• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Female Vs Male Homosexuality

M

Maegirl

Member
Female
Hi all!

There was an interesting thread started a few months ago regarding Romans 1:26-27. The general consensus seemed to be that male homosexuality was strictly forbidden, whereas female to female intimate relations were more vague/up to the husband's discretion. Though I certainly see the line of reasoning that was being used, I'm curious to hear more concrete evidence than just "God didn't specifically say women can't be physically intimate". Are there any other resources I could look into to provide more context/insight? Thanks! :)
 
Well, not to be a smart-a** about this, @Maegirl, you could just do a cover-to-cover reading of Scripture that isn't based on one of the more polluted translations. Your project would be the first person to find a verse of Scripture that clearly denounces female-female sexuality. If you find it, you'll be considered a pioneer. If you don't, you'll probably be more convinced than you would ever be by any lay source that challenges female-female sexuality.
 
Paul in the book of Roman's establishes a key principle: the OT was given to teach us what is sin; it is those things which are prohibited that are sinful. Ergo, if you can't find a prohibition for something in the Old Testament then it's not sinful. This isn't something 'not concrete'. It's a foundational principle of law. Our (USA) own legal system operates on the same principle: you are free to do whatever you please so long as it is not prohibited by law. You don't need a positive command/permission for every little thing you want to do. In other words, it's not sinful for the same reason blowing your nose with a handkerchief isn't sinful; God never made it so.

Paul elsewhere affirms the law of the husband. He is your spiritual head and ruler. Hence 'up to the husband's discretion.' So if @bluearrow89 doesn't want you doing something, even if that activity isn't sinful in and of itself, you shouldn't do it.

That is the general principle and it applies to a lot of different subjects. I know that's a cold logical answer, but the Old Testament is technically a legal book so it's appropriate.
 
Hey thanks for the replies. I probably should clarify that we also go by the principal of if God hasn't called it a sin then it isn't a sin. However it is more that the Romans 1 verse seemed to mention male homosexuality and went from that to "likewise" about the females. We are wanting to know everyone's thoughts on what unnatural relations are when it pertains to women if it isn't talking about sexual interaction.
 
bluearrow89 said:
We are wanting to know everyone's thoughts on what unnatural relations are when it pertains to women if it isn't talking about sexual interaction.
Click to expand...
There are several possibilities, because this is a single passage in one book by one author, and any individual passage taken in isolation can be interpreted in different ways.

One option is that the verse is talking about female-female sexual relations. This is plausible. However, if so, it would be the first and only verse in all scripture to condemn this, and is an obscure way to write a major new law. It is also not supported by a second witness in scripture. If there is an explanation that is relating to something that is already condemned as sin, and thus has multiple witnesses in scripture, that is more probable.

Another view is that the major thing the women are being criticised for is "abandoning men". The "natural use" of a woman is to have sex with a man, and "unnatural" sexual acts are therefore anything that occurs instead of natural sexual intercourse with a male. This would forbid female-female sex (at least in the absence of a male participant), but would also by the same logic forbid masturbation. I think that is a step too far because it starts forbidding even more things that are not spoken against elsewhere.

The men in this passage are said to be committing sexual acts that are forbidden in the law. The women are said "likewise" to be committing "unnatural" acts. There are sexual acts that are forbidden to women in the law - bestiality and adultery - and certainly qualify as unnatural. I think it is more probable that the verse is saying that both men and women were committing these clear sins. This is consistent with the remainder of scripture and has multiple witnesses attesting that these things are unlawful. I believe this is the most reasonable interpretation.

For your own behaviour, it is prudent to take a conservative approach and avoid female-female sex, just in case it is sinful. But when relating to the world around you, this verse is insufficient evidence to condemn another for female-female sex, because since other explanations are possible this single passage does not give sufficient evidence to judge others by.
 
FollowingHim said:
There are several possibilities, because this is a single passage in one book by one author, and any individual passage taken in isolation can be interpreted in different ways.

One option is that the verse is talking about female-female sexual relations. This is plausible. However, if so, it would be the first and only verse in all scripture to condemn this, and is an obscure way to write a major new law. It is also not supported by a second witness in scripture. If there is an explanation that is relating to something that is already condemned as sin, and thus has multiple witnesses in scripture, that is more probable.

Another view is that the major thing the women are being criticised for is "abandoning men". The "natural use" of a woman is to have sex with a man, and "unnatural" sexual acts are therefore anything that occurs instead of natural sexual intercourse with a male. This would forbid female-female sex (at least in the absence of a male participant), but would also by the same logic forbid masturbation. I think that is a step too far because it starts forbidding even more things that are not spoken against elsewhere.

The men in this passage are said to be committing sexual acts that are forbidden in the law. The women are said "likewise" to be committing "unnatural" acts. There are sexual acts that are forbidden to women in the law - bestiality and adultery - and certainly qualify as unnatural. I think it is more probable that the verse is saying that both men and women were committing these clear sins. This is consistent with the remainder of scripture and has multiple witnesses attesting that these things are unlawful. I believe this is the most reasonable interpretation.

For your own behaviour, it is prudent to take a conservative approach and avoid female-female sex, just in case it is sinful. But when relating to the world around you, this verse is insufficient evidence to condemn another for female-female sex, because since other explanations are possible this single passage does not give sufficient evidence to judge others by.
Click to expand...

i think there is another option as well. The passage could, and I think is, saying that the women being referred to have given up their natural use (wife/man’s sexual partner and barer of his children) and the men referred to, are burning with lust for other men. Think feminism and homosexuality. They seem to operate together in our culture as much or more then it did in that culture when that was written.
 
I am a woman that is totally straight and has a husband with one wife (me) and zero interest in threesomes even if he was blessed with another wife. In other words I have no personal interest in deciding sexual contact between women is ok. That said, when I looked up the words in Romans 1:26 in the concordance it seemed to be saying that those women exchanged the natural (instinctive) use of their bodies for that which was against nature (procreation). When one then looks at the next verse that says "likewise the men" and mentions acts deserving death it became clear to me that the women were not "lesbians" and did not leave their husbands, but maybe became selfish and did not want children and so encouraged and/or insisted on anal sex.

Paul could not be adding to the law, so if you cannot find it condemned in the old testament it is not sin.
I asked a long time plural wife once if she thought there was any benefit to sisterwives being bisexual. I asked because I knew she lived in a community and knew many plural families. She said "No. I believe it confuses the marriage dynamic and takes the wives' focus off the husband." So, that is my limited contribution to the topic....for whatever it's worth.
 
I have got a question
Is there a type of animals that practice that (meaning female with female sexual activities)
Does not even nature itself teach us

We can find monogamous animal and polygamous (polygynous) animal

That's my point of view
 
FollowingHim said:
There are several possibilities, because this is a single passage in one book by one author, and any individual passage taken in isolation can be interpreted in different ways.

One option is that the verse is talking about female-female sexual relations. This is plausible. However, if so, it would be the first and only verse in all scripture to condemn this, and is an obscure way to write a major new law. It is also not supported by a second witness in scripture. If there is an explanation that is relating to something that is already condemned as sin, and thus has multiple witnesses in scripture, that is more probable.

Another view is that the major thing the women are being criticised for is "abandoning men". The "natural use" of a woman is to have sex with a man, and "unnatural" sexual acts are therefore anything that occurs instead of natural sexual intercourse with a male. This would forbid female-female sex (at least in the absence of a male participant), but would also by the same logic forbid masturbation. I think that is a step too far because it starts forbidding even more things that are not spoken against elsewhere.

The men in this passage are said to be committing sexual acts that are forbidden in the law. The women are said "likewise" to be committing "unnatural" acts. There are sexual acts that are forbidden to women in the law - bestiality and adultery - and certainly qualify as unnatural. I think it is more probable that the verse is saying that both men and women were committing these clear sins. This is consistent with the remainder of scripture and has multiple witnesses attesting that these things are unlawful. I believe this is the most reasonable interpretation.

For your own behaviour, it is prudent to take a conservative approach and avoid female-female sex, just in case it is sinful. But when relating to the world around you, this verse is insufficient evidence to condemn another for female-female sex, because since other explanations are possible this single passage does not give sufficient evidence to judge others by.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what we were looking for. When you are raised in a certain way of thinking, it is often hard to see things from different angles. Thank you
 
Evo said:
I have got a question
Is there a type of animals that practice that (meaning female with female sexual activities)
Does not even nature itself teach us

We can find monogamous animal and polygamous (polygynous) animal

That's my point of view
Click to expand...
Female cows mount each other when they are on heat. That is how farmers know when to artificially inseminate them - when they start trying to mate with each other. Farmers will actually paint their tails with special paint that will rub off, or glue on special devices that change colour under presssure, to allow them to see which cows have been mounted by other cows and therefore which to artificially inseminate today. This is normal behaviour among cows.

Of course, male sheep will also mate or attempt to mate with each other, when kept away from the females.

So both male and female homosexual behaviour are seen on any farm. But this tells us little, as the behaviour of animals is not our guide to life. For us, we know male homosexual behaviour is forbidden. Female homosexuality is more questionable, but like any other questionable behaviour is wise to avoid also.
 
Last edited:
Romans 1:26-27 New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their [a]women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the [c]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.
Click to expand...

Notice:
  • It says vile passions. What has the OT told us those are?
  • Women exchanged natural use for what is against nature. It doesn't say WHAT they exchanged it for. To read that as woman-woman is a presumption. The only thing clear is an abandonment of sex with men. It could be lesbianism (which is not the same as sexual contact within a poly context) or bestiality or something else.
 
At the risk of being too graphic, I think the issue in Romans has to do with anal. Male homosexuality goes that direction and women, to avoid procreation, exchanged the natural for the unnatural (with men).

I do not think the Romans passage forbids f-f on the same grounds @FollowingHim states.

Sex between a man and a woman is, by definition, dominant in penetration. But, it is also designed to be procreative. When two men are together, by definition, it defiles the authority structure while not being procreative, therefore a twisting of man's purpose and calling.

Two women together cannot by definition defile the authority structure w/o penetration/dominance. If they artificially cross that line, then they have violated the created order by one taking the place of a man to assert dominance.. simple f-f intimacy is natural in how women tend to interact and not a violation of authority structure as long as tbeir common head allows and they are willing. As with the parallel agricultural laws, a woman is a field into which seed is planted. Just as seed is not to be mixed, a womanmay only have one owner/planter, but the owner/planter may own more than one field. Field can lay next to each other and be tended simultaneously or separately by the owner. Within certain restrictions, they could not be sold and had to stay in the family... I.e., redeemed by a near relative if a man died...

The major points of significance common to both illustrations are 1) not mixing seed and 2) protection/ownership of the field by the owner.
 
bluearrow89 said:
Hey thanks for the replies. I probably should clarify that we also go by the principal of if God hasn't called it a sin then it isn't a sin. However it is more that the Romans 1 verse seemed to mention male homosexuality and went from that to "likewise" about the females. We are wanting to know everyone's thoughts on what unnatural relations are when it pertains to women if it isn't talking about sexual interaction.
Click to expand...
The”natural use”of the woman is vaginal sex. When she abandons that natural use and burns with desire for the same thing gay men do it is referring to anal sex (anyone uncomfortable yet?) It is a known occurrence for women who have desecrated their bodies to the point of being insensate to morality to also prefer the unnatural use. Paul forbids this and it is accordance with the Law.
 
PeteR said:
At the risk of being too graphic, I think the issue in Romans has to do with anal. Male homosexuality goes that direction and women, to avoid procreation, exchanged the natural for the unnatural (with men).

I do not think the Romans passage forbids f-f on the same grounds @FollowingHim states.

Sex between a man and a woman is, by definition, dominant in penetration. But, it is also designed to be procreative. When two men are together, by definition, it defiles the authority structure while not being procreative, therefore a twisting of man's purpose and calling.

Two women together cannot by definition defile the authority structure w/o penetration/dominance. If they artificially cross that line, then they have violated the created order by one taking the place of a man to assert dominance.. simple f-f intimacy is natural in how women tend to interact and not a violation of authority structure as long as tbeir common head allows and they are willing. As with the parallel agricultural laws, a woman is a field into which seed is planted. Just as seed is not to be mixed, a womanmay only have one owner/planter, but the owner/planter may own more than one field. Field can lay next to each other and be tended simultaneously or separately by the owner. Within certain restrictions, they could not be sold and had to stay in the family... I.e., redeemed by a near relative if a man died...

The major points of significance common to both illustrations are 1) not mixing seed and 2) protection/ownership of the field by the owner.
Click to expand...
PeteR said:
At the risk of being too graphic, I think the issue in Romans has to do with anal. Male homosexuality goes that direction and women, to avoid procreation, exchanged the natural for the unnatural (with men).

I do not think the Romans passage forbids f-f on the same grounds @FollowingHim states.

Sex between a man and a woman is, by definition, dominant in penetration. But, it is also designed to be procreative. When two men are together, by definition, it defiles the authority structure while not being procreative, therefore a twisting of man's purpose and calling.

Two women together cannot by definition defile the authority structure w/o penetration/dominance. If they artificially cross that line, then they have violated the created order by one taking the place of a man to assert dominance.. simple f-f intimacy is natural in how women tend to interact and not a violation of authority structure as long as tbeir common head allows and they are willing. As with the parallel agricultural laws, a woman is a field into which seed is planted. Just as seed is not to be mixed, a womanmay only have one owner/planter, but the owner/planter may own more than one field. Field can lay next to each other and be tended simultaneously or separately by the owner. Within certain restrictions, they could not be sold and had to stay in the family... I.e., redeemed by a near relative if a man died...

The major points of significance common to both illustrations are 1) not mixing seed and 2) protection/ownership of the field by the owner.
Click to expand...
I should have read your answer first. It’s the right one.
 
The Revolting Man said:
The”natural use”of the woman is vaginal sex. When she abandons that natural use and burns with desire for the same thing gay men do it is referring to anal sex (anyone uncomfortable yet?) It is a known occurrence for women who have desecrated their bodies to the point of being insensate to morality to also prefer the unnatural use. Paul forbids this and it is accordance with the Law.
Click to expand...
Where is anal sex referenced in the Law?
 
It is speculative to extend these verses to all forms of anal sex. Although I find the idea disgusting myself, I interpret "the marriage bed is undefiled" to mean that anything a husband and wife choose to get up to is acceptable (other than sex during menstruation, which is specifically and repeatedly said to be sinful).
Once again, it is prudent to not have anal sex in case it is sinful, but as this is not clearly stated there is insufficient evidence to prove this is a blanket rule.
 
PeteR said:
L

Lev. 18:22-23; 20:13.
Click to expand...
Those two passages are not specifically referring to a specific sex act, but rather sex in general. The text makes that obvious. It says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman”. If Leviticus is referring specifically to anal sex then it would be saying that anal sex is how a man lies with a woman. That’s not what it’s saying, it’s just a reference to sexual relations in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top