Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

(Note: I know this may start a firestorm, so I will be careful here.)

I believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is immoral.

I also believe that it does NOT condemn homosexuals to hell (a sin is a sin is a sin). When a person receives Christ in them they are saved and ALL their sins are forgiven.

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

Also, I would like this to be about homosexuality itself, not about homosexuals or the culture of homosexuality (i.e. stereotypes about homosexuals, etc.).

share|improve this question
related to (but not a duplicate of, I believe) What does the bible say about homosexuality? – Richard Aug 24 '11 at 18:50
up vote 86 down vote accepted

The question asks "Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?" Because clearly, some do. This is not the place to hold forth on your own beliefs on the matter, this is Stack Exchange, where we answer the question posed.

Potentially Valid Reasons

  • Many Christians believe that "being" homosexual (having homosexual sexual tendencies to some degree - remember bisexuals exist too) is not sinful in and of itself, but that having sex with another same-sex person is a sinful act. So a chaste homosexual is as holy as anyone else who's not sinning. Though most of us sin a lot of the time, so it kinda sounds stupid when you put it that way. I know I've repented of lust then lusted again; that's the human condition. And homosexual acts are simply a sin like any other, from gossip to lying; most of the current firestorm about homosexuality specifically is political and bigotry related, not religion related.

  • Some Christians believe that the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are misapplied/badly translated and therefore do not speak against what we would today regard as "otherwise moral" homosexual practice.

  • Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in concept but not literally inerrant, and that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with it that has to be sifted out. There are a lot of things we do/don't do partially based on this understanding (rejection of slavery, for instance).

  • Related to the previous point, some Christians believe that just as Jesus obsoleted the Law in favor of the love of God and the Golden Rule, we should look at the "big picture" and not focus on lists of sinful acts. Because, to be honest, the Bible says a lot of things. The OT says to not eat shrimp; that ban is not one most modern Christians recognize. If you love God and your neighbor, then the specifics which were intended to generally point you in that direction are not needed any more. Some Christians would say that the rejection of legalism and embrace of a more direct relationship with God (which is more complex than any set of rules) was the main point Jesus was trying to get across to us during his life.

  • The church I'm in has better theologians on staff that I, and they say it's OK. Some denominations officially accept homosexuality in whole or in part. For a good overview of different Christian teachings on homosexuality, see wikipedia.

Mostly Invalid Reasons

There are probably other reasons; those previously listed are the ones I feel have a halfway decent foundation. The illogical/unfounded reasons one might hear are:

  • "But they're born that way." People are born with all kinds of tendencies including alcoholism, gambling, etc. - that's a particular thorn/burden for them, not some "get out of sin free" card. In fact, I assume that there probably is some kind of genetically related predisposition to homosexuality (which of course doesn't map to 100% of practicing homosexuals, there's some practicing by choice and some refraining by choice) but even if there is, it has no relation to the morality of the act. If genetically I have a high testosterone level and am lustful in general, can I just get a mulligan on adultery? No, of course not; this is an odd argument that is applied to no other sin.

  • "Oh, who cares what the Bible/church says?" This of course is a difficult position to hold about anything for a Christian. And if you're of another/no faith, we love you and all, but our worldview is guided by those things you reject, so that opinion is of limited help to someone wrestling with this problem from our worldview. One can argue that the Holy Spirit has guided them to this understanding, which is fine, though in general we are asked to test our perception of the Spirit's guidance by the Scriptures and church to verify it's God speaking and not that we went off our meds last week.

  • "I know a homosexual and they're not a bad person." This is someone unclear on Christianity's teachings in general, unaware that even good people sin and require repentance. The demonization of homosexuals by the more hateful elements in society actually feed this one; once someone meets a homosexual and sees that they don't have little goat horns and rape babies, they assume they were probably lied to 100% and reject even honest Biblical critique. Understandable, but not logical.

The polarization of society on this topic makes a lot of the usual Scriptural measuring sticks difficult to use. We are encouraged by culture and the media to think of things in terms of "right side/wrong side", so when we try to apply, say, "By their fruits you will know them," we see some homosexuals who clearly favor a licentious and ungodly lifestyle, but others who seem as normal as anyone's parents, just gay. And similarly we see some Christians with balanced views on the topic but plenty who are spouting hate and other clearly unchristian stuff as well. Which "side" is right? That's a false dichotomy that leads to confusion. My one contribution to this discussion is that I think we need to reject what the world is trying to tell us about which faction/football team we're on and, like God does, address it on an individual basis. There's a lot of judging around this topic based on the extreme activities of the exceptionally disturbed on one side or the other.

share|improve this answer
I hope that you do not mind, but I quoted your very well written answer on my blog. If this is a problem, please let me know and I will remove the quote, and just link to your answer instead. – ByronArn May 19 at 3:43

The question is:

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

I can answer this from the perspective of a minister in the Swedenborgian Church of North America, a Christian denomination that does not regard homosexuality as a sin, performs gay and lesbian marriages in most of its local churches, and has been ordaining openly gay and lesbian clergy since 1997.

The lines of reasoning I will present below are a brief summary of a major article I published on this subject in February, 2015: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity. This article presents the best Christian arguments that homosexuality is not a sin from a Swedenborgian Christian perspective.

  1. Homosexuality is rarely mentioned in the Bible: there are only five or six clear references to it in the Old and New Testaments combined. In comparison, the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments receive major coverage throughout the Bible. The heavy focus on homosexuality among traditional and conservative Christians despite this scant Biblical mention of it suggests that the strong opposition to homosexuality comes from cultural opposition to homosexuality rather than from Biblical sources.

  2. In the Old Testament, the prohibition of men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was made in a specific cultural context that no longer applies. Specifically, in the ancient world, marital and sexual relationships were almost universally viewed as a relationship between unequal partners, and the sexual act was seen as an act of a dominant partner penetrating a submissive partner. Since in ancient Hebrew culture and religion all men were seen as equal under the Law and in God's eyes, it was "detestable" (meaning culturally taboo and ritually unclean) for a man to have sex with another man because it reduced the man who was penetrated to a lower religious and social status. Because it was based on cultural conditions that no longer exist in the Christian world, the prohibition against men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is one of many Old Testament laws that no longer apply to Christians.

  3. The story of the condemnation and destruction of Sodom in Genesis 18:16-19:29 is often read as a condemnation of homosexuality. However, the parallel story of the heterosexual gang rape of a woman in Judges 19 is not read as a condemnation of heterosexuality. Thus the argument that the story of Sodom should be read as a condemnation of homosexuality holds no water. Further, in Ezekiel 16:49-50 the Bible itself states quite clearly what the sin of Sodom was, and the focus is on arrogance, self-indulgence, and lack of charity, thus setting the tone for our interpretation of the story of Sodom. In short, the story of Sodom has little or nothing to do with homosexuality from a Biblical perspective. (For fuller presentation of these points about the Biblical story of Sodom, see: What is the Sin of Sodom?)

  4. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself never said a word about homosexuality, positive or negative. The lack of any condemnation of homosexuality in the Gospels, where the Lord Jesus himself gives the basic teachings for the Christian Church, should give pause to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin for Christians.

  5. Paul's condemnatory references to homosexuality in Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 were made in a cultural and religious context similar to that of the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In fact, the textual evidence is that Paul drew directly on the Holiness Code and other ancient lists of sins in writing those verses. Paul, like the Old Testament writers, condemned homosexual acts because he saw it as an act of one man reducing the social and religious status of another man. This took on even more poignancy for Paul, given that standard Greek and Roman homosexual practice was for an older, dominant male to penetrate a younger, submissive male. Essentially, all homosexual sex in the ancient world was sex between unequal partners, which ran contrary to Paul's Hebrew- and Christian-inspired view that all men are equal under the law and in the eyes of God. Therefore Paul's condemnation of homosexuality simply does not apply to the present day ideal and practice of committed, monogamous homosexual relationships between equal partners--something that was practically unknown in the ancient world. This is not the only issue on which we now see Paul as dated by his culture. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul requires women to wear veils while praying or prophesying, and in Ephesians 6:5 he requires slaves to obey their masters. These are teachings that few, if any Christians still believe are in force. So the argument that everything Paul says still applies today holds no water.

  6. Moving beyond strictly Biblical argument to other Christian-inspired lines of reasoning, the first point is that there is no demonstrable harm to society or to homosexuals themselves from committed, faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships. It is unfair and unjust to condemn homosexuality based on its perversions, just as it would be unfair and unjust to condemn heterosexuality based on its perversions. A fair comparison requires us to compare the highest Christian ideal for heterosexual marriages with a similar highest Christian ideal for homosexual marriages. So the only valid basis on which to condemn homosexuality would be if committed, faithful, monogamous homosexual marriages caused some sort of evil to society or to the homosexuals themselves. There is no good argument for such evil socially or politically. And to state that homosexuals will go to hell because homosexuality is a sin is to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the result. That argument would have to first establish or assume that homosexuality is evil and a sin--which is the very issue being debated.

  7. Even if homosexuality is an evil, it is not a sin for those who practice it in good conscience. Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains" (John 9:41). And in Romans 2:14-16 Paul says that Gentiles who are not under the law will be judged by their own consciences. Since most practicing Christian homosexuals do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, but believe that it is good and blessed by God, it will not be charged to them as sin because they are living according to their conscience and according to what they believe is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

  8. The conclusion now generally drawn from overwhelming evidence and experience is that homosexuality is a fundamental, non-changeable trait of homosexual men and women. Many organizations, including many Christian organizations, have tried and failed to change homosexuals into heterosexuals through prayer, repentance, therapy, including Skinnerian aversion therapy, and various other methods. Studies over time and follow-ups on these efforts show that they are an almost total failure, if not a complete failure. The most commonly cited study to the contrary, published by famed psychiatrist Robert Spitzer in 2001, was retracted by its author in 2012. Many prominent "ex-gay" organizations have disbanded or have ceased their efforts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. How is this relevant to Christian views of homosexuality? If homosexuality is not a "sin" that can be "repented from," but is a fixed, permanent part of someone's basic humanity, it is incompatible with the love and mercy of God for homosexuality to be a sin that is punishable by eternal damnation. If something is a sin, it must be possible to repent from it. But it is not possible for the vast bulk of homosexuals to "repent" from homosexuality. It is part of their basic nature.

  9. God has created marriage between a man and a woman as one of the deepest and most searching and effective forums for spiritual growth and Christian regeneration, or rebirth. In a growing marriage, the partners must continually examine themselves for selfishness, ego, pride, and other sins, and repent from them, in order to truly love and care for their marital partner. Marriage is therefore a gift of God to Christians for their eternal spiritual growth and wellbeing. Gays and lesbians, however, cannot participate honestly and from the heart in heterosexual relationships. If they are going to be in a loving, committed marital relationship at all, it will be with someone of the same sex. God has placed the desire to unite with another person deeply in the human spirit. For gays and lesbians, this means uniting with someone of the same sex. And most, if not all of the spiritual benefits of marriage are the same in Christian or spiritual homosexual marriages is in Christian or spiritual heterosexual marriages. It is therefore God's will that homosexuals who desire marriage should unite with someone of their own sex who shares common faith and values. In this relationship gays and lesbians can gain many, if not all of the same God-given benefits of marriage as heterosexuals can. And it is God's will that all of the people God has created, and whom God loves, should be able to share in the joys and spiritual benefits of marriage. Therefore Christians who would deny homosexuals marriage are working against God's will and against God's eternal love for all people.

This is a very brief summary of a much longer (13k words) article. For the full version, once again please see my article: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity.

share|improve this answer
Personally I always wondered about Sodom and Gomorrah. Why did everybody believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality? Was it just because of the word "sodomy"? – Joe Z. Oct 9 '15 at 19:43
@JoeZ. Since this was a summary answer, I didn't go heavily into the Sodom and Gomorrah story. If you want my views on that story, which are compatible with the views of my denomination as represented above, please see the article: What is the Sin of Sodom? I'll also add this link to the appropriate point in my answer above. – Lee Woofenden Oct 9 '15 at 19:50
@ LeeWoofenden. Romans 1: 26 elaborate on the lesbian sex that did not involve dominance or penetration why condemned? – Pam Oct 23 '15 at 18:26
@Pam Romans 1:26 is not at all clear on exactly what it's talking about. It says, "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural." It doesn't say exactly how it was unnatural. Perhaps Paul is referring to lesbian sex. But that's not obvious from the passage itself. It's certainly not clear enough to provide a basis for any solid conclusions relating to homosexuality. And that's the only passage in the Bible that could possibly be interpreted as referring to lesbianism. – Lee Woofenden Oct 23 '15 at 18:37
However, if you want to discuss this further, the comments aren't the place to do it. We could continue in one of the chatrooms, such as Polemics and Apologetics‌​. – Lee Woofenden Oct 23 '15 at 18:38

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

The reason why is that the Bible never told us anything about homosexuality at all. As to how this is so, we need to distinguish between orientation and action.

The following (7) Bible passages talked about homoeroticism (same sex intercourse) and not homosexuality (sexual orientation):

Genesis 19 (Jude 1:7)

The Sodomy of the Sodomites in Sodom is sinful.

The sin of Sodom was a forcible anal rape of a man by another man.This is homosexual rape (coercion).

Evangelical Christian (TULIP & 5 Solae believers) site says:

There is no overt mention of anal sex in the Bible. In the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, a large group of men sought to gang rape two angels who had taken the form of men. The reasonable presumption is that the men of Sodom wanted to have forcible anal sex with the angels. The men’s homosexual lust is obvious, but again, anal sex is not mentioned in the passage. The words sodomy and sodomize come from this biblical account. Sodomy is, literally, “the sin of Sodom.”

In modern language, the term sodomy has acquired a broader definition than what is biblically warranted. Today, “sodomy” often refers to any form of non-penile/vaginal sexual act, which includes anal sex and oral sex. If the biblical text is used as the basis for the definition, though, “sodomy” cannot include oral sex or, technically, even anal sex. The strict understanding of sodomy, based solely on the events of Genesis 19, would have to be “forcible anal sex, with one male homosexually raping another male anally.” (source).

Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (NRSV)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them (NRSV)

The context of these texts speak of idolatrous worship of the god Molech (cf: Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5) and it was in this particular context where the Mosaic Law proscribed homoeroticism between males as sinful. Bestiality was a sin (v. 23) and it was a sin in all contexts because man and animal were not compatible as partners in life (Genesis 2:18) but man with man were (Compare 1 Samuel 18:1 with 1 Corinthians 6:17 and Ephesians 5:28).Homoeroticism in the context of love was not prohibited in this law.

Homoeroticism was not forbidden in all contexts just as incest was not forbidden in all contexts.Incest was forbidden in Leviticus 18:6-18 but before the Law was given, it was not a sin to have sexual relations with close relatives. Abraham married his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12).

In Jude 6, in the point of view of St. Jude, angels had sex with females while in Jude 7, it is said that males want to have sex with angels (in male form). Both were identified as fornication not in the context of human flesh but rather, of “different flesh” (Greek: hetero sarkos) due to its connection with the angels. This shows that homoeroticism in Genesis 19 was not in the context of consensual loving same-sex relationship. Rather, it's homoeroticism in the context of rape (coercion).

Romans 1:18-28

The result of idolatry was lustful homoeroticism of the heterosexual heathen worshipers. Romans 1:26-27 talked about heterosexuality ( i.e. “natural use of male and female”)in the context of sexual relations.

Homosexuals cannot change into what they already are.

Straight people can "exchange" (not change) and "leave" what they are ("natural use", vs. 26-27) for something they are not and should not do (idolatrous homoeroticism in the context of sinful lust – “men with men committing what is shameful; receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error,” v. 27).

In his fourth homily on Romans, St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said:"But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere."

However, he emphasizes, in P.G. 60:417, col. 1, near bottom of the column, that he (and Paul) is not referring to two men who are in love with one another, but who burn in their appetite for each other. He writes, clarifying Paul's position in Romans 1,

"...he did not say that they fell in love [< "eros"] or had passion for each other, but rather that they `burned in their appetite for each other'.

1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (NRSV)

fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (NRSV)

A common assumption by scholars is that malakos and arsenokoites referred to partners in a pederastic relationship, the malakos as passive and the arsenokoites as the active partner.

The following English Bible translations reflect this meaning of malakos:

“Passive homosexual partners” (NETBible) “Catamites” (NKJV)

Male prostitution is another probable meaning of the Greek word malakos in 1 Corinthians 6:9.This meaning is seen in NRSV,NIV, WEB and ISV.

Another probable meaning of the Greek word arsenokites is “sodomites” in the sense of “homosexual rape” (coercion).

The Greek word "arsenokitais" literally means "male bedder." It is a compound word (arsen- male, koites- bed) and it simply can’t mean “homosexual” the way we understood it today.

“sodomites” (NRSV,YLT)

5 tn This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. μαλακός 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for μαλακοί in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here. 6 tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

(NET Bible Notes, 1 Corinthians 6:9)


Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

God banned homoeroticism in the context of heathen worship. It does not forbid homoeroticism in all contexts just as God did not prohibit incest in all contexts (e.g. Abraham & Sarah).

Genesis 19; Jude 1:7

God viewed the actions of angels who begat the Nephilim with humans and the humans who wanted to rape the angels as both a fornication and different flesh due to its relation to angelic beings.

Romans 1:18-28

Heterosexuals who worships the image and likeness of created humans, beasts, reptiles etc. was having result of their sin of idolatry which is lustful homoeroticism.

1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10

Homoeroticism in the context of pederasty, idolatry ( temple prostitution) and sodomy were all considered as sins that some of the Corinthian disciples of Christ were rescued from by means of the cleansing, sanctification and justification in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit of God.


The seven (7) biblical passages, when interpreted in context, do not condemn homoeroticism in all contexts but only in context of sin. The said bible verses did not talk about homosexual orientation but only of homoeroticism (same sex intercourse) in the context of idolatry and lust.The Bible nowhere condemns a loving same sex relationship.

The Bible is consistent that it is against homoeroticism in the context of sin just as it is against heteroeroticism in the context of sin.

We have one instance of discussion in the Bible wherein homosexuality might have been discussed in a positive light (cf. Matthew 19:1-12).In fact, Matthew 19:12 covers intersex people and transsexuals as well (source).

LGBTQ people and hermaphroditism existed since the ancient times yet somehow it was only at this Information Age wherein we deeply delved scientifically into this reality "from the inside out."

In the Scriptures, it is recorded that Jesus spoke about natural eunuchs (Matthew 19:12). First century contemporary evidence as well as ante-Nicene evidence shows that these eunuchs by birth have no desire for heterosexual marriage due to what we know today as homosexual orientation, intersex conditions as well as transsexualism.

Philo ,a first century Jew (1st century), knew that a man who is natural eunuch does not have sexual desire to a female ( Philo, On Joseph, XII. 58-60).This shows that the eunuch by birth in Matthew 19:12 means men who does not have sexual desire to a female.

Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspectiveabout the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1):

Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.

Strong's Concordance:2135 eunoúxos – properly, "alone in bed" (i.e. without a marriage partner) – literally, a castrated (emasculated) man; a eunuch.[ HELPS Word-studies]

Emasculated (ευνουχίζω) = deprived of masculinity [WordReference English-Greek Dictionary © 2015]

How does that translate to natural eunuchs, to eunuchs born that way?

Because the context of Matthew 19:12 is about heterosexual marriage, it highly implies that this shows that eunuchs born that way have "no sexual desire to the opposite sex." It fits the definition of eunuch as emasculated or deprived of masculinity. This may be what we call today as homosexual orientation.

Is heterosexual marriage the only marriage approved by the Biblical God? Are Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 necessarily proscribed all homoerotic relationships due to the fact that a holistic sexual union requires the remerging of man and woman?

Coming from the same literary source, the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:1-10 and the discourse on threefold types of Eunuch in Matthew 19:11-12 interpret each other. In Matthew 19:1-10, Jesus spoke of divorce in the context of heterosexual marriage while in Matthew 19:12, Jesus spoke of eunuchs who cannot undergo heterosexual marriage.

Natural eunuchs are what we know today as homosexuals, intersex people and transsexuals.

This refutes Rob Gagnon’s interpretation (Christian Sexuality, page 118) that Genesis 2:18-24 and Sodom/Ham narratives were condemning “consensual” homosexual relationship. This further shows that this instance of eisegesis resulted from interpreting the OT texts outside the NT paradigm of hermeneutics (2 Timothy 2:15).The interpretation of Rob Gagnon is simply not from the Scriptures “as a whole” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Rob Gagnon said that the creation texts (Gen. 1:27; 2:24) necessarily proscribed all homoerotic relationships due to the fact that a holistic sexual union requires the remerging of man and woman (Christian Sexuality, page 118).The flaw in this interpretation is that it did not address the issue in light of reality as well as the Scriptures as a whole.

The Bible:

(1) Nowhere mentioned an instance of a loving homosexual relationship. Although there is one OT instance of high probability that a “same sex union” [bisexuality not homosexuality] occurred between Jonathan and David (2 Samuel 1:26 etc.,compare 1 Samuel 18:1 with 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 and then, compare 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 with Genesis 2:24).

(2) Has only negative instances of homoeroticism [Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, idolatrous homoeroticism; Genesis 19/Jude 6, sodomy = idolatrous homosexual rape & fornication; Romans 1:18-28, lustful homoeroticism as an end result of idolatry/heathen worship; 1 Corinthians 6:9/1 Timothy 1:10, temple prostitution, pederasty & sodomy].

(3) Has three records of reality:

[A] Pre-fall (very good condition – Genesis 1:31);

[B] The fall (Disorders exist – Mt. 19:12; John 9:3; 3 John 1:2);

[C] the New Heaven and New earth (no disorders of any kind –Rev.21:4).

Both (1), (2) and (3) are all correct and biblically accurate. We are currently living neither in [A] nor in [C] but in [B]. Ergo, we need to address the issue of homoeroticism within the context of our present situation. In fact, Jesus already did it. He spoke about natural eunuchs (Matthew 19:12). First century contemporary evidence as well as ante-Nicene evidence shows that these eunuchs by birth have no desire for heterosexual marriage due to what we know today as Homosexual orientation, Intersex conditions as well as Transsexualism.

Also, Jesus spoke of being “one spirit” with his church in the context of heterosexual union, speaking of “one flesh” fact (1 Corinthians 6:16-17, v. 16 cited Genesis 2:24).This is interesting because this same chapter (1 Corinthians chapter 6) is wherein Paul spoke of “malakoi” and “arsonokites” in the context of sin. Yet it is also in this chapter wherein we found out that same sex union is neither prohibited nor discouraged. How is this so? 1 Samuel 18:1 spoke of David and Jonathan becoming “one spirit” while Jesus and the church is said to be “one spirit” as well in 1 Corinthians 6:16-17.Even if the union of David and Jonathan were not erotic but platonic, it still prescribes rather than proscribes “same sex union."

David and Jonathan’s relationship is an archetype of the relationship of Jesus and his church.

1 Samuel 18:1b Jonathan became one in spirit with David,

1 Corinthians 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

1 Samuel 18:1c and he loved him as himself.

Ephesians 5:28 He who loves his wife loves himself.

Take note that these instances are both correlated to the heterosexual marriage (“one flesh”) of the creation texts!

1 Cor. 6:16-17/Eph. 5:28-29 (Gen. 2:24)plus Gal. 3:28 Jesus Christ and church union = beyond gender

1 Sam. 18:1 (1 Cor 6:17/Eph 5:28 Jonathan and David union = homo gender

Gen. 1:27, 2:24 (1 Sam. 18:1;1 Cor. 6:17;Eph. 5:28-29) Adam and Eve union = hetero gender

Therefore,the interpretation that the creation texts necessarily proscribed all homoerotic relationships due to the fact that a holistic sexual union requires the re-merging of man and woman is entirely false. It cannot be cogently argued from the Scriptures.

Like in all matters not recorded in the Bible, we need to follow the biblical paradigm on how to address issues (1 Cor. 10:23 cf. Phil. 4:8).From a biblical perspective, we learned that same sex marriage is not sinful if it were non-harmful to self and others (3 John 1:2) and contributing positively to society (1 Cor. 10:23).

share|improve this answer
This answer would be easier to follow if each passage from the Bible or from early Christian writers were either quoted in the answer itself when first introduced or at least links provided to where they can be read. Some passages are quoted, some aren't, and some are quoted only later on, and not always fully. For Genesis 19, a link would be sufficient, since it is so long, and the story is generally known. – Lee Woofenden Sep 18 '15 at 6:02

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

If "some" includes me, I can give you my answer.

I consider myself Christian, not because of "believing" things, but because I was raised that way and because of how I live and relate to others. I don't look to scripture or church authority to tell me what to think. I do think scripture is important for shaping us for the better. I don't think God had a typewriter, and I don't look to scripture for facts or laws.

On the subject of homosexuality, some people are born that way. What's more, people form intimate loving responsible relationships. That's what they do; they don't need anyone else's permission. Other people will approve or disapprove for whatever reasons they have, but ultimately people are responsible for their own lives. Morality, to me, is about being good to people, not about passing judgement on how others live.

Somewhere in the new testament it says something like "the law is written in your heart". I happen to agree with that.

share|improve this answer
Being raised in a Christian home isn't what makes you a Christian. Also even those who believe in Scripture as an authority don't think God had a typewriter, so that's a straw man argument. Scripture claims to be full of facts and laws, so if you don't look to it for those, you have to look past what it claims to be. As to your last point, the NT goes on to say that there are NO people who actually can or do obey that law written on their heart by nature, they all break it because our hearts are deceitful. – Caleb Sep 18 '11 at 18:39
Being a Christian is about a solution for what to do with hearts that have transgressed that law written on our hearts, and it is not something we can ever do on our own. That's where saving grace and then belief and repentance come in. – Caleb Sep 18 '11 at 18:41
@Caleb: So there's a rule to tell who's a Christian and who isn't? I don't remember asking. – Mike Dunlavey Sep 22 '11 at 0:13
Upvoting, not because I think these are great arguments, but because it answers the question. – Andres Riofrio May 10 '12 at 2:00
@Caleb unfortunately, this site defines 'Christian' as anyone who claims they are such, and not in any of the normal, useful ways. – the dark wanderer May 14 '15 at 2:14

Could it be that some Christians recognize that the Bible was written thousands of years ago, in a very different culture, and it needs to be viewed in a more modern light? Just as owning slaves was allowed in Biblical times, yet would be viewed as sinful today. I think people might also note that the only way to find something declaring homosexuality to be sinful is to search through the bible word by word with the express purpose of finding something that justifies that predetermined view. It certainly isn't declared sinful in a prominent place, such as the ten commandments.

share|improve this answer
So, something that was allowed but is now illegal should be taken in the same like as something that (biblically) has always been immoral? If you can link to doctrine, it will improve your answer and save it from the probability of being flagged and deleted later. – Richard Oct 23 '11 at 18:49
One need hardly search that closely -- homosexual acts are denounced as sin quite prominently. Many people try to explain away these references as being no longer relevant or not inspired or various other things, but saying its hard to find in the text is a pretty week argument when many people would be glad to take you on an exhaustive tour (not a short ride). In fact part of the reason this is a contentious issue is that it sometimes seems singled out by Scripture as especially heinous among sinful acts. – Caleb Oct 23 '11 at 18:50
Also, you might be interested in this question: What does the Bible say about homosexuality? – Richard Oct 23 '11 at 18:50
I don't see how citing doctrine or scripture helps with this question. The question is not "What does Christianity say...", but rather "Why do some Christians believe..." Clearly, some Christians don't accept the Biblical statements that have been cited. The question is why? I think the answer is that many people do not accept the Bible or Church doctrine as the only sources of truth. Both have clearly been wrong on moral issues before (e.g. witch hunts, inquisitions, slavery...) and Christ's overall message to humanity was to treat people with love and compassion, not to persecute them. – Mark Oct 25 '11 at 16:37

protected by Caleb Oct 28 '11 at 12:10

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.