Content note: this post discusses homophobic and acephobic attitudes
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the intersection of asexuality and Christianity. I saw a comment on Rachel Held Evans’ blog post “If My Son or Daughter Were Gay,” from a mother asking for advice because her daughter had just come out as asexual. She noted that while homosexuality was frequently discussed on the blog (Rachel is a strong proponent of what I might call a progressive Christian attitude towards the LGBT* community, and often hosts discussion), asexuality had never been discussed.
Asexuality is in an odd place, compared to the other minority sexual orientations, when it comes to Christianity. Some religiously conservative Christians tolerate or even applaud asexuality while condemning all other non-heterosexual orientations. In that way, asexuality escapes the vitriol to which the LGBT* community is subjected*. But this leniency is often based out of a misunderstanding of asexuality– and it’s by no means universal. I know of other aces who’ve been told, by Christians (and others) that their asexuality is sinful, or even that they’re going to hell for it.
I’ve observed four primary areas of tension between asexuality and Christianity. The first is the mistaken idea that asexuality is voluntary, or is basically celibacy. The second is that asexuality isn’t a choice, but is still commendable. The third is that asexuality is preferable to being gay. The fourth is that asexuality is sinful. These ideas are probably familiar to anyone who does ace 101, but I believe this four ideas are so prevalent in Christian discussions of asexuality because of deeper beliefs that run strong in many Christian communities.
I think the idea that asexuality is voluntary, when it occurs in the Christian communities, stems in large part from the fact that many Christians, especially conservative Christians, think sexual orientation is a choice– or, rather, having a minority sexual orientation is a choice. They don’t acknowledge that many aspects of our sexuality are inherent, and out of our control. Sexual fluidity is discussed in the context of people “becoming” straight, but never the other way around. Anyone who “chooses” not to be straight is therefore in error, and asexuals are caught up in this condemnation.
Others consider that asexuality is a gift from God. They may cite verses such as Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 to argue that being asexual is a favored state, or makes life easier. Regardless of what group(s) “eunuch” really described in that context, this is incorrect. I suspect many or most asexuals would not say that asexuality makes their life easier; most asexuals still experience the desire of intimate companionship, and many also experience romantic attraction, but in our society, these two things are considered tightly coupled with sex and sexual attraction. It’s difficult to have one or two without the other, especially with a partner who is not asexual.
There are Christians who think that being asexual is better than being gay (whether or not it’s also better than being straight). They are wrong. They are wrong for many reasons. They are wrong because no sexual orientation is “better” than any other. They are wrong because they are often working off of the idea that being gay is wrong. (By the way, if you’re one of the Christians who thinks that and you’re reading this? Know that there is no verse in the Bible that says being gay is wrong. No, not even that one. Go look. I dare you.) They are wrong because this idea leads Christians to encourage gay, lesbian, and bi/pansexual people to repress their sexuality and live as if they were asexual. No one should have to repress their sexuality, and it’s incredibly damaging to do so. Being gay is not wrong. Being asexual is not wrong. Being asexual is not better than being gay.
Christians who believe asexuality is sinful may be coming from one of a couple of places. If they are talking to or about female aces, they may be influenced by misogynistic ideas about women existing solely for marriage, children, and the sexual pleasure of men. If they’re speaking more generally, they may be operating off of the incorrect assumption that the nuclear family is the basic unit of, and integral to, Christianity. (If you are one of those Christians reading this, I suggest you go back and read the Matthew verse I referenced above.) Or, homophobia may have convinced them that heterosexuality is the only good sexual orientation, and therefore anything else must be condemned. Or, they may be under the mistaken impression that asexuality is “unnatural” and therefore sinful.
I suspect that asexuality will be a larger blip on the radar of Christian communities in the coming years, as it becomes more generally known. Asexuals and Christians alike (qua asexuals and Christians) are likely to encounter these ideas more frequently. It’s important for asexuals to understand where these ideas likely come from, and it’s important for Christians to understand why these ideas are wrong. Asexuality is not a choice, it’s not a blessing, it’s not better than being gay, and it’s not a sin.
*Being trans* isn’t an orientation, but I’ve discovered that many Christians routinely write “the LGBT community” and lump trans* folk in with their blanket condemnations, without understanding what it means.
The Asexual Agenda 
As an atheist, I actually tend to find misconceptions two and three more irritating than people who outright say that asexuality is a sin. Sometimes Christians who think asexuality is commendable on its own get downright fetishy over it, for lack of a better term–they want to talk about how I’ve been blessed and fawn about it and ask how they, too, can be like me and generally talk over my reality so they can more effectively project their assumptions about it onto me. It’s creepy and insulting. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a Christian person who pulled either of these things that wanted to listen to me talk about what I actually wanted out of life.
I also find that the “asexuality is a sin” people tend to have a slightly better understanding of what asexuality actually is, and that it does not necessarily entail living a life that looks particularly heteronormative from the outside. People in the first three categories are more likely to be unfamiliar with what I’m trying to talk about and occasionally unwilling to listen to explanations.
Pingback: Tales of the Sexless | Madeline Ricchiuto
Yeah, I encountered a #2/#3 in the comments of the Huffington Post series a while back. They posted about how asexuality was good and Bible-Approved™ and promoted sexual purity and all sorts of other Good Things™. Then they topped it off with how great it was that there was now another option for “sexually self-questioning teens”, that they didn’t have to go off and be gay anymore because now there’s asexuality, instead.
I responded quite directly that asexuality isn’t the Abstinence Club, we’re not about “purity” and that I didn’t want my sexual orientation to be used by religious groups in the “Fight Against The Gay”.
They replied that we should embrace religious groups because LGBT groups won’t accept us because they “advocate a type of sexuality and acceptance of that sexuality”. (I get the feeling they started to type “lifestyle”, but backspaced it away…) They then proceeded to double down on their earlier statements, and went on about how asexuality frees us from sexual temptation, like fornication and homosexuality. And then they finish it off with a side of “Maybe you haven’t met the right person yet!”
Those comments really bugged me. They weren’t openly hostile, like a lot of comments were, but they were almost more vile. The haters know that they’re being hurtful, but this person didn’t understand that they were, even after they were explicitly told how wrong they were and that what they were saying was hurtful. They just carried on with the “But you’re so sexually pure!” line. I can just imagine them walking away from the computer, calling up a friend, and saying “Hey, Mildred, you know how Billy said that he’s g-g-g-gay? You should tell him to be asexual, instead! I just learned about it! It’s all about living a life free of sexual temptation. It’ll cure Billy of his h-h-h-homosexuality in a jiffy!”
I wrote about some of my thoughts on these comments before:
http://redbeardace.tumblr.com/post/53689535567/there-were-a-lot-of-troubling-comments-on-the
http://redbeardace.tumblr.com/post/53719994798/earlier-today-i-posted-about-a-troubling-comment
I always get the feeling that these people who think asexuality = “purity” would SO disapprove of the contents of my toy chest.
Yeah… That person didn’t respond after I mentioned how asexuality didn’t prevent my fornication.
Hi Aydan,
This was an interesting post, and I think you’ve certainly hit on some of the ways Christians might feel about asexuality. However, as a Christian ace, whose Phd deals with the development of early Christian doctrines on sexuality, I feel there is more to be said.
Firstly, your article doesn’t consider the perspective of people like me– Christians who happen to be ace, or aces who happen to be Christian. Your article seems to come from the perspective that Christians are a homogenous group of outsiders who hold opinions about asexuality. What about the instances where there is a crossover? It’s one thing to talk about observed trends as a non-member of a group, but if you’re going to extrapolate or suggest reasons then it helps to get an actual member of that group’s perspective.
I agree that the trend of upholding asexuality as superior is very silly. However, I think it’s also worth considering that for a Christian (and indeed most orthodox religions) it is impossible to separate sexuality from faith, as faith is an integral aspect of their being. So Christian aces might feel that they are spiritually led toward asexuality, and non-ace Christians might applaud these people for being so in touch with their spirituality. It doesn’t always follow that they’re applauding the asexuality itself. Also, they may not be expressing their admiration for the person’s asexuality, but celibacy. Though I agree that the conflation of celibacy and asexuality is largely erroneous.
In my case, I am not celibate, as I am married to a sexual person, whom I love and adore, and I genuinely want to fill their needs even though I get nothing out of the sexual act. However, my sexual identity is inevitably influenced by my faith. It’s inescapable. I have realised my sexuality (not chose, realised) through prayer, meditation, and study of scripture. I conceptualise my understanding of my sexuality using the Greek words for love. (I’m afraid I barely know any Hebrew, which is my failing). Eros, or sexual desire, is something I do not really experience; however, storge (familial love) and philia (deep friendship) are very familiar to me. Underlying these is the Christian concept of agape, a kind of universal love towards which I strive. Agape is different from other words for love: it is freely given, self-sacrificing, and can be given to anyone. I don’t get it perfect, and I don’t think this makes me more special than anyone else. Nor do I look down upon anybody who needs eros in their lives. Agape can be part of eros too. I’m just saying that my belief system is part of who I am, as is my asexuality– neither of them make life easy, but without them I am not me.
Hi Jules,
Thanks for your feedback.
I am myself a Christian, and so I write from personal experience of being asexual within Christian communities. I personally do not feel spiritually led towards asexuality, and I admit, I have never really heard anyone say they felt spiritually led towards being straight or gay, either. I don’t feel that my sexuality is reflective of or particularly influenced by my faith, nor do I feel that my sexuality is an indication that I am in touch with my spirituality. It’s simply who I am (in this case, not) sexually attracted to.
Ah, well, I apologise for my assumption that you were not Christian or writing from personal experience. I did not detect that from your post. And it’s ok that you haven’t heard of people feeling spiritually led toward their sexuality. Now you have! For my part, I had never heard of Christians telling aces that asexuality is preferable to same-sex attraction. I gather that is kinda the point of the Asexual Agenda– opening up these kinds of dialogues to examine the issues in depth. What I should have said was that these were my personal experiences, and that some other Christians feel the same way about the relationship between faith and sexuality. I have spoken to a lot of people who feel that God has led them towards their sexuality, especially Christians from minority sexualities– and they do exist. I cannot speak for them, only for my own understanding of their words. Many feel that since they did not choose who they would be attracted to, they are surely guided in that process by a higher power. Among the gay Christians I have met (and I’ll admit I have not met many), some have had to approach the issue prayerfully, coming before God, as they are constantly forced to reconcile their nature with people telling them they are evil. I can only hope that the Christian communities figure out that the persecution of people is wrong. Many have, and talking to you gives me hope for the future.
I am an ace Christian as well, but have never received any feedback from the people in my church farther than a blank stare or a shrug. So it’s really interesting to see what other people have encountered. I’m still not clear on why some might say that being ace is sinful, but if anybody has had negative feedback from the Christian community (which is a very large group, encompassing a wide variety of perspectives) it would be interesting to see where that train of thought is coming from.
I’ve heard it suggested that Christians perceive, either vaguely or clearly, that asexuality is taking their religious values of chastity, and sullying them by reinterpreting them in a queer lens. All I can say is… that’s pretty much exactly what I’d like to do.
Did you read that somewhere or hear that from Christians in person? All I’ve heard from hostile Christians who interpret asexuality as being related to queerdom is that LGBT asexuals aren’t “really” asexual–i.e. the only “real” asexuals are cis and either aro or heteroromantic. (Usually they interpret “real” asexuals in a positive light in that case.)
It was suggested in person by a non-Christian.
It’s one interpretation of why Christians sometimes try so hard to keep asexuality and LGBT separate.
I would be skeptical of a non-Christian’s conjecture of why Christians hold certain views, especially if there is no vocalisation of this view from Christians themselves. Otherwise, the argument becomes somewhat similar to that of the straight person trying to explain away how ace people view the world without actually bothering to ask the aces themselves. We wind up putting words in others’ mouths.
Also, I am not sure it is very respectful to deliberately ‘sully’ another person’s value system by pushing another onto it. From what I gather in Aydan’s post, that is exactly how some Christians can impugn upon the asexual community: I can’t speak for you, but I don’t particularly wish to follow their example. If you interpret chastity through a queer lens, that’s fine, go for it. If you do it in a secular sense, I see no harm in that. But is ‘taking their religious values’ particularly beneficent? It’s one thing to recognise that Christians don’t actually have a monopoly upon celibacy and reclaim it, but quite another to undermine the Christian valuation of chastity.
Many non-Christians interact with Christians all the time, and some of them are even former Christians (including myself and the referred person). I don’t agree that only Christians can speak of Christianity, while anyone else’s perspective is mere conjecture.
In any case, it’s quite similar to what Aydan was saying. Christians sometimes see asexuality in a positive light, because it seems to correspond to values of chastity and celibacy. On the other hand, many Christians are not very queer friendly. And here we see that asexuals are cozying up to queers, if not outright identifying as queer. They’re saying that while some people are celibate by choice, others are just inclined to be celibate, and that this is neither good nor bad. Asexuality can be viewed as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, subtly undermining their values.
And yes, I would very much like to undermine those pro-chastity, anti-queer values. Those values are harmful. I don’t need to be respectful of harmful values any more than I need to be respectful of stereotypes and misconceptions.
Yikes, that explains a lot. I’m going to have to keep an eye out for that one!
What Siggy’s saying honestly wouldn’t surprise me. As a Christian, my experience has been that if you can imagine a ridiculous and uninformed opinion about minority sexual orientations or gender identities, some Christian somewhere holds that opinion.
I wasn’t saying that only Christians can speak of Christianity, and that anybody else’s view is mere conjecture. I think that is an example of reductio ad absurdum. Of course anyone can hold opinions about anything. That doesn’t mean that they are entitled to have their views blindly accepted. I’m saying I’m skeptical. In other words, I will question the assertion before I accept it. And until there is solid evidence that Christians actually do think that way, I’m afraid it is conjecture. It holds sufficient internal consistency to be compelling, but until there is proof, it is just a theory. As for the other stuff, I agree that the anti-queer views many Christians hold are harmful and should be opposed. I am less than certain about the valuation of chastity; the issues are not always linked. If Christians attempt to force others to accept their ideals of chastity, that is wrong. However, what of the many Christians who choose chastity for themselves of their own free will? Would you kindly explain to me what is wrong with that?
Choosing chastity and positively valuing chastity are two different things.
I encountered #4 when I was attending Catholic school 12 years ago and expressed that I wanted to be married someday, but not have children or sex. I was told (by the principal of my school) that I was selfish for wanting to be married without those things because (hetero)sexuality is a Gift from God and marriage is exclusively for procreation. (If I had been more back-sassy back then, I would have rightly pointed out that my parents were not married and had me and my sister just fine. It would have elicited either some speech about how my parents were living in sin, or some kind of punishment for “talking back.”)
Catholic authorities are much more likely to go with #4 if a hetero-appearing cis-appearing asexual person professes that they would like to be married. I have no idea how Catholic authorities treat cis queer asexuals. I know already that they view a gay trans asexual as a hetero asexual of their birth gender assignment. I also know that it is often thought in Catholicism that if you are able to live with an unmarried partner and NOT have sex with them, you don’t really love them.
I think that if you’re a queer cis asexual and you don’t want to be married, and you don’t have sex, Catholic authorities think this is virtuous and in line with their idea that it’s okay to be homosexual as long as you’re celibate. I am not sure if it counts as celibate in Catholicism to have a sexless same-gender relationship.
tl;dr: Catholicism is complicated about asexuality.
Except the thing is the Bible does say that being gay is wrong, so people need to stop acting like Christianity is all about love and acceptance, stop saying that homophobic Christians are just distorting and misinterpreting the text, and start accepting the fact that the Bible is full of unapologetic hatred and should not be defended. Especially not by oppressed minorities who say things like “the Bible doesn’t say being gay is wrong” or “you’re taking it out of context”. That’s defending the very book that is causing the oppression.
I’m so confused.
I’ve found this comment late, but I disagree with you, obviously. If I didn’t think it were possible to read the Bible in such a way that it does *not* oppress minorities, including women and the GSM community, I wouldn’t be Christian. And I think it’s important to note that Christians aren’t the only ones who hold this thinking– I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but my understanding is that Judaism has a rich tradition of interpreting what we call the “clobber verses” of the Old Testament in such a way that they are not actually terrible.
I disagree with you (and go with the comment before yours). Not all christians are what people would reasonable call a homophobe, a sexist or discriminating against LGBTQA+ (Likely as well intersex people but I don’t know enough about that.). But a lot of homophobia and sexism and other forms of LGBTIQA+ discrimination have their roots in christianity. Then again: Most christian authorities I ever encounter (fortunatly not in person) do hold such a hostile believe-system. So to rush over that and making a distinction that they are not “really” christians does not make sence. Isn’t christianity defined by the believe in and the worship of the christian god, believing in Jesus as a messiah and savior, believing in the holy spirit, resurrection – things like that? Of course this is likely also not true for all christian communities they are – but it defines christianity in a way how it makes sence in social context. It allows to catch christian believe systems with varying values, also ones decent people consider to be wrong, which are certainly part of christian communities. If you define it by your own values (which for itself I don’t want to dismiss here) you are narrowing a definition to an extend to make christianity homogenous. And this is certainly not true. If you deny homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc. views can be part of christianity you get rid of the necessarity to fight all that; you could become careless about it and not be ready to reflect your own point of view (as a christian or even a person whi isn’t christian but with a positive view of christianity).
For me, as a feminist, I do acknowledge that there are parts of feminism which I consider wrong and harmful. I think of trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), who exclude trans women and include trans men under the wrong assumption they were women. This is harmful and violent and I strictly oppose that. But to call them “not really” feminists – just because they deeply and clearly fail to encorporate feminist concepts, like, well, antisexism, fighting for womens rights, against violence and discrimination against women – wouldn’t solve the issue that transphobia is a problem not only, but also in feminist communities. To consider them “not really” feminists would dismiss that some feminisms seeming great at first glance can at their core be exclusionary and stigmatizing. Even trans activists and feminists acknowledge TERFs as feminists (the F in TERF) although they criticize them in the clear way it is legimitate and necessary.
I think some parts of the bible are a human’s interpretation of God’s word. Since everything was written a long time ago, there’s bound to be homophobic things in there. That’s why it annoys me when people just blindly follow EVERYTHING the bible says.
I’m not sure what denomination you’re coming from, but I was raised (and still follow) the belief that the Bible, that while penned by man, who messes up, was written by God, who is unerring. And thus, if some parts of the Bible aren’t true, then there’s no way to trust the rest of it. So that it’s kind of an all or nothing deal. That’s what I’ve always believed, but I’m curious to lean about others opinions as well.
It does, in modern translation. But go back to the original translation into English.
No, but the bible does have a harsh bit in Leviticus about putting a man to death if he should “lie with another man,” and Paul, in one of his epistles includes homosexual people in a list of people with whom not to share a table. There’s also a part in Leviticus about men not wearing garments that pertain to a woman and women not wearing garments that pertain to a man. (Which is just ridiculous, since the line, historically, has not been clear)
So, yes, the bible does have those bits in it.
I think what you wanted to say is that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. There’s no mention of homosexuality in the Gospels.
In the first case, you’re referring to someone who *does* something, not someone who *is* something. It can be very damaging to separate out same-gender attraction vs. having sex with someone of the same gender (see the points I made about forced repression), but I feel Christians in general are terrible about realizing that there IS a difference. In the second case, that verse is generally translated not as homosexual people, but as a particular category of prostitutes, or, sometimes, “sodomites,” which used to mean anyone who had anything but PIV sex. The very ambiguity of those verses is a widely-used argument against their traditional interpretation.
So I stand by my point.
So your argument is that “there is no verse in the Bible that says being gay is wrong” is still technically true, even though the Bible condemns male-male sexual acts, and also people who have non-PIV sex? Even if that is true, it’s not a very satisfying defense. It doesn’t, for instance, make me think the Bible is any less awful.
I think it’s more than technically true. Some Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists spew disgustingly vile rhetoric about “homosexuals” that is predicated on the faulty premise that the Bible contains a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. (The existence of bisexuality usually does not occur to them.) It is important to point out that this condemnation is, in fact, *not in there.* Getting people who use the Bible as the basis of their morality to acknowledge what the Bible actually says is approximately step 0, but it is still an important step.
And, while I know it can be damaging to go too far down the road of separating being gay/bi from having sex with someone of your same gender, I also think it can be damaging to conflate the two and categorize people as the sex they’re having.
It may not be a very satisfying defense, but it’s not meant to be a defense of the Bible. It was not aimed at people who think the Bible is awful; it was aimed at Christians who think homosexuality is awful.
(I don’t think the Bible condemns non-PIV sex. When I talk about the previous definition of sodomy, I mean how it was interpreted over the last 2,000 years, not necessarily how it was used in the NT.)
Well, you’re welcome to use whatever argument you think works best. Myself I can’t in good faith use any argument that acknowledges that the Bible has any relevance whatsoever, because even if such an argument is persuasive, it’s not one I agree with. Also as an ex-Catholic, I know that Catholics have already reached step 0, and aren’t really much better for it.
Er… yes, I had intended to do so. I wouldn’t expect that you would use any argument like this; you’re an atheist, why would you? Did I give the impression that I was giving a list of uniform talking points for all aces? That certainly wasn’t my intention.
Actually, Christ did reiterate God’s concept of marriage in Matthew 19: 4, 5.
I recently deleted my Christian Mingle profile when I realized that I didn’t want children and that the times I wanted to be physically intimate with a woman were few and far between. God blessed me with a level of self-control that most men don’t have. I never liked the White Knight types who think with the smaller of their two heads.
I see nothing in Scripture that equates asexuality with sin.
“Actually, Christ did reiterate God’s concept of marriage in Matthew 19: 4, 5.”
I’m not sure which of my points you’re trying to address here, but I don’t see this as rebutting anything I said.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality
verses on being gay
I’m not sure what case you’re trying to make by dumping that here, but I’ll have a look.
Leviticus 18:22
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Hmm. Well this certainly creates a very compelling argument that only lesbian sex can be Christian sex. Was that the point you were trying to make?
Pingback: Project Idea Regarding Asexuality and the Church | The Ace Theist
As a Christian struggling with whether or not I’m asexual, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your post. There aren’t a lot of resources that talk about these two things and how they relate. Though I may not agree totally with everything said here, I did want to thank you for taking your time to write about this issue.
As I haven’t “come out” to anyone yet (like I said, still working it out for myself), I haven’t been subjected to any of these reactions yet. I tend to think that, of any of them, my church would most likely go with the ‘it’s a blessing’ one. I’m not sure that I would be offended if they did though because I do feel that my lack of sexual desire comes from God as does everything else about me. My Creator made me the way He wanted, so I see nothing wrong with saying my asexuality (if that’s what it truly is) is a gift from God.
That being said, I want to make it clear that if someone saying those things IS offensive to you, then I’m sorry. It is not the place of a Follower of Christ to make you feel wrong, broken, offended, or unloved. That is the opposite of what He did and the opposite of what He wants from us. Sexual Orientation is not a choice and you should not feel bad about who you are as a person. We are not meant to be judges, but rather advocates who love our fellows and stand by them when they are treated wrongly.
Pingback: Religion and Asexuality Overview | The Ace Theist
This was a great passage to read. But, if you don’t do your own research, this can be easily misunderstanding. Reading through it, as a christian myself. I believe exactly what the word tells me. So, in reading these paragraphs. It says that if you can hold up to not being married. Than do it! But do not do this if you believe you can not over come your sexual desire. In that It doesn’t say it is easier by any means to consider yourself asexual but, it isn’t a bad thing so if you can go for it. It is not a sin to be asexual. Now the thing that can be misunderstood is that, it is not a sin to be per say “gay” or “lesbian” or to want or have sexual desired for the same sex. But it is a sin to act upon those desires. Or have a relationship with the same sex, giving into the sexual desires is what makes it a sin. Any who want to argue other wise should also read Leviticus 18:22 or even better Leviticus 18. As it does state not to practice homosexuality for it is a detestable sin. Saying that, the fact that asexuality has the lack of sexual desires is what makes it not a sin per say. But in the word it is crisp to say that not being married is better. But, if you cannot control yourself it is better to marry than to burn with lust.
In short terms asexuality is having no sexual desire. But does not mean you have no relationship desires and if you cannot hold up to it marry. But it is better to not be married. But not being married does not mean you are asexual. And being homosexual or having homosexual desires is not a sin. But practicing on that homosexuality and “believing it is right” IS WRONG. It is sinful to act on homosexual desires. amen.
As a Christian I have to say that this article is the biggest lie I have ever read. The truth is that ALL sexualities are equally sinful to God, so for you to say that there is nothing wrong with being gay is factually untrue. Being gay, being hetero, being bisexual, these are all sins to God because ALL sexual lust is sinful to God – and yes I include my own heterosexual desires in this. I am no better than anyone else, but (and this is the big but) God is better than every one of us.
How can all sexualities be bad because “God doesn’t like sexual lust,” if you’re asexual and have no sexual desire? Anyway, sexuality is just your sexual preference…it doesn’t mean that you lust after same sex, opposite sex, either sex, all sexes/genders, or no sex (or anything else), just who you’re sexually attracted to. –Which just means you’d be willing to have sex with that gender, not that you lust after every person you’re sexually attracted to…
Sexuality was created by God for the same purpose as everything else- to glorify Him. But man took it and corrupted it, so then any lust, hetero included, would be considered sinful. I think. What do other people say?
If you don’t think that young people are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong, or capable of even being correct, you might as well stop reading here.
Asexuality is very basically, not having the desire to participate in sex (that may not be totally correct, and I admit, I’m not the most educated on this topic). When I woke up this morning, one of the first thoughts on my mind was, “Am I asexual?” Of course, I’d given it a bit of thought earlier. Since I was interested, I did a little research, and as I’m coming to the conclusion that I may very well be asexual, I wonder if asexuality is a sin. Because I’m also a Christian.
I don’t think that asexuality should go with being gay, or bi, or anything else, because it’s not about what gender you’re attracted to, it’s just that you don’t feel the need to have sex (in most cases, that is – otherwise, just not often). I’m 100% positive I’m romantically attracted to the cis-gendered males, but I’ve never really felt any desire or need to have sex with one. In my mind and as of now, the only thing reason I’d only have sex is if I wanted kids (I say as of now because I may grow out of asexualty in the future). I’ve experimented by myself, and I guess it’s somewhat pleasurable, but I just end up stopping in the middle of it because (1. it’s pointless (2. it’s not exactly that great, and (3. I didn’t want to do it in the first place and I’m wasting my time. I just don’t see the need/want for sexual simulation at all, nor do I understand what all the hype is (and I don’t think I will if I were to loose my virginity). But back to the point…
Asexuality in my opinion shouldn’t be a sin, because unlike being gay, etc., (which if you read, it obviously gives hints that it’s not right – for example Leviticus 18:22*) the Bible doesn’t command us to have sex, and it doesn’t say that not having sex is wrong. As far as I’ve read.
*Leviticus 18:22 reads, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
I agree. In numerous places it states circumstances in which sex is a sin. Nowhere does it state that its absence is.
There are literally 3-4 bible verses that state Gods feelings on homosexuality. The fact that it’s addressed more than once, shows how much of a concern it was…even back then. I’m not going to list the bible verses here because I don’t want this comment to long, but it’s definitely there! What you need to understand is that no sin is GREATER than any other sin. If you have sinned, than you are a SINNER!! You ask for God’s forgiveness on the sins you knowingly and unknowingly committed and if you TRULY put forth the effort to do better, it won’t go unnoticed. However, if you are asking for God’s forgiveness on something YOU KNOW will never change, that will happen again again tomorrow and you have no intentions of changing..well…
A whole 3-4! Wow! With translations that are totally undisputed, I’m sure. Since you’ve taken it upon yourself to make didactic proclamations, how about you give us a lesson in proportions next?
Pingback: Celibacy, Asexuality, The Bible and Repeated Misconceptions « Asexuality in A Sexual World
I happen to be Christian and Asexual, and have happily missed out on the condescending or misinformed views mentioned in this article. My biggest conflict, rather than the inherent sinfulness of being what I am, is whether He would desire balance for me (as I still have a libido and do look at porn) and wholesome, healthy fulfillment of my drives, or suppression. Thoughts?
Moderator’s note: We rejected the second comment, because it violates our policy on morphing
I can’t comprehend how a Christian can condemn asexuality as sinful. It contradicts so many of their other pronouncements.
So many purported “sins” centre around the activity of sex; such as homosexual activity (whether married or not) as well as adultery and fornication. Please note; I am quoting these, they aren’t my own opinion.
How then can anyone be sinning if they don’t WANT to have sex? If anything, aren’t they being commendable? Stealing is a sin by law as well as (that I know of) all major faiths in the world. So not to steal is good. If I were to, not only not commit theft, but to not even want the item I haven’t stolen, would that make me a sinner?
I’m not sure how any Christian could argue that just being asexual is a sin, but it would be under certain circumstances. According to the Bible as I choose to understand it, If you are unmarried and you don’t have sex, you are not sinning in that regard. However, the Bible is also clear that sex is an integral part of marriage. So if you are married and you don’t have sex, then you are sinning. So if you are married and asexual and you don’t just do it anyway, that’s when it becomes a sin.
Please note that I realize the above paragraph assumes hetero marriages. It’s not my intention to exclude other ideas of marriage, but that’s an entire other can of worms when it comes to this topic. 😉
Pingback: What does it mean to be asexual and Christian? – Queer Grace
I am a christian, and assexual at the same time. And I see it as a blessing to be this way. I was never sad about being non asexual, and thankful for who I am. This doesn’t mean that I think non asexual is sinful, because I think that’s natural, but I’m juat unique and different than other people. So I appreciate your effort in writing these article, but I appreciate even more if you can change last statement of “asexual is not a blessing” to “asexual is not considered as blessing to every one” Thank you 🙂
What if you want to have a spouse just for companionship but the thought of sex in your relationship disgust you?
That is exactly how I feel, I don’t know if its wrong or not, but I do know that it feels good to know I’m not alone. I pray about it a lot. I think that’s the best thing to do.
Pingback: Assexualidade e Religião – Assexual Orelhudo
I would like to point out Leviticus 18:22 NIV
The Lord himself told Moses, a man, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
There is a verse in the bible that says being gay is wrong. Go look. I dare you.
so as a Christian (non-denominational) and being asexual, I’m a little bit confused. If you’re asexual does that mean you’re gay? can you be a straight asexual? I don’t feel romantic towards the same gender but I do (not sexually) to the opposite gender.
Hey there — it sounds like you could use some of the links on the 101 Resources page. To give you the short answer, no, not every asexual is necessarily gay. There are some asexual people who identify as both, of course, but far from all of them. There’s a lot of different combinations out there.
ok! thank you 🙂
I run a group for LGBTQIA+ Christians and I’ve been struggling to find resources for ace and aro (especially aro people who are not ace) and our also Christian. If anyone knows any books, or youtube videos, or articles please please PLEASE link me to them. Thank you so much for your time.