential benefits (for example, provide better patient care, stimulate new research) should outweigh potential harms (for example, hurt particular individuals, be subject to misuse)

This table is included in a comprehensive article from the National Institute of Mental Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/

The entire article is well worth reading and demonstrates the degree to which these folks at least attempt to be objective as opposed to those who think they can find 'truth' from ancient dogma.