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):
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
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
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
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).
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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).