Some Questions

Some questions for Christians and the church about homosexuality and same-sex acts:

Non-Coital Sex

If one permits couples in heterosexual marriages to engage in sexual activity that does not each and every time include or conclude with coitus, does that not weaken the argument against sexual activity by couples in same-sex marriages? When coitus is not involved, why can’t a male do sexually to or with his male partner what a female can do sexually to or with her male partner, or why can’t a female do sexually to or with her female partner what a male can do sexually to or with his female partner?

Non-Procreation

For those who would argue that homosexual sex is wrong because it cannot be procreative, is non-procreative sex between married heterosexual couples okay? Many heterosexual couples engage in sexual activity with no intention of procreation (or no ability to procreate in cases of infertility), or with no unprotected coitus (thus preventing even the possibility of procreation, assuming no unintended semen entry). Are heterosexual couples permitted to do this? When homosexual couples engage in non-procreative sexual activity, they do it for the very same reasons that heterosexual couples do. Homosexual persons have the very same feelings of arousal and sexual desire and urging toward persons of the same sex that heterosexual persons have toward members of the opposite sex, and studies and personal stories seem to show that trying to reprogram or redirect homosexual persons’ arousals and urgings to respond to opposite-sex persons is in the vast majority of cases rarely if ever successful. So if the reason for “male and female”—i.e., procreation—is not a required factor for all permissible heterosexual sexual activity, why can't homosexual couples do what heterosexual couples may do? If the intent or possibility of procreation is not the determining factor or sine qua non for permissible sexual activities between heterosexuals, then why may homosexual couples not engage in sexual activities?

Accommodation

For those who view same-sex attraction as at best a disability or a perversion/distortion of proper sexuality, or as a less-than-ideal situation: We permit and even encourage heterosexual couples to find accommodations for sexual or physical impairments so that they can engage in sexual activity for the non-procreative benefits of love, fulfillment, closeness, bonding, pleasure (including selflessly pleasing the other), etc., that such activities achieve. If same-sex attraction is indeed a lack of, or impairment or damage to, the “normal” ability to react and act sexually toward a person of the opposite sex, why should we not have the same compassion and attitude toward persons with same-sex attraction, especially since the “accommodation” in such cases is so easy—i.e., simply let them sexually relate to a person of the same sex? Dave Thompson proposes a “third way” along these lines in his book Over Coffee: A Conversation for Gay Partnership and Conservative Faith.

Why "Homosexuals/Homosexuality"?

I think one limits one’s ability to fully think about these issues if one automatically or primarily refers to or views persons with same-sex attraction as “homosexuals” or as having a “homosexual ‘lifestyle’.” Why do we use this terminology to categorize and (often) stereotype such persons? Do we primarily refer to ourselves or each other by our eating preferences (omnivores, vegetarians, vegans)? Or by the means by which we get to work or school (motorists, bicyclists, public transportation riders)? Or by our residences (homeowners, home buyers, renters)? Or by our entertainment preferences (movies, theater, opera, sports, TV)? Etc. All of these are valid ways of classifying people depending on the purpose of the classification. As one author pointed out, we could just as validly group together men and women who are sexually attracted to men as being “androphiles” or “androsexuals,” and men and women who are sexually attracted to women as being “gynecophiles” or “gynecosexuals.” I don’t primarily or even significantly view or regard myself as being a “heterosexual,” and I certainly wouldn't say that I live or have a “heterosexual ‘lifestyle’,” as my “lifestyle encompasses and can be defined or characterized by a lot of things, not simply or mainly by my opposite-sex attraction or sexual activity.

Christians First

It seems to me that Christians have or should have more in common with each other than with non-Christians. I.e., Christians, regardless of their sexual attraction, should first understand themselves to be brothers and sisters of/with each other and not reflexively align/ally heterosexual Christians (including themselves) more with heterosexual non-Christians than with homosexual Christians, nor align/ally homosexual Christians (including themselves) more with homosexual non-Christians than with heterosexual Christians. Maybe a first step in Christians and the church being better about these things is to stop defining members of the body of Christ as being “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals.”

---

Here are the responses of a reader of this blog post. Feel free to respond to either my questions or to their response, or to both:

Some questions for Christians and the church about homosexuality and same-sex acts:

Non-Coital Sex

Q: If one permits couples in heterosexual marriages to engage in sexual activity that does not each and every time include or conclude with coitus, does that not weaken the argument against sexual activity by couples in same-sex marriages?

A: No, because the question is not what “one permits,” but rather what kinds of sexual outlets does *the Bible* permit. Aside from procreation, the Bible does not specify what type of sexual experience is allowed between one man and one woman in covenant, so that is completely in the subjective domain of the heterosexual couple.

Q: When coitus is not involved, why can’t a male do sexually to or with his male partner what a female can do sexually to or with her male partner, or why can’t a female do sexually to or with her female partner what a male can do sexually to or with his female partner?

A: Same answer as above. Wrong question to be asking IMHO.

Q: Non-Procreation [questions]

A: I don’t argue this.

Q: Accommodation

For those who view same-sex attraction as at best a disability or a perversion/distortion of proper sexuality, or as a less-than-ideal situation:

A: You seem to be arguing more for how can a couple experience sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction can be accomplished in a number of ways within a relationship (heterosexual married, heterosexual non-married, homosexual state-endorsed unions, as well as non-unions or casual sex). This is really beside the point. The question is not how can one experience fulfillment of sexual desires, but what is the permissible way to achieve sexual fulfillment *in God’s economy*. Because the Bible is largely silent on the issue (other than what Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 7), I don’t think we can go further than what the text mentions.

Q: Why “Homosexuals/Homosexuality”?

A: Stereotyping is wrong. Labels are wrong but unavoidable in this culture where it seems everyone has an “identity” including sexual identity.

Q: Christians First

It seems to me that Christians have or should have more in common with each other than with non-Christians.... Maybe a first step in Christians and the church being better about these things is to stop defining members of the body of Christ as being “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals.”

A: Maybe, but many gay Christian self-identify as “gay.” I don’t have a problem with this.

Q: So, what exactly is wrong with homosexuality or homosexual acts? Or more specifically, since this is a Biblical/Christian theology blog: Does the Bible or the church teach against homosexuality or homosexual activity?

A: It seems to especially as per Leviticus 18 where not only homosexual activity is considered wrong but also a host of other sexual alliances.

Q: If so:

Why does it do so?

A: I don’t know entirely. God knows.

Q: Is it right for it to do so?

A: “Right” is subjectively in the eye of the beholder. Best to stick with the meaning most likely in the Biblical text.

Q: Do or should such teachings apply to us today, and if so, how?

A: If we are believers then we have to have some way to measure behavior. The Bible (along with conscience and the Holy Spirit) is all we have.

Q: Is simply being homosexual or having same-sex attractions wrong? If yes, please explain why.

A: No.

Q: If not, then is it the sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex that is wrong?

A: Yes, apparently according to Leviticus 18:22.

Q: If so, is it because the only proper sexual activities between two persons are those that directly or indirectly include both one and only one penis and one and only one vagina? If so, what about sexual activities between two persons when one or both of them has had sex-reassignment surgery so that now one of each sex organ is present even though one or both of them previously had the opposite sex organ?

A: Sex reassignment is a different topic altogether and I would argue not something condoned by the Bible particularly if we believe that we are born with a specific biological sex (which we all are unless we are intersex; again different topic we can take up elsewhere).

Q: Is it the inability or failure to consummate the actions with coitus (i.e., penis-vagina intercourse) that makes same-sex sexual activities wrong, since except for coitus two women or two men can together do just about everything sexually that a man and a woman can do?

A: No. Again, the question should not be “How can we achieve sexual satisfaction?” But rather, “Are any and all ways of achieving sexual satisfaction permissible?”

Q: If so, what does that mean for deliberate non-coital sexual activity by heterosexual couples, or for heterosexual couples who do not or cannot (due to disability, etc.) consummate all their sexual activities with coitus? Is it because the potential to produce children is what makes marriage and instances of sexual activity okay?

A: No. It’s because “from the beginning God made them male and female.”

Q: If so, what does that mean for heterosexual couples who use natural or artificial methods to prevent unplanned or unwanted conceptions?

A: I don’t see that as being an issue at all. I’m sure coitus interruptus was practiced to control making babies if an Israelite couple had already produced progeny and didn’t really want or couldn’t afford more. As long as there was at least one heir, that’s all that mattered to most ancient Israelites (to keep the inheritance within the family/tribe).

Q: What does that mean for sexual activities between heterosexual couples who cannot or who cannot any longer have children? Consider the following scenarios: If potential childbearing is not the reason for marriage and instances of sexual activity, can two gay persons who have not been changed from their homosexuality (whether they cared to change or tried to change or prayed to be changed, etc.) become a couple and engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings?

A: This is where I would disagree. I don’t think that being a “fulfilled human being” necessitates sexual gratification. I almost think that might be insulting to some. I know plenty of single people, virgins in their 40s and 50s, (straight and gay) who are not complaining about their lack of sexual fulfillment. Sexual fulfillment in this culture has become an idol. It’s not the be-all, end-all to life.

Bottom line: 1 Thessalonians 4:4 “...each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor.” I don’t know any way to do that other than to 1) be married, one man with one woman in the Lord, or 2) keep a celibate lifestyle.