How do you reconcile homosexuality and Christianity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go to church or call myself a Christian if I were expected to believe that being gay is a sin. How can you read what Jesus (not Paul) said about loving our neighbors and still think that He would want us to judge and condemn something that is (1) inborn and (2) harmless?

You can love your neighbor without loving their sin. If we were to only love people that don't sin, regardless of what kind of sin, we would love nobody on this earth.

Right, but I don't think it's a sin so that's not an issue for me. I believe God made people gay and it's just as okay to be gay as it is to be left-handed.

I agree

PP, I hate to tell you this, but 'what you think" is hardly relevant to truth.

I believe it's snowing right now in Miami, despite what weather reports say. Does that make me a voice of truth, just because I believe it?

Truly, what *you* think is hardly more relevant. For several reasons. First, you've expressed your opinions here, but given that the bible passages you produced weren't persuasive to many here, your opinions remain just that, your opinions. Second, God's judgement is what matters, not your opinions which are formed, like everybody's opinions, by your own cultural biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your quotes are from Paul again. Some think Paul was divinely inspired. But he most definitely was not Jesus, in fact he's not even counted as a "prophet" (he called himself a disciple). Taking his every word literally is elevating him to a status that he didn't claim for himself.

PS, I think you've missed the point. Jesus lifted most Old Testament bans--yes, including shellfish and blended fabrics. So we're starting over; the ground has totally shifted; and it's not necessarily OK to assume that everything in the Old Testament is still valid. Jesus cared enough about adultery to condemn it, but he never mentioned homosexuality.

Jesus' focus was on peace, loving your enemy, sharing your worldly goods, and so on. That's a focus that's meaningful to me, instead of worrying about who's sleeping with who. As others here have said, Jesus got away from all the bean counting and to a larger message of acceptance and love.

OP here. I don't know, a casual dismissal of the apostle Paul strikes me as more like exploiting some sort of Biblical loophole. Paul wrote half the New Testament and is largely responsible for Christianity in all of its forms. Paul is elevated, at least in my church, as equal to the disciples. Paul is a big deal.

Further, I'm not engaging in bean counting or being judgmental. I don't personally feel strongly about homosexuality, which is why I posted. But I do believe that is it is a serious matter to accept something that has been unaccepted by the church for 2000 years. A sin is something that misses the mark, that pulls you farther away from God. Christians are not supposed to condemn others, but they also cannot accept sin in their midst. You can love a person and accept that person but you cannot accept sin. For example, if homosexual behavior is a sin, then the church cannot legitimize it by having gay weddings, or a gay pastor/priest who is not celibate. No, Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but he also did not condone it, or any other sexual behavior that is considered "impure" by the church. It is not like homosexuality was a completely foreign concept to people at that time, the Romans engaged in homosexual acts in their society. So... yeah, this is where I struggle. I don't really think it is right to dismiss Paul or be like "aw everybody sins but Jesus is about acceptance." Yes, of course we love and accept people as they are, but we cannot accept sins.

TL; DR, but it sounds like you are trying really hard to justify homophobia even though you know in your heart that it's okay to be gay. Good luck with that. I recommend visiting an Episcopalian or Presbyterian church and talking with their priest or pastor. They are usually more highly educated in theology than conservative evangelical ministers, too.

I think it is really sad that you threw in homophobia in what has otherwise been a completely civil discussion. I made clear I have absolutely no animus towards gay people, what makes me homophobic? Deal with your bugaboos before you call other people names.

If you try to convince yourself and other people that being gay is a sin, that's homophobia. If that word makes you react, maybe you want to reconsider trying so hard to justify your church's position.

I disagree. Homophobia is when you are afraid of and hate gay people, hence the term "phobia" in homophobia.

As a christian, you know that being an alcoholic and drug abuser is a sin, that's not called something-phobia.

In all cases, you can still love and care about the person.

What do you think homophobia is based on? The whole reason homophobia exists is because people call it a sin. Gay children kill themselves because they hear that they are sinners. That how they're made is wrong. That they should deny their true selves because to do otherwise is sinful. This is homophobia and it is dangerous.

I'm sorry, but most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, including alcoholics, drug abusers. Should we be afraid to call anyone a sinner for fear they may kill themselves? I tell my kids we are all sinners in the eyes of God, that none of us are perfect. I am not afraid we they are going to kill themselves.

Actually, there are plenty of denominations that don't talk about categorizing sinners, or labeling drug addicts, or anything else of that nature. I for one do not tell my children that alcoholics or anyone else are sinners. I tell them that alcoholism and drug abuse are illnesses and cause deep suffering. Sin doesn't enter into it. If I were to talk about other people's sins, which I don't, I would focus on greed. The banking system is a much worthier target of our Christian outrage than our gay neighbors.

I hope any gay children of the OP, or posters who agree with her, have enough of a support system outside of their family and church to know that they too are created in God's image. They are loved by God exactly as He made them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go to church or call myself a Christian if I were expected to believe that being gay is a sin. How can you read what Jesus (not Paul) said about loving our neighbors and still think that He would want us to judge and condemn something that is (1) inborn and (2) harmless?

You can love your neighbor without loving their sin. If we were to only love people that don't sin, regardless of what kind of sin, we would love nobody on this earth.

Right, but I don't think it's a sin so that's not an issue for me. I believe God made people gay and it's just as okay to be gay as it is to be left-handed.

I agree

PP, I hate to tell you this, but 'what you think" is hardly relevant to truth.

I believe it's snowing right now in Miami, despite what weather reports say. Does that make me a voice of truth, just because I believe it?

Is this the OP? If so, A+ trolling. Your original post made it seem like a genuine inquiry, but you've made it clear five pages in that you just want to convince people that being gay is a sin and that homophobia is a-ok as long as you trot out the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" excuse.

No, I'm not the OP and also not a troll. I've been following this discussion from the beginning.

My point is, God says that homosexuality is a sin so frankly, it really doesn't matter what you or I or OP thinks. And just as an aside, when it comes to the argument that people are "born that way" in terms of a sexual orientation, I think that we are all born into sin of some sort. Some people may have homosexual tendencies, just like others are born with a predisposition to be, say, alcoholics. The only way we conquer any of it is through redemption in Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your quotes are from Paul again. Some think Paul was divinely inspired. But he most definitely was not Jesus, in fact he's not even counted as a "prophet" (he called himself a disciple). Taking his every word literally is elevating him to a status that he didn't claim for himself.

PS, I think you've missed the point. Jesus lifted most Old Testament bans--yes, including shellfish and blended fabrics. So we're starting over; the ground has totally shifted; and it's not necessarily OK to assume that everything in the Old Testament is still valid. Jesus cared enough about adultery to condemn it, but he never mentioned homosexuality.

Jesus' focus was on peace, loving your enemy, sharing your worldly goods, and so on. That's a focus that's meaningful to me, instead of worrying about who's sleeping with who. As others here have said, Jesus got away from all the bean counting and to a larger message of acceptance and love.

OP here. I don't know, a casual dismissal of the apostle Paul strikes me as more like exploiting some sort of Biblical loophole. Paul wrote half the New Testament and is largely responsible for Christianity in all of its forms. Paul is elevated, at least in my church, as equal to the disciples. Paul is a big deal.

Further, I'm not engaging in bean counting or being judgmental. I don't personally feel strongly about homosexuality, which is why I posted. But I do believe that is it is a serious matter to accept something that has been unaccepted by the church for 2000 years. A sin is something that misses the mark, that pulls you farther away from God. Christians are not supposed to condemn others, but they also cannot accept sin in their midst. You can love a person and accept that person but you cannot accept sin. For example, if homosexual behavior is a sin, then the church cannot legitimize it by having gay weddings, or a gay pastor/priest who is not celibate. No, Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but he also did not condone it, or any other sexual behavior that is considered "impure" by the church. It is not like homosexuality was a completely foreign concept to people at that time, the Romans engaged in homosexual acts in their society. So... yeah, this is where I struggle. I don't really think it is right to dismiss Paul or be like "aw everybody sins but Jesus is about acceptance." Yes, of course we love and accept people as they are, but we cannot accept sins.

TL; DR, but it sounds like you are trying really hard to justify homophobia even though you know in your heart that it's okay to be gay. Good luck with that. I recommend visiting an Episcopalian or Presbyterian church and talking with their priest or pastor. They are usually more highly educated in theology than conservative evangelical ministers, too.

I think it is really sad that you threw in homophobia in what has otherwise been a completely civil discussion. I made clear I have absolutely no animus towards gay people, what makes me homophobic? Deal with your bugaboos before you call other people names.

If you try to convince yourself and other people that being gay is a sin, that's homophobia. If that word makes you react, maybe you want to reconsider trying so hard to justify your church's position.

I disagree. Homophobia is when you are afraid of and hate gay people, hence the term "phobia" in homophobia.

As a christian, you know that being an alcoholic and drug abuser is a sin, that's not called something-phobia.

In all cases, you can still love and care about the person.

What do you think homophobia is based on? The whole reason homophobia exists is because people call it a sin. Gay children kill themselves because they hear that they are sinners. That how they're made is wrong. That they should deny their true selves because to do otherwise is sinful. This is homophobia and it is dangerous.

I'm sorry, but most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, including alcoholics, drug abusers. Should we be afraid to call anyone a sinner for fear they may kill themselves? I tell my kids we are all sinners in the eyes of God, that none of us are perfect. I am not afraid we they are going to kill themselves.

Actually, there are plenty of denominations that don't talk about categorizing sinners, or labeling drug addicts, or anything else of that nature. I for one do not tell my children that alcoholics or anyone else are sinners. I tell them that alcoholism and drug abuse are illnesses and cause deep suffering. Sin doesn't enter into it. If I were to talk about other people's sins, which I don't, I would focus on greed. The banking system is a much worthier target of our Christian outrage than our gay neighbors.

I hope any gay children of the OP, or posters who agree with her, have enough of a support system outside of their family and church to know that they too are created in God's image. They are loved by God exactly as He made them.

There are also a lot of false prophets are plenty of so-called Christians who have strayed far, far from the teachings of Jesus. That doesn't make them right, just because some people choose in their own weakness to believe them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go to church or call myself a Christian if I were expected to believe that being gay is a sin. How can you read what Jesus (not Paul) said about loving our neighbors and still think that He would want us to judge and condemn something that is (1) inborn and (2) harmless?

You can love your neighbor without loving their sin. If we were to only love people that don't sin, regardless of what kind of sin, we would love nobody on this earth.

Right, but I don't think it's a sin so that's not an issue for me. I believe God made people gay and it's just as okay to be gay as it is to be left-handed.

I agree

PP, I hate to tell you this, but 'what you think" is hardly relevant to truth.

I believe it's snowing right now in Miami, despite what weather reports say. Does that make me a voice of truth, just because I believe it?

Is this the OP? If so, A+ trolling. Your original post made it seem like a genuine inquiry, but you've made it clear five pages in that you just want to convince people that being gay is a sin and that homophobia is a-ok as long as you trot out the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" excuse.

No, I'm not the OP and also not a troll. I've been following this discussion from the beginning.

My point is, God says that homosexuality is a sin so frankly, it really doesn't matter what you or I or OP thinks. And just as an aside, when it comes to the argument that people are "born that way" in terms of a sexual orientation, I think that we are all born into sin of some sort. Some people may have homosexual tendencies, just like others are born with a predisposition to be, say, alcoholics. The only way we conquer any of it is through redemption in Christ.

You have yet to point to any passage that convincingly says that God says homosexuality is a sin.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing to reconcile. It just is:

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Pretty straight forward. God does not approve. However, lets keep this on context: Unless you are Jesus Christ himself (or Joel Olsteen and his wife lol) we are all sinners the day we come out of the womb. This is not to dismiss or diminish homosexuality, but its just one of many things that Jesus's death has saved us from.

We are suppose to repent for our sins and not actively live an ungodly live style. The problem with sin is that it you could die directly as a result of it. But even if you do live an ungodly lifestyle, as long as you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will meet him at the gates of heaven. This goes for lairs, killers, homosexuals, transexuals, idlers, adulterers, rapists and the like. So all this debate about the weight of sin, or anything else is really irrelevant from a big picture perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, but most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, including alcoholics, drug abusers. Should we be afraid to call anyone a sinner for fear they may kill themselves? I tell my kids we are all sinners in the eyes of God, that none of us are perfect. I am not afraid we they are going to kill themselves.

Actually, there are plenty of denominations that don't talk about categorizing sinners, or labeling drug addicts, or anything else of that nature. I for one do not tell my children that alcoholics or anyone else are sinners. I tell them that alcoholism and drug abuse are illnesses and cause deep suffering. Sin doesn't enter into it. If I were to talk about other people's sins, which I don't, I would focus on greed. The banking system is a much worthier target of our Christian outrage than our gay neighbors.

I hope any gay children of the OP, or posters who agree with her, have enough of a support system outside of their family and church to know that they too are created in God's image. They are loved by God exactly as He made them.

yes, PP, the message of Christ is love, forgiveness and redemption. No doubt, I believe that this is the central message of Jesus, and this is what we need to focus on. However, we would also be ignoring other tenants of Christian teachings if we just sweep all sins under the rug. That's not the point of Jesus' teachings either. It's about acknowledging our failings but not being overcome by them. This is what redemption means.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the idea that being gay is a sin is that it forces gay people to be something they are not. It forces them to live a lie that is far more destructive than the truth. It tells them that they are less than, that they are sinful and damaged, that they are broken. Have you known a closeted gay person who then came out? To be able to be yourself, fall in love, and live your true life is far closer to what God wants for us.

Gay people cannot become straight. They cannot "repent" and live a happy, fulfilled life as a straight person. We shouldn't ask them to. I don't believe Jesus would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing to reconcile. It just is:

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Pretty straight forward. God does not approve. However, lets keep this on context: Unless you are Jesus Christ himself (or Joel Olsteen and his wife lol) we are all sinners the day we come out of the womb. This is not to dismiss or diminish homosexuality, but its just one of many things that Jesus's death has saved us from.

We are suppose to repent for our sins and not actively live an ungodly live style. The problem with sin is that it you could die directly as a result of it. But even if you do live an ungodly lifestyle, as long as you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will meet him at the gates of heaven. This goes for lairs, killers, homosexuals, transexuals, idlers, adulterers, rapists and the like. So all this debate about the weight of sin, or anything else is really irrelevant from a big picture perspective.

It's already been mentioned several times in this thread alone that the Old Testament is not definitive on God's word. Jesus, who is God, has said in the New Testament that most of the bans from the old Testament are no longer bans. So this condemnation of homosexuality is like the proscription of shellfish, blended fabrics, other sins outlined in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Paul, who may be a disciple, but is only a man, may condemn homosexuality, but Jesus does not.

Can you find text in the New Testament that show that Jesus has decried homosexuality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You have yet to point to any passage that convincingly says that God says homosexuality is a sin.

Well, unless you have a direct line to God, we typically believe what the prophets and Jesus state in the Bible is what God is saying.

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Your argument is weird. Is there a passage in the Bible that explicitly prohibits pedophilia? Or let's look at slavery. Would Jesus condone slavery since there is a passage in the Bible that states: "Slaves obey your masters"?

My DC sometimes kicks the back of my chair in the car. I tell DC to stop. Then a few seconds later I feel pounding again. I say to DC, "I told you to stop". DC says, "But, I wasn't kicking it. I was punching it". This is the type of argument you are using, that you would only consider what Jesus explicitly states as the truth, and not the spirit of what he is saying. This is how my 8 yr old reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

"Sexual immorality" could easily be pre-marital sex or pedophelia. The Pharisees thought these were immoral too. It would be a big leap to conclude that that passage is only or even partially about homosexuality.

It's not a leap. I stated it includes homosexuality, not that "sexual immorality" only = homosexuality. Pharisees were Jews, and they knew that homosexuality was condemned, just as yes, beastiality was condemned, too.

Yes, you "stated" this, but your reading of this passage is very different from how others read it. You can "state" what you think about this set of words, but others of us don't see much there about homosexuality. For one thing, why didn't the author just say the word "homosexuality" if that's what he really meant?

because he was including all kinds of sexual immorality, like beastiality. Why didn't the author state "beastiality" separately, then. Because it was lumped together.

You simply can't insert words where they don't exist. Whether its bestiality or homosexuality, in a debate this would be labeled a logical fallacy.

I see, so in this case what does "sexual immorality" refer to? If the person whom this statement was addressed to believed that homosexuality and beastiality were immoral, then when the person hears the term "sexual immorality", the person will assume it refers to every single sexual immoral act, including homosexuality. That's pretty simple logic.

I care about what Jesus meant, not what the Pharisees thought they heard. But unlike you, I don't pretend to know exactly what Jesus meant in this passage. What makes you so sure you know exactly what Jesus was thinking? I was going to use the word "hubris" but that doesn't begin to cover it.

Enough with the "simple logic" nonsense. Let's try to keep this civil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing to reconcile. It just is:

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Pretty straight forward. God does not approve. However, lets keep this on context: Unless you are Jesus Christ himself (or Joel Olsteen and his wife lol) we are all sinners the day we come out of the womb. This is not to dismiss or diminish homosexuality, but its just one of many things that Jesus's death has saved us from.

We are suppose to repent for our sins and not actively live an ungodly live style. The problem with sin is that it you could die directly as a result of it. But even if you do live an ungodly lifestyle, as long as you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will meet him at the gates of heaven. This goes for lairs, killers, homosexuals, transexuals, idlers, adulterers, rapists and the like. So all this debate about the weight of sin, or anything else is really irrelevant from a big picture perspective.

It's already been mentioned several times in this thread alone that the Old Testament is not definitive on God's word. Jesus, who is God, has said in the New Testament that most of the bans from the old Testament are no longer bans. So this condemnation of homosexuality is like the proscription of shellfish, blended fabrics, other sins outlined in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Paul, who may be a disciple, but is only a man, may condemn homosexuality, but Jesus does not.

Can you find text in the New Testament that show that Jesus has decried homosexuality?

PP, what does Jesus mean when he refers to "sexual immorality", because He does state that this is a sin. I suppose pedophilia shouldn't be considered a sin because Jesus didn't explicitly decry it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have yet to point to any passage that convincingly says that God says homosexuality is a sin.

Well, unless you have a direct line to God, we typically believe what the prophets and Jesus state in the Bible is what God is saying.

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Your argument is weird. Is there a passage in the Bible that explicitly prohibits pedophilia? Or let's look at slavery. Would Jesus condone slavery since there is a passage in the Bible that states: "Slaves obey your masters"?

My DC sometimes kicks the back of my chair in the car. I tell DC to stop. Then a few seconds later I feel pounding again. I say to DC, "I told you to stop". DC says, "But, I wasn't kicking it. I was punching it". This is the type of argument you are using, that you would only consider what Jesus explicitly states as the truth, and not the spirit of what he is saying. This is how my 8 yr old reasons.

Not the PP, but P.S. comparing being gay to pedophilia (and slavery!) is super homophobic. If the homophobia label wasn't warranted before (it was), it's fair game now. I'm sure even your 8-year-old could see the distinctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, there are plenty of denominations that don't talk about categorizing sinners, or labeling drug addicts, or anything else of that nature. I for one do not tell my children that alcoholics or anyone else are sinners. I tell them that alcoholism and drug abuse are illnesses and cause deep suffering. Sin doesn't enter into it. If I were to talk about other people's sins, which I don't, I would focus on greed. The banking system is a much worthier target of our Christian outrage than our gay neighbors.

I hope any gay children of the OP, or posters who agree with her, have enough of a support system outside of their family and church to know that they too are created in God's image. They are loved by God exactly as He made them.

First of all, some of you have some really twisted ideas about what "sin" is. Sin is not some all-powerful label that permanently condemns you to Hell or makes you somehow dirty. Sin is something everyone has a propensity for- its greek roots quite literally mean "missing the mark." That's what it is- missing the target, and the target is to be as much like Christ as possible. If I tell my children that I sin, or that they sin, that is not a condemnation. It is a statement of fact. We all sin, and we all have our own particular weaknesses. That does not mean that our sins themselves should be accepted or celebrated.

If gay children are made to feel dirty or unloved or rejected, that is the complete and utter failure of the people around them, because all children should feel loved and accepted no matter what. That has nothing to do with Christianity, but with people's automatic fear and loathing of those who are different from them. If they did not couch that hatred in Christianity it would have been in something else, some other religion, some other philosophy. People are terrible sometimes, whether they profess to be Christian or not.

I am the OP and you're making so many hateful assumptions about me and all it shows, really, is that you cannot handle the prospect of other people disagreeing with your point of view. I have tried to remain civil. I would never reject my child (or any child, or any person) on the basis of a real or perceived flaw. That really has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about the Biblical basis for why Christianity has considered homosexuality a sin for so long. You could make a better contribution if you cited the actual Bible, and not your own flawed assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

"Sexual immorality" could easily be pre-marital sex or pedophelia. The Pharisees thought these were immoral too. It would be a big leap to conclude that that passage is only or even partially about homosexuality.

It's not a leap. I stated it includes homosexuality, not that "sexual immorality" only = homosexuality. Pharisees were Jews, and they knew that homosexuality was condemned, just as yes, beastiality was condemned, too.

Yes, you "stated" this, but your reading of this passage is very different from how others read it. You can "state" what you think about this set of words, but others of us don't see much there about homosexuality. For one thing, why didn't the author just say the word "homosexuality" if that's what he really meant?

because he was including all kinds of sexual immorality, like beastiality. Why didn't the author state "beastiality" separately, then. Because it was lumped together.

You simply can't insert words where they don't exist. Whether its bestiality or homosexuality, in a debate this would be labeled a logical fallacy.

I see, so in this case what does "sexual immorality" refer to? If the person whom this statement was addressed to believed that homosexuality and beastiality were immoral, then when the person hears the term "sexual immorality", the person will assume it refers to every single sexual immoral act, including homosexuality. That's pretty simple logic.

I care about what Jesus meant, not what the Pharisees thought they heard. But unlike you, I don't pretend to know exactly what Jesus meant in this passage. What makes you so sure you know exactly what Jesus was thinking? I was going to use the word "hubris" but that doesn't begin to cover it.

Enough with the "simple logic" nonsense. Let's try to keep this civil.

then what did Jesus mean by "sexual immorality"? Are you a Bible expert? Did you go to seminary, study theology? I confess, I didn't. But I can use simple logic to deduce what Christ meant given the context of whom He was speaking to, and considering what the OT has stated in this regard.

This is part of the problem with some Christians: they don't real the Bible in its context. Just pull a passage and try to apply it. It doesn't work that way.