Welcome to Gaia! ::

Why is Homosexuality wrong? Well... Because God said so. He is the authority and the overall judge of the universe. It is like asking why is stealing wrong? It is against the Law. The same principle carries over to the Law of God. Sure, the 10 commandments never mentioned Homosexuals, but it did say about Adultery, which means a married man having sexual intercourse with a girl outside of the lawful spouse and vice versa. God set up the law of 1 husband and 1 wife from the Garden of Eden.



A man shall cleave (pursue or keep close) unto his wife. People sometimes think that it is just for Adam and Eve. I can tell you that this doesn't apply to them as much as we are supposed to. Why? Because they didn't have a father or a mother, again, a man and a woman. That is how God designed it.

Let's look just an example of what homosexuality does. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is famous in the Book of Genesis. It says that those 2 cities are very wicked, but what does it say about their wicked acts? The only one I can find that says about their wickedness is that their wickedness was very great, and the majority of them, if not all, were homosexuals.



What happened to those 2 cities? God judged them and destroyed all that lived there, except Lot and his two daughters. And that is what God says He'll do.

I got this information from the discussion comments in the article above but is it true that "homosexuality" wasn't even a word originally in the Bible because the word didn't exist at the time - someone was arguing that there wasn't a term for homosexuality when discussing Paul's letter in Romans (I think)

Aquatic_blue has it right and she provided some of the verses for reference.
It was wrong in the Old Testament and it is wrong in the New Testament.
I feel that God does not want us to have relations with the same sex because we cannot reproduce in such relations. I too have gay friends. I'm not judging them but I pray for them. I love them but I disagree with their lifestyle.
God knows what's best for us.Peace

I've read those scriptures already neutral and as much sense as your responses would make to me I don't think they'd make any sense to my friend, especially when he brings up those arguments about why Paul supported homosexuality (In the first article) and honestly the answers for why those reasons are wrong seem kind of weak to me (the arguments for why it's right don't fair much better). One of the things I remember him saying are "so I'm going against his design; but what if I do everything else properly- I don't have sex until marriage, marry one partner and don't cheat on him and decide to have a kid. Then what." To which I said that'd still be wrong neutral with no real answer as to why it's so detestable as opposed to other things

And the other debate we got into was whether or not some people are born homosexual. I believe the option that some people choose it along the way (for various reasons as to why they would) but as people are born into sin, could they be born homosexual? I know that theory that there's a "gay" gene is not valid or the other argument that there are homosexual animals in nature so it's only natural - but does that even count as a support for homosexuality??????

*And this one is a little off topic but someone said earlier that we were designed man to woman so that we could reproduce- that's what we're meant to do. What if we decided to not have kids. Well not the whole population but I don't really like kids nor want to have kids when I get married; if I do by some weird twist of fate, I'm adopting. Is that wrong, since I'm going against God's design?

I should change my friends? I think I should tell them what the bible says about their actions and set an example but I think trying to change them is crossing the line- that's God's job

Romans 1:26–27
The Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains a substantial New Testament passage on homosexual behavior. In Romans 1, Paul is explaining the sinfulness of man, “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,” and man’s willing rejection of God. He sums up the results of this rejection in verses 26 and 27:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In a plain reading of this passage, the Apostle Paul demonstrates that because of man’s rejection of the truth for a lie, God gave humanity over to their sin. Homosexual behavior is a prominent part of these consequences. Romans 1:29–31 is a list of further sinful acts and behaviors associated with this giving over. And in Romans 1:32, Paul condemns not just those who practice these things, but also those who approve of them.
But pro-gay scholars and church leaders disagree. For example, John Shelby Spong, a homosexual advocate and retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, attempts to damage the Apostle Paul’s credibility and characterizes the Pauline statements on homosexuality as something other than the Word of God:

"Yes, I am convinced that Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial, bound by the law that he hoped could keep this thing, that he judged to be so unacceptable, totally under control, a control so profound that even Paul did not have to face this fact about himself. But repression kills. It kills the repressed one and sometimes the defensive anger found in the repressed one also kills those who challenge, threaten or live out the thing that this repressed person so deeply fears."

In Spong’s view, the Apostle Paul was allegedly repressing homosexual desires and that led him to condemn homosexual behavior in general. Furthermore, Spong argues that in Paul’s time, homosexuality was socially unacceptable, so Paul was supposedly forced to react negatively to homosexual behavior. When asked in one interview how he could so easily dismiss the Bible’s words on homosexuality, Spong replied, “I don’t see the Bible as the Word of God. I see the Word of God as that which I hear through the words of the Bible. There’s a very big difference.”12 A big difference indeed—between the orthodox Christian view of Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and Spong’s heretical view that accords divine authority to his own thoughts.

The editors of the Queen James Bible chose to apply the same criteria to Romans 1:26–27 that they did to the Levitical laws. In other words, they believe that Paul condemns homosexual behavior only in the context of idolatry. They write, “It is much more likely that Paul meant to express that women were ritually defiling themselves (sexually or otherwise).” They go on to claim that what was “shameful” among these people was pagan idolatry, not homosexual behavior.

Neither of the above views has any biblical support. Whether or not Paul dealt with feelings of same-sex attraction (and there is no biblical evidence for that), he was given the authority of an apostle by God (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1) and his words in Scripture are the Word of God (2 Peter 3:16). Spong’s basis for rejecting them is faulty: the entire Bible was composed by sinful men who were led by the Spirit of God to write what they did. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of their claims or the binding authority of their words for us today based on their humanity.

Finally, the idolatry position of the Queen James Bible editors still does not fit with the whole of Romans 1. Sexual perversion and excess were common in the Roman Empire during the Apostle Paul’s day, making his words in Romans 1 fitting for his audience. Once again, the clearest interpretation of this passage is one that takes hold of the plain meaning of the words: homosexual behavior is sinful in the eyes of God.

Arsenokoitēs and Malakos
In the New Testament, two Greek words appear in reference to homosexual behavior: arsenokoitēs and malakos. Paul uses these words together in 1 Corinthians, and arsenokoitēs appears alone in 1 Timothy:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor homosexuals [arsenokoitēs], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10, NASB)
. . . for fornicators, for sodomites [arsenokoitēs], for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:10, NKJV)

Conservative Bible scholars typically accept (based on solid historical and textual evidence) that arsenokoitēs refers to the active sexual partner in a homosexual act, while malakos refers to the passive partner.13 Pro-homosexual scholars, however, challenge the translations of these two Greek words. Some have tried to limit the words to adulterous homosexual relationships, while others have offered alternate definitions related to rape or sex with young boys (i.e., pederasty). For instance, the editors of the Queen James Bible chose to translate malakos as “morally weak” and arsenokoitēs as “promiscuous.”

The first term, malakos, “means literally ‘soft’ . . . and in Paul’s day served as an epithet for the ‘soft’ or effeminate (i.e., passive) partner in a homosexual (pederastic) relationship.”14 Even secularists recognize that in a homosexual act, one of the partners must act as the opposite sex—one of the males plays the female, and vice versa. It is an absolute inversion of the order set forth by God. The definition of the word arsenokoitēs has been the subject of much more debate.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburg Theological Seminary and an authority on sexual issues in Scripture, explains why the word arsenokoitēs so clearly relates to homosexual acts. Among the evidences Gagnon presents, one of the most compelling is the context of 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, where the apostle Paul is rebuking a man who was sexually involved with his stepmother:

1 Corinthians 5 treats a comparable case of intercourse involving consenting adults who are too much alike or same (here, on a familial level), with echoes to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. . . . For Paul, as for early Judaism and Christianity generally (and even us today), there were structural prerequisites for acceptable sexual unions that transcended appeals to loving dispositions. Gender and degree of blood unrelatedness were two such prerequisites.15
In other words, since 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 is dealing with sexual sin between two closely related family members (adultery is not the whole issue), and arsenokoitēs appears in a vice list in the midst of that, it is reasonable that this word references homosexual acts in general. Indeed, the definition of arsenokoitēs provided in BDAG (a standard Greek lexicon) is “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex,” specifically, “one who assumes the dominant role in sexual activity.”

Furthermore, even the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, draws on the word arsenokoitēs in its translation of Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man [arsenos] lies [koitēn] with a male as he lies with a woman . . .”), demonstrating that the word would seem to imply men in general who lie with other men. Lastly, concerning the appearance of arsenokoitēs in the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:10, Gagnon writes, “The fact that arsenokoitai appears here in the midst of a vice list that the author states is derived from the law of Moses (1:8–9) confirms that Paul would have recognized a link to the Levitical prohibitions.”

Source:
Pro-Gay Theology: Does the Bible Approve of Homosexuality?

Aquatic_blue is right in pointing out this as the reason why it is a sin.
It is an act of rebellion. It is man saying he doesn't feel like doing what God intends him to because he knows better.