Is non-sexual love between same-sex partners condemned in Christianity

Michaelrsh

Is non-sexual love between two people of the same sex condemned in Christianity. Now the love that I'm talking about isn't the same as the love/ connection between two best friends. I'm talking about the type of love between soul-mates except without the sex. Is that condemned?

homer911

If you read the story of David and Jonathon, I think you'll find it isn't

(I'm not saying they were sexually attracted to each, I think the Bible says they loved each other as brothers)

crotalus667

It is the act of sex that is forbidden by the bible not ones sexuality

alex73

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Is non-sexual love between two people of the same sex condemned in Christianity. Now the love that I'm talking about isn't the same as the love/ connection between two best friends. I'm talking about the type of love between soul-mates except without the sex. Is that condemned?

No it isn't. Neither is being Gay condemned by the Church. Only the acts.

But its an area that is not explored much by the Church.

PDN

Actually the kind of relationships you mention are fairly common in some forms of Christianity.

In the Salvation Army, for example, for over 100 years their ministers (known as officers) were not allowed to marry lay members. There were also many more female ministers than male. In practice this meant that almost all male ministers in the SA ended up married, so they ended up with a ministerial constituency composed of married couples, and then a large quantity of single women.

Often these single women would be sent out in twos to pastor churches. It is not uncommon to find two women like this who have pastored a succession of churches together, share a home, pool their financial resources, and take holidays together - all in a non-sexual relationship.

Miracletown

To the OP - Well what do you define as the difference between a best friend relationship and a soul mate one? Are you asking if gay relationships are wrong if there's no sex involved? Otherwise I don't really know what other distinction could be made between close friendships and life partnerships that are not friendships.

Its obvious that certain examples, for example the Salvation Army one, is based entirely on friendship. The women there would not have considered themselves partners on anything other than a friendship level as far as I can make out.

If your question is referring to gay relationships being wrong if there is no sexual activity, I would argue that the church does find that wrong. I'm basing that on the experiences of some lesbian women I know who are all part of a purity group online. Those who are dating do not engage in any sexual activity but they've had a lot of hassle from church and some have been forced to leave their congregations and step down from ministry despite the fact that they have all committed to purity in their relationships. This seems to be the norm for the women in this group, which has over 100 international members, unless they attend gay affirming churches.

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps it's is best to keep that aspect to the other thread we have going at the moment. Still, I would be interested to read a little more on it. Perhaps you can post a link on the other thread.

JimiTime

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Is non-sexual love between two people of the same sex condemned in Christianity.

Of course not.

Now the love that I'm talking about isn't the same as the love/ connection between two best friends. I'm talking about the type of love between soul-mates except without the sex. Is that condemned?

The concept of 'soul-mates' is a human, abstract kind of invention. Love is Love. The word Love has been twisted etc so much, such as calling sex 'Making Love'.

Below is 1Corinthians 13. IMO, Pauls greatest moment textually. It is to be applied by us to Man, woman and child. Not a hint of 'orientation' or anything sexual.

1 Corinthians 13 wrote:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

vodafoneproblem

Friends? Fine. Even very very very very good friends. Something else? You're kidding yourself, imo.

JimiTime

Miracletown wrote: »

If your question is referring to gay relationships being wrong if there is no sexual activity, I would argue that the church does find that wrong.

I would ask, how can a non-sexual relationship be called a homosexual relationship?

I'm basing that on the experiences of some lesbian women I know who are all part of a purity group online. Those who are dating do not engage in any sexual activity but they've had a lot of hassle from church and some have been forced to leave their congregations and step down from ministry despite the fact that they have all committed to purity in their relationships.

Why is it 'dating'? Do these people class themselves as celebate homosexual couples? I would simply ask, if these people believe that homosexual activity is wrong, then why define themselves by it?

Woman A and Woman B are both sexually attracted to each other. They believe Gods Word regarding homosexuality, and thus remain celebate. However, they refer to themselves by their sexuality. They decide to live together and have a 'relationship', but not a sexual one. Exactly what part of this relationship is lesbian? Also, is it wise for these women who are sexually attracted to each other, to live together etc? Is that not leading themselves into temptation?

I mean, why call themselves 'lesbian' Christians? Why not just Christians? If they prefer the company of fellow women on a friendship level, and a friendship 'is' a relationship, then why go in for all this lesbian terminology? All it indicates is a kind of sexual element. It sounds a little bit like the pink wig wearing gays in the church in Holland mentioned on another thread. Whats the point of it all?

Miracletown

JimiTime wrote: »

I would ask, how can a non-sexual relationship be called a homosexual relationship?

Well I'm meaning if the relationship isn't involving or revolving around sexual activity, I don't know if you're thinking along the same lines. If you are well then it would be the same as if two heterosexuals were going out together and not having sex. They are dating and in a relationship on a non friendship level. Lack of sexual activity doesn't stop people being in a homosexual relationship any more than it would stop them being in a heterosexual one, unless you're defining a relationship as requiring sex.

JimiTime wrote: »

Why is it 'dating'? Do these people class themselves as celebate homosexual couples? I would simply ask, if these people believe that homosexual activity is wrong, then why define themselves by it?

Woman A and Woman B are both sexually attracted to each other. They believe Gods Word regarding homosexuality, and thus remain celebate. However, they refer to themselves by their sexuality. They decide to live together and have a 'relationship', but not a sexual one. Exactly what part of this relationship is lesbian? Also, is it wise for these women who are sexually attracted to each other, to live together etc? Is that not leading themselves into temptation?

I mean, why call themselves 'lesbian' Christians? Why not just Christians? If they prefer the company of fellow women on a friendship level, and a friendship 'is' a relationship, then why go in for all this lesbian terminology? All it indicates is a kind of sexual element. It sounds a little bit like the pink wig wearing gays in the church in Holland mentioned on another thread. Whats the point of it all?

They don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, they believe that sex outside of marriage is. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. They also don't go round proclaiming themselves as lesbian Christians but in the context of the group, there is a need to define themselves so others can join who reflect the same values. How they communicate themselves to others is their own personal choice I guess.

Although I would point out that once again I think the church has a little bit of an obsession about making homosexuality all about sex. You can see my post in the other thread about that if you want as I don't really want to be hijacking this one.

JimiTime

Miracletown wrote: »

They don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, they believe that sex outside of marriage is.

Ahhh, that makes a difference. So ultimately, they are seeking to have homosexuality viewed as 'not' sinful, is that right? That if the church said marriage can be between members of the same sex, then they would see the sexual activity in this same sex union as not sinful?

PDN

Relationships can have many variations and activities that, depending on the context, may be viewed as sexual or not.

For example, most of us would see no sexual connotations at all in a mother hugging and kissing her baby on the sofa. But we would see problems with that same mother hugging and kissing the milkman on the sofa (do milkmen still exist?).

In parts of Africa it is considered normal for two men to walk down the street holding hands - there are no sexual connotations. (However, my cultural background makes me cringe when I'm in Nigeria and a man tries to hold my hand in a similar situation).

Two friends hugging and kissing on the sofa, in our society, usually involves an expectation of sex somewhere down the line - be it later that night, or maybe the kissing and cuddling is part of a courtship ritual with a view to finding one's marriage partners.

There are different degrees of friendship, too. The concept of having a 'best friend' where that relationship becomes exclusive and even jealous is probably already straying into an 'eros' kind of love rather than a 'phileo' love.

The Salvation Army female couples I referred to seem to manifest all the characteristics of marriage except for the sex. In fact I once witnessed such a couple 'breaking up' (one of them had chosen to work with another ministry partner) and it seemed as messy as any divorce.

Then again, I have met some married couples where sex stopped being part of their relationship a long time ago!

Even when it comes to sex, Bill Clinton has moved the goalposts for us there as well. Incredible as it may seem, there are a large number of young people out there who define 'sex' as penetrative intercourse and blithly argue that oral sex, or even anal sex, 'isn't really sex'.

So, I think that relationships, both emotional and physical, can encompass a wide range of different situations, particularly in a more multicultural and pluralistic society, and we are increasingly going to have to address such issues within Christianity.

In the end we all draw the line somewhere. For most churches, the point of engaging in actual sexual activity tends to be that line because it is clearer to define and recognise.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I mean, why call themselves 'lesbian' Christians? Why not just Christians? If they prefer the company of fellow women on a friendship level, and a friendship 'is' a relationship, then why go in for all this lesbian terminology?

Sexual orientation is about a lot more than simply sex intercourse. It defines the gender you fall in love with.

Homosexual men fall for men. Whether they have sex or not is some what beside the point, as my poor friend who had unrequited love with a straight man for years can testify to.

A friendship is not the same as a romantic attachment that simply, for what ever reason, doesn't involve sex.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It defines the gender you fall in love with.

Could you define Love? And what it means to 'fall in love'?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you define Love? And what it means to 'fall in love'?

Oh God, let's not go there again.

wicknight wrote:

Homosexual men fall for men. Whether they have sex or not is some what beside the point, as my poor friend who had unrequited love with a straight man for years can testify to.

But, as far as most Christians are concerned, it is the act that matters. Two men having sex in a prison cell is considered sinful, irrespective of whether they are in loveor consider themselves to be heterosexual or homosexual.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you define Love? And what it means to 'fall in love'?

Romantic attraction to another person leading to strong emotional pairing.

Humans typically only do this with one person at a time, and thus it is not really a form of strong friendship. If you have ever been in a serious relationship you should recognize the difference.

Sexual attraction is a part (the evolutionary purpose for the existence of such an emotion as love in the first place is to form strong bonds around raising children), but you can't really confuse love with sexual desire.

There seems to be a general ignorance on this forum about homosexuality, the idea most commonly put forward is that it is simply a form of sexual lust, and idea that largely ignores the emotional aspects.

Basically anything you think a heterosexual couple can feel for each other, a homosexual couple can feel the same.

So if you see a husband and wife deeply connected emotionally to each other (so say if he dies in a car accident his wife spends a year in a inconsolable depression), you shouldn't rule out that homosexual couples can do the same.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

But, as far as most Christians are concerned, it is the act that matters.

That isn't really my point, my point was that some of you guys seem to find it difficult to see homosexuality as anything other than a form of sexual lust, some what demonstrated by Jimi's sincere confusion that surely a lesbian couple that don't have sex are just friends, why call themselves lesbian?

Irrespective of the issue of sin you guys should really recognize that there is an emotional aspect of homosexuality, just as there is with heterosexuality. A husband and wife who for what ever reason don't have sex, aren't "just friends"

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really my point, my point was that some of you guys seem to find it difficult to see homosexuality as anything other than a form of sexual lust, some what demonstrated by Jimi's sincere confusion that surely a lesbian couple that don't have sex are just friends, why call themselves lesbian?

Tut tut WN. My confusion was nothing to do with the above. The confusion arose out of Miracletowns failing to mention that the lasbians in question, while choosing to remain celibate, did not think homosexual activity was sinful. My confusion came out of thinking the people mentioned by MT believed homosexuality to be sinful, yet defined themselves by it.

Irrespective of the issue of sin you guys should really recognize that there is an emotional aspect of homosexuality, just as there is with heterosexuality.

I don't know how you can deduce such a conclusion from my posts It is quite obvious that there is an emotional aspect to sexuality. Its all about emotion.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Romantic attraction to another person leading to strong emotional pairing.

Could you define Romantic?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really my point, my point was that some of you guys seem to find it difficult to see homosexuality as anything other than a form of sexual lust, some what demonstrated by Jimi's sincere confusion that surely a lesbian couple that don't have sex are just friends, why call themselves lesbian?

Irrespective of the issue of sin you guys should really recognize that there is an emotional aspect of homosexuality, just as there is with heterosexuality. A husband and wife who for what ever reason don't have sex, aren't "just friends"

We're not going to get very far if you persist in misrepresenting what people here believe. Can we please have a discussion without this continual nonsense?

Most posters here, I would think, fully recognise that there is an emotional aspect to homosexuality. Neither would we see homosexuality as being nothing but lust.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

My confusion came out of thinking the people mentioned by MT believed homosexuality to be sinful, yet defined themselves by it.

If you call yourself a lesbian you are not simply defining yourself by sexual activity. A homosexual who never has sex is still a homosexual.

There is much more to being homosexuality than simply wanting to sleep with members of the same sex, just like there is much more to being a heterosexual than wanting to sleep with member of a different sex.

There is absolutely no reason why these women wouldn't continue to call themselves lesbians even if they thought actual sex between them was wrong and never did them because lesbianism encompasses all the romantic emotions a woman normally feel for a man she is in love with, but between two women.

Now if you get all this then apologies, I miss-understood your post.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know how you can deduce such a conclusion from my posts

You appeared to be equating homosexuality as just the sexual acts,

"Do these people class themselves as celebate homosexual couples? I would simply ask, if these people believe that homosexual activity is wrong, then why define themselves by it?"

My point is that there is nothing particularly peculiar with a celibate homosexual couple because homosexuality is a lot more than homosexual sexual activity. Saying you are a homosexual is not defining yourself by homosexual sexual acts.

Again if you get this and I'm misunderstanding your post, apologies.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

We're not going to get very far if you persist in misrepresenting what people here believe. Can we please have a discussion without this continual nonsense?

PDN if you have moderation action to take against me then take it against me.

If you simply want to berate my posts without adding to the discussion I suggestion you do that in PMs rather than cluttering up the thread.

Comments that add nothing to the debate and are just opportunistic digs at me I'm simply going to ignore lest I get given out to for dragging threads off topic with responses and defenses to your usual nonsense, which is no doubt what you are hoping for.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN if you have moderation action to take against me then take it against me.

If you simply want to berate my posts without adding to the discussion I suggestion you do that in PMs rather than cluttering up the thread.

Comments that add nothing to the debate and are just opportunistic digs at me I'm simply going to ignore.

I am taking moderation action. I am requesting that you confine yourself to discussing the subject of the thread rather than misrepresenting the views of other posters.

If you have a problem with that moderating instruction then feel free to address it by the usual process (PMs to mods, then PMs to Cat Mods, then Helpdesk).

There is a useful discussion to be had here - and I do not intend it to be derailed into an atheist-v-Christians spat.

JimiTime

Get a room lads:pac::D

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Get a room lads:pac::D

lol


Librarian: [looking on] Hmph. First they hate other, now all of a
sudden they love each other. Oh, it doesn't make any sense
to me.

Man: Of course not, you're a robot.
[the librarian weeps; her tearduct malfunctions and her head
melts]

Miracletown

There are actually gay Christians who believe its only right to stay celibate but they still identify as gay come to think of it. Maybe I'm confusing the issue even more but it might make sense if you read this - http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.php

And as I think about it more I think it is important that gay Christians don't hide their orientation even if they do believe to engage in a relationship (which is better definition than sexual activity in my opinion) would be sinful. The world and the church is very heteronormative and this can be extremely isolating to gay people. Minority stress can also have a harmful effect on mental health. I don't think that these effects simply go away because someone chooses not to act on their orientation, especially if they don't consider themselves able to enter an opposite sex relationship.

The church is often silent on this issue and if Christians can be honest about their orientation, even if they don't engage in relationships, I think it helps others in church to know that they are not alone and it also helps defeat some of the homophobia that unfortunately can sometimes be found in churches.

wolfsbane

Miracletown wrote: »

There are actually gay Christians who believe its only right to stay celibate but they still identify as gay come to think of it. Maybe I'm confusing the issue even more but it might make sense if you read this - http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.php

And as I think about it more I think it is important that gay Christians don't hide their orientation even if they do believe to engage in a relationship (which is better definition than sexual activity in my opinion) would be sinful. The world and the church is very heteronormative and this can be extremely isolating to gay people. Minority stress can also have a harmful effect on mental health. I don't think that these effects simply go away because someone chooses not to act on their orientation, especially if they don't consider themselves able to enter an opposite sex relationship.

The church is often silent on this issue and if Christians can be honest about their orientation, even if they don't engage in relationships, I think it helps others in church to know that they are not alone and it also helps defeat some of the homophobia that unfortunately can sometimes be found in churches.

I don't agree at all. If their romantic feelings for each other are morally OK, then a sexual fulfilment of them must be OK too, in a marriage setting.

But if all such fulfilment is forbidden by Scripture, that means the feelings are also prohibited. And that is the Bible's position - the desire is as evil as the action. Those who are homosexually inclined need to reject their 'feelings' of attraction and ask God to replace them with morally valid ones.

Fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, paedophiles - all sorts of sexual sinners - often seek to justify their behaviour as 'natural for them, therefore proper'. But God tells us such desires are only natural in the worst sense - as opposed to spiritual. They are the sinful desires of our darkened hearts, desires that pervert God's good provision of heterosexual love fulfilled in marriage.

_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 2:3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.