Is homosexual orientation sinful?

I think Jesus wanted to turn stone into bread because he was hungry, but he was able to control himself. I’m not sure it would be a temptation, otherwise.

And just to be clear, I do not think it was possible for Jesus to sin.

[Greg Long] I think Jesus wanted to turn stone into bread because he was hungry, but he was able to control himself.

Would you say then that Jesus was similarly tempted by women?

The Pulpit Commentary offers a solutions somewhat but importantly different than yours:

That Christ was not only subjected to πειρασμὸς in this latter sense, but was also directly assailed by the tempter to sin (ὁ πειράζων), appears from the Gospel record. But here comes in a difficulty. There can, we conceive, be no real temptation where there is no liability to the sin suggested by temptation, still less where there is no possibility of sinning. But can we imagine any such liability, or even possibility, in the case of the Divine and Sinless One? If not, wherein did the temptation consist? How could it be at all like ours, or one through his own experience of which he can sympathize with us? It was for maintaining, on the strength of such considerations, the theoretic peccability of Christ, that Irving was expelled as heretical flora the Presbyterian communion. The question has undoubtedly its serious difficulties in common with the whole subjeer of the Divine and human in Christ. The following thoughts may, however, aid solution. That Christ, in his human nature, partook of all the original affections of humanity - hope, fear, desire, joy, grief, indignation, shrinking from suffering, and the like - is apparent, not only from his life, but also from the fact that his assumption of our humanity would have otherwise been incomplete. Such affections are not in themselves sinful; they only are so when, under temptation, any of them become inordinate, and serve as motives to transgression of duty. He, in virtue of his Divine personality, could not through them be seduced into sin; but it does not follow that he could not, in his human nature, feel their power to seduce, or rather the power of the tempter to seduce through them, and thus have personal experience of man’s temptation.

I will, in turn, quote from Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology (p. 614):

Humans have certain desires. These, at root, are legitimate. In many cases their satisfaction is indispensable to the survival of the individual or the race. For example, hunger is the desire for food. Without the satisfaction of this desire or drive, we would starve to death. Similarly, the sexual drive seeks gratification. Were it to go unsatisfied, there would be no human reproduction and hence no preservation of the human race. Without attempting to deal here with the question of the propriety of eating for enjoyment or of having sex for pleasure, we may assert that these drives were given by God, and that there are situations in which their satisfaction is not only permissible but may even be mandatory.

…

Note that in Jesus’ temptation, Satan appealed to legitimate desires. The desires that Satan urged Jesus to fulfill were not wrong per se. Rather, the suggested time and manner of fulfillment constituted the evil.

To answer your question, yes, I believe Jesus “was in all points tempted as are” (Heb 4:15 NKJV; “in every way” NIV, HCSB; “in every respect” ESV; “in all things” NASB). This, of course, does not mean that Jesus was tempted with every specific sin that any human being has ever been tempted with (for example, He was never tempted to look at pornography on the internet). But how could it possibly not mean that He was tempted in every major category of sin, however you want to define them, in which human beings in general are tempted, including sexual sin.

Let me be clear that I do not deny the sin nature and total depravity. In fact, I do not deny that homosexual desires are, in and of themselves, twisted perversions of natural human sexual desires. But the question is, are people guilty of committing sin simply for possessing homosexual desires that are not acted upon? I do not believe so.

James 1:14-15 is very instructive here. It says:

14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Notice that desires in and of themselves are not sin (the desires may or may not be “sinful” in the sense of corrupt and depraved, but that is not the same as committing actual acts of sin). Sin only happens when inward desires and external enticement join together (“conceive” and “give birth to sin”). So when someone who has, for whatever reason, homosexual desires, is externally tempted toward lustful thoughts or actions, but resists that temptation, he has not sinned. If he gives in to that temptation, then the desire and the temptation have conceived and given birth to sin.

Similarly, Louis Berkhof distinguishes between original (inherited) and actual sin in his Systematic Theology (p. 251):

Original sin is both a state and an inherent quality of pollution in man. Every man is guilty in Adam, and is consequently born with a depraved and corrupt nature. And this inner corruption is the unholy fountain of all actual sins. When we speak of actual sin or peccatum actuale, we use the word “actual” or “actuale” in a comprehensive sense. The term “actual sins” does not merely denote those external actions which are accomplished by means of the body, but all those conscious thoughts and volitions which spring from original sin. They are the individual sins of act in distinction from man’s inherited nature and inclination. Original sin is one, actual sin is manifold. Actual sin may be interior, such as deceit, theft, adultery, murder, and so on.

It does all come down to clear, sharp definitions of terms.

If “sinful desire” means “any desire that to indulge would be a sinful act,” then, in the right context, ordinary hunger for food would be “sinful.” For example, when Satan urged Jesus to turn stones into bread. The Scriptures specifically draw our attention to the fact that Jesus was hungry, meaning He desired to eat. However, to eat on that occasion would have been a sin (as Ericksen quote above also notes). Therefore, Jesus had a “sinful desire,” by this expansive definition. At this point the term ceases to have any useful meaning because there is nothing at all wrong with the desire itself in this case (in fact, the term becomes misleading).

On the other hand, there are desires that are sinful in character. Ever felt drawn to an act just because you knew it was wrong or you desired it more because you knew it was wrong? The proverbial forbidden fruit. The desire to rebel against legitimate authority is another example of inherently sinful desire—and desire Jesus did not possess. (Satan seems to have not realized this in at least one of his temptations, because he seems to be trying to leverage these desires—but not in the stones-to-bread temptation).

What should we conclude then? That temptation is always predicated on desire (James 1) but the desires may be innocent ones or inherently corrupt ones. Temptation itself doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Aaron, since you brought it up, I disagree with your statement:

[Aaron Blumer] On the other hand, there are desires that are sinful in character. Ever felt drawn to an act just because you knew it was wrong or you desired it more because you knew it was wrong? The proverbial forbidden fruit. The desire to rebel against legitimate authority is another example of inherently sinful desire

So, the British Colonists in the New World were wrong to rebel in 1776?

Satan is a master of creating false forbidden fruits in his attempt to control and be a god over the image bearers of the true God. “Over lording” (desire to control) by humans is inherently sinful in my book.