The Homosexual Debate – Part II

Before continuing, you might want to read my earlier posting, The Homosexual Debate – Part I, to give you some background as to what I am trying to accomplish.

The traditionalists (my terminology – see Part I) base their position primarily on what the Bible has to say about the practice of homosexuality. In both the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and the New Testament, the practice of homosexuality is condemned as sinful. It is specifically addressed as a sinful act in a number of places, and it is implied as sinful in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18 & 19). While traditionalists may differ somewhat on the subject, many believe that “we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:13) and homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. However, the belief is that if somebody persists in anything that the Bible considers a sinful act, then he or she is unrepentant and therefore should not be allowed to be in leadership positions in a church or be ordained as clergy. So the key factor of the traditionalist viewpoint is that the practice of homosexuality is a sin based on numerous references to it in the Bible.

Notice that I say “the practice of homosexuality” is a sin, not necessarily being a homosexual. Again, traditionalists differ on this subject, but many believe that a homosexual doesn’t necessary “choose” to be of that sexual orientation, but it occurs through other factors, either born that way or the result of environmental factors (lack of love from a parent, molested as a child, etc.) So theoretically a celibate gay person could be in a leadership position or ordained as clergy because they aren’t “practicing” that lifestyle.

This is a brief overview of the traditionalist viewpoint. In a future posting I’ll explain where the non-traditionalists are coming from and how they justify their position.