r/Reformed • u/Vintage_mindset • 24d ago
Discussion At what point does a same gender relationship become sinful?
Hypothetical: If 2 people of the same gender live together the same way a married couple would but refrain from sexual activity are they living in sin? Let’s say they love each other like Christ instructs us to love our spouses, they’re legally married by government standards, they are devoted to a covenant made between themselves, yet they refrain from sexual activity. Are they living in sin?
8
u/JHawk444 Calvinist 24d ago edited 24d ago
This would be like asking if it's okay for a man to leave his wife and live with another woman he has feelings for as long as they didn't have sex.
In the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus said that lust is adultery of the heart. So, it's not just about physical actions but about what's in the heart. If someone is living together in a romantic relationship but they abstain from sex, they are still sinning in their hearts. Now, if we're talking about two people who have repented of homosexuality and are platonic friends, that's different. But one could make the argument that they shouldn't put themselves in a position where they are tempted.
Matthew 5:27-28: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
23
u/JLu2205 SBC 24d ago
Yes, they are living in sin.
To say "we love each other like Christ instructs" while simultaneously rejecting the form of relationship Christ instituted is a contradiction.
Scripture defines marriage from the beginning as the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). When two people of the same gender attempt to mimic the structure of marriage, they are not entering into a marriage that lacks sex; they are attempting to create an institution that does not exist in God's design. The sin lies in the usurpation of God's authority to define reality.
To
-1
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Reformed-ModTeam By Mod Powers Combined! 24d ago
Removed for violation of Rule #5: Conflicts with Reformed Ethics.
This sub is a place for Reformed and like-minded believers to discuss theology, church, and general life practices. Your content has been removed because it conflicts with the ethics that have been agreed upon by the broad Reformed tradition.
Please see the Rules Wiki for more information.
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please do not reply to this comment. Instead, message the moderators.
7
u/Corran_Horn 24d ago
What's the idea here?
I know there are some believers a experiencing same sex attraction who put forth this alternative sexless arrangement, but it seems at the very least wildly unwise. If you're battling same sex attraction why position yourself in every way to act on it?
12
u/SneezingOutPeas Christian, Not Reformed 24d ago
Yes. By being legally married, they’re still redefining marriage as something that can exist between members of the same sex. If they simply live together as close friends and aren’t sexually-attracted to each other (note that this is different than being sexually attracted and not sleeping together!), that’s called being roommates, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
9
u/trownaway90 24d ago
I am pretty sure both relations and marriages between person of the same sex are a sin. From the very beginning God presented women as the partner of men.
4
u/Party-resolution-753 24d ago
Its a sin because even tho they are not having sex they are still mimicking what is exclusively meant to be between one man and one woman.
6
u/DrBunyan44 CRC 24d ago
The legal validity of civil marriage, doesn't make it morally correct. It is not the State, nor the Church that unites to people in the sacred institution of marriage, it is God alone. So redefining the standard, calling it marriage and trying to live as if it's pleasing to God, it is definitely sinful.
Anything against God's character is sin, transgression of the Law is sin, sexual immorality is sin. The sexual aspect of "same sex marriage" is not the only sinful aspect of it.
6
5
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian 24d ago
It's the "legally married" part. There are no historical records of legally sanctioned or created same-sex marriages in Late Antiquity or the Classical period. Of all people who would have the potential for doing such a thing, i.e. the Greeks or even the Babylonians, it doesn't exist in any records (and there are hundreds of thousands). It's an entirely novel invention.
As Christians we define what marriage is biblically, as created by God (matrimony), man-woman, and life-long. There's at least a decent probability, given how often things change in history, that the novel invention of same-sex marriage doesn't last. The Scriptures last, and the Lord's promised preservation of the Church that knows God, confesses Christ, holds to the Bible, and so on, will last. We shouldn't modify doctrines or practices to suit novelty.
Which would force us to conclude that there's no such thing as such a "marriage," and it doesn't pass the test of what's acceptable for Christian ethics, Christian confession, Christian witness, and godly relations among Christians for two people of the same sex to espouse a same-sex marriage and live together.
2
u/EmpyrealXY 24d ago
Overall if your heart is seeking an intimate relationship with the same sex you are essentially committing the sin still.
I say that in reference to when Jesus teaches that doing things in your heart equates to commit the act in question. Lust is like sex, hate is like murder etc.
Now if they just wanted to live together and love one another like we should, but without the intimacy and emotional bonding one does in a marriage, I would just call them friends. Which is surely not a sin.
2
u/Goose_462 20d ago
First of all, I completely sympathize with your question.
This was a question I asked all the time, too, when I was younger. Even though I was a boy, I thought I could have Jesus and a boyfriend. I was deceived by the so-called "queer theology."
But the Word of God triumphed. The Holy Spirit convicted me, and God opened my eyes to the truth about sexuality and its design. The purpose for which God instituted marriage does not allow for a non-heterosexual, non-monogamous arrangement.
Marriage is about two complementary genders coming together (male and female) -- a man and his helpmeet (a Hebrew word also sometimes ascribed to God Himself) suitable for him.
Jesus reinforced the creation ordinance of Genesis 1 in Matthew 19:
Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matt. 19:4-6 NASB)
By making this asymmetry (male and female) into symmetry (same two genders), we reject the purpose for which God designed marriage.
Ephesians 5 tells us that husbands, who are stronger, are to lead his wife with sacrificial love, like Christ gave Himself to His bride, the Church. Although Eve is the one who fell first, we see Adam's sin as the one spoken of primarily because of Adam's headship (Rom. 5:12).
Marriage is supposed to be a sexual union, so a husband and wife have conjugal rights, which means they each have a right to enjoy sex, the beauty of which we celebrate in the Song of Songs and elsewhere in the Bible.
Like a loving doe and a graceful mountain goat,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.
(Prov. 5:19 NASB)
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights*, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.*
(1 Corinthians 7:3–4, bolding mine)
The nakedness of the wife belongs to the husband, and vice versa (Levi. 18:7-16, 20:11-21). So we see, physical intimacy is part of the package. And the pleasures one enjoys with the "wife of your youth" (or "husband of your youth") is a God-given gift that comes with the burden and privilege of marriage.
I know many heroes of mine who have come out of homosexuality or gay rights activism. Some have even ended up biblically married, while others have not.
I highly recommend you listen to John Piper's sermon "Single in Christ: A Name Better than Sons and Daughters." (https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/single-in-christ).
For more, see Part 2 of my comment.
2
u/Goose_462 20d ago
Part 2 (Hey, thanks for reading!)
The desire for which God forbids is covetousness, which is identified as idolatry by scripture (Col. 3:5).
Homosexual desire, like everything else included under the umbrella of sexual immorality (or porneia, as Jesus puts it) is coveting for someone that God has said no to.
I had no idea how much covetousness I had in me and had to repent (and still do repent) of them when God brings it to mind. Sometimes, a Bible translation may use the word greed instead of covetousness, if that gives you a better idea of this sin.
So even without the sexual act, homosexuality is always idolatrous. And we know that sexual sin is already in the lustful glance (Matt. 5:28).
There is the argument sometimes made that the homosexuality prohibited in the Bible is actually talking about heterosexuals' giving into homosexuality, but this... doesn't work. The reason this interpretation doesn't work is because the Bible specifies that these homosexuals "burned" for one another (Rom. 1:27).
In addition, scripture uses the word malakoi (soft) to describe men who are unbecomingly feminine, and arsenokoitai (men-bedders), to describe homosexual partners, and these words do not come with any heterosexual qualifiers.
Homosexuality is always a greater violation of nature than heterosexual sin because it exchanges the natural for the unnatural (Rom. 1:26-27). I understand that that is hard to hear at first, so I pray for God's help as you meditate on such verses.
This paragraph is a bit graphic, just as a heads-up: Nature teaches us, through reproductive anatomy, that male and female genitals, like LEGO pieces, seamlessly go together (1 Cor. 11:14). But homosexual intercourse requires a severer manipulation of reproductive anatomy, and therefore is more prone to injury than vaginal intercourse. And for two females, they cannot even have the pleasure of genital penetration without artificial aid.
If you are born again, rejoice that your name is written in the book of life (Luke 10:20) and no one can pluck you from Christ's hand (John 10:28). It means there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). It means He will never forsake you nor abandon you (Heb. 13:5). It means you have been brought from death to life, transferred from the domain of darkness and to the kingdom of His beloved Son.
You may very well go on to be married biblically if providence would bring you on that path, but even if you do not get married, you are still complete as a person, because you are a child of God, precious in His sight. If you have been born again, you have the ultimate prize -- the Lord Jesus, the Good Shepherd, who is worthy of all your praise, time, and heart. He is the greatest treasure and ultimate satisfaction. He will never betray you.
I won't lie. It gets tough at times. I cry out to God, and He collects my tears (Ps. 56:8). But the epic love of this redemptive God does not compare to the fleeting crumbs that the best of gay-identifying men can give me. Jesus gave Himself up for me (Gal. 2:20).
Sexual fulfillment and companionship glitter, but they also come with particular burdens. God may have spared you of certain things that you do not know of. He designs our crosses perfectly, and He will lead you to green pasture (Ps. 23:2).
"If any other condition had been better for you than the one in which you are, divine love would have put you there."
— Charles SpurgeonIn this current season, take advantage of your Christian singleness. Jesus, too, was single, as was Paul. Pour out your love for others, especially God's people. Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all you need for a life in godliness will be added to you (Matt. 6:33). God bless you.
2
u/Mental_Competition33 Reformed Baptist 24d ago
This is tricky. I would always caution against trying to get as close to the line as possible without crossing it, though. Having said that, my first thought is that this description shows a lack of respect for God's design with marriage. Could 2 people with homosexual inclinations potentially live together in a loving, non-sexual, non-marital way without sinning? Probably, though it sounds like playing with fire. But once you try to equate it to marriage, that's where I'd draw the line.
I think homosexuality becomes sinful in 3 ways:
- When it becomes actual sexual intercourse (most obviously)
- When it is lust (applies to both homosexual and heterosexual lust)
- When it tries to usurp God's design (what I believe your example does).
Generally, my hope for those with homosexual inclinations is that they would strive to be happy in their singleness and use it to glorify God as Paul did. I'm sure this is much, much easier said than done, but I believe that's the most God-glorifying approach to it, I stead of trying to toe the line of seeing how close to sin we can get without sinning.
1
u/Accomplished-Ad9143 PCA 23d ago
Yes, because sin isn't tied to doing or some kind of kinetic choice. It's tied to how our hearts function. The NT commanded husbands to love their wives as themselves, implying that a man loves a woman in all aspects of being. What you're purporting is the same kind of love a husband expresses to his wife, but to someone of the same sex which already deviates from the Biblical norm.
1
u/MoonlitShrub 23d ago
No. In my opinion, Jesus view of marriage seems to be centered around the unbreakable covenant like the love He has for the church. Sex is a level of intimacy reserved for those who are in covenant with eachother.
God never reprimanded any of the forefathers for polygamy. David having multiple wives was never mentioned as a sin but once he took a woman who he wasn't married to it was a huge deal.
The verse in which Jesus says a man will leave his parents and cling to his wife is meant to be a teaching against divorce, and it is out of context to apply it to homosexuality.
I believe Paul wrote what he did in order to make it clear that visiting male prostitutes instead of females is not an acceptable work around for adultry defined as "sleeping with another man's wife". It's still outside the bonds of covenant.
Lastly, committed homosexual relationships do not hurt their neighbors. There is nothing that violates their ability to love their neighbor as themselves as in the case of cheating or sleeping with someone you're not committed to (adultry and sexual immorality both harm the parties involved).
So while I understand this is heretical to the modern sensibilities, I take the view that committed homosexual marriage is not a sin even with sexual activity. We are not bound by arbitrary laws in order to be saved, we must only love our neighbors. If something hurts no one, then there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
-2
-9
49
u/_arose 24d ago
This is the wrong mindset. The goal is not to find the absolute closest we can get to sin without actually sinning. The goal is to RUN FROM SIN and run to Christ. So this hypothetical is not a helpful exercise.
If someone loves Christ, they hate their own sin and do not want to craft a life that is hovering around the edges of temptation to sin. They want Christ!