​


Biblical Gender Identity



Site: Jayden12.com › Rock › Gender Identity › Homosexuality (Mobile) - Full Site

Section: Intro ⋅ Single ⋅ Marriage ⋅ Adultery ⋅ Living Together Not Married ⋅ Prostitution ⋅ Cross Dressing ⋅ Homosexuality ⋅ Animals ⋅ Incest ⋅ Self ⋅ Cycle ⋅ Polygamy ⋅ Divorce ⋅ Abortion ⋅ Adoption ⋅ Style ⋅ General ⋅ Conclusions

Disclaimers:
1. This is a mature topic only intended for people who've at least begun puberty. If you are less than 13 years old then I pray you don't have any reason to concern yourself with this yet, and you should ask a trustworthy adult before reading this. (My Family in the Bible page (here) is meant for all ages.)
2. This summary is not intended for general counseling, it is for those who want to know what the Bible says on this topic, and for those who claim the Bible is silent or says the opposite, plus a little commentary to get us started on what it means and how all this fits in a Biblical worldview.



Homosexuality
⚢   ⚣



Since this is arguably the most controversial of all these gender identity topics, please read these scripture passages first, then I'll make a few points. This page is not about me telling you my opinion but rather is about us taking an honest look at what God has said, and a brief attempt to explore why and what it means. (This page only specifically uses the word homosexuality, but this is synonymous or close enough with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer.)

Direct Since these are the only 5 direct verses in the entire Bible, and they are all consistent, this should be a black and white topic taking less than 100 words to explain. But because we live in a Romans 1 culture, there's a lot to unpack:
  1. First, God loves all people (Romans 5:8) and so should we (Matthew 7:12). Many varieties of sexual immorality are described in the Bible as capital crimes, not just this one (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:10-16 and 21:9, and Deuteronomy 22:21).
  2. If we take God's word seriously then we have to conclude that homosexuality is a sin. As described in God's word, all sin is rooted in choice. Therefore by definition homosexuality is a choice, so it (the sin) deserves no protection and no benefits. Like any sin, some people are more tempted by it than others, but we must all repress any urge to sin and acknowledge that any thought or activity is wrong.
  3. There is an important comparison to make between homosexuality and adultery. Adultery is the only sexual sin to make it into the 10 commandments (it's number 7, in Exodus 20:14). In the 10th Commandment, God tells us not to covet a married woman (Exodus 20:17). (And it's not a stretch to say men shouldn't "covet" any girl or woman.) God's not an evil fascist dictator, He's a loving, disciplining father (Deuteronomy 8:5, Proverbs 3:11-12, Proverbs 13:24, Hebrews 12:9-12) with an incomprehensibly strong grasp on right and wrong (Isaiah 7:14-16 and 45:19). So while He's saying in the 10th Commandment, "don't even think about it," the point isn't instant condemnation to hell just because we had a thought. It's not sinful that just seeing an attractive (or vulnerable) human being (even one with our same sex) makes us think of sex. That's just human nature. The point is don't put ourselves in this situation, don't dwell on it, and don't entertain this kind of thinking (Genesis 4:7). Notice the language in the above passages: "don't have sexual relations," "committed shameful acts," "who have sex," and "for those practicing." The same scorn and condemnation falls from God on anyone who has, practices, fantasizes about, or commits adultery (Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10, Matthew 5:28). It's not a stretch that the same attitude holds for all sexual sin. God wasn't picking on anyone, He was invoking His right as our Creator to set our moral standards. We all have a burden to stay sexually pure, and it's rude to think anyone has it easier than you do. And to make sure we don't even get close to "crossing the line," He not only forbade us from doing these things, He also said "don't even think about it."
  4. Nobody deserves persecution (not even homosexuals) and all people need protection (even homosexuals) from evil (in its many forms). People deserve protection under the law, our choices may or may not, especially not the choice to sin.1 God loves all people but not all choices (Ezekiel 18:23). Homosexuals need to be treated with love just like anyone else. We must be careful how we handle sins we do not personally struggle with, lest our motives and intentions be misinterpreted. But fewer people will misinterpret love than condemnation, and the Holy Spirit can take care of convicting any sinner (Galatians 6:1, 10, John 14:26, 16:7-8, 16:13-14). Though this doesn't excuse us from both knowing and respecting the stated opinions of God. We don't (shouldn't) call a behavior sin just because no one we care about struggles with it. Nor do (should) we stop calling it sin just because someone we care about does struggle with it. Sin is defined by God in His word, the Bible, and isn't affected by who struggles with it. Remember, we're all sinners (Romans 3:12, 5:8), there's no avoiding that, other than through accepting Jesus for who He is (Acts 4:12) and repenting (Acts 3:19-20).
  5. Taking God's word literally would mean we have to kill all homosexuals and all adulterers. Taking God's word seriously gives us a little room to say that Jesus paid the price for all our sins (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 1 John 2:1) and while the death penalty has been commuted, the nature of the words "detestable, shameful, unnatural, wrongdoer," and the phrase "not for the righteous" might be diminished but they should not be dismissed. The theme of hating evil is clearly repeated in scripture (Proverbs 8:13, Amos 5:15, John 5:14, Romans 12:9, Jude 1:22-23) and there are no theologically sound reasons to believe the definition of evil (read: sin) should be altered as society changes. (Dislike my use of the word "evil" in this commentary? Sorry, but I'm quoting Jesus from Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21-23.)
  6. As a technicality, by definition homosexuality (along with all sexual immorality) is sin and all sin is choice, so if someone forced (or tricked) you into a homosexual act against your will then that's not what we're talking about in this article. (Compare that being raped is not a sin.) If this happened to you then I'm sorry, and all this article refers to your attacker/​antagonist and not to you.
  7. We shouldn't take our identity from who we have sex with. A happily married couple with healthy relationships (both together and with a broader community) has a good chance of having sex once or twice a week, which means spending maybe an hour a week naked together (and awake). When there are 168 hours in a week (112 waking hours) what a small, small fraction of our lives to be defining our identity by. A man shouldn't associate feelings for any woman (besides maybe one he's married to) with his core identity (adulterer, fornicator, rapist). Neither should a man who happens to have feelings for other men (homosexual), and we shouldn't let anyone else assign a primary label to us that way either. It's not healthy for ourselves nor our society.
  8. Many people who are defending homosexual choices will criticize the use of Levitical law as a reason to cry "sin." They may (like a retired USA President has publicly) cite Leviticus 11:9-12 which says we shouldn't eat sea creatures that don't have scales or fins (which would include lobster, clam, and other shellfish/​crustaceans). However the comparison is not logically sound, and is either made out of ignorance or worse, is sadly an attack on the validity, relevance, and authority of the word of God. Satan was recorded as bastardizing scripture like this twice in Genesis 3:1 and Matthew 4:5-6. Let's take the claim seriously and explore its validity:
    • Leviticus 11 is a whole chapter dedicated to warning the Israelites (and more specifically an entire nation of people who had just spent their entire lives as slaves) how to live as an independent nation that also was the first [and only] nation on Earth that would self govern with a theocracy. Chapter 11 is about clean and unclean animals. (Which wasn't a new concept, God had told Noah about clean and unclean animals as far back as Genesis 7:2.) Leviticus 7:19 is one verse that exemplifies the significance of distinction: ceremony. The word "unclean" is used 44 times (NIV translation) in chapter 11 and notably includes references to animals that will eat both meat they didn't kill and even biological waste. These animals are a valid part of the ecosystem, but God is essentially saying "don't eat and don't even touch them, [because that's not how I want this people to live]". The same went for eating or touching clean animals that died by means other than being slaughtered for food (Leviticus 11:39-40). Reading between the lines, God was saying they were to sustain their life from other life, not from death nor from waste. A good comparison was in Exodus 22:31, where God explicitly said "be holy and here's how," which is totally different than declaring something immoral.
    • When we turn to Leviticus 18, the phrase "do not" is used 20 times about sexual practices. Here the word "unclean" is only used once, to refer to a person in an unchosen, unavoidable state (Leviticus 18:19). The concept of uncleanliness was not tied to sexual activity even once, just one universal prohibition on when we may not engage in it (even the otherwise moral kind). Instead, the situation is much more dire. The words detestable, dishonor, perversion, and wickedness are used 11 times to describe 18 instances of sexual immorality, all of which are chosen and completely avoidable. Those same 4 harsh words were used zero times when God described ceremonial cleanliness back in chapter 11. And even though those words aren't used in every single verse, at the end of the chapter there are 4 blanket statements referring back to "all these things" as detestable (in Leviticus 18:24, 26, 27, and 29).2
    • In Leviticus 20:10-24 the phrases "put to death," "cut them off," "blood on their own heads," and the words abhorred, detestable, disgrace, dishonor, vomit, and wickedness are used 23 times to describe 12 sexually immoral acts. The words clean & unclean are not used in this passage.
    • In between Leviticus 11 and 18 we have further reinforcement. Clearly God wants husbands and wives to produce children (Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, Malachi 2:15, Deuteronomy 24:5) and the only way to do that is by having sex. If God wants married couples to have sex, but having sex makes them unclean (Leviticus 15:18), then clearly being unclean and being immoral are two entirely different things.
    There's a huge difference between "unclean" and "detestable."3 Namely, one is a moral declaration that doesn't change based on who's leading the nation or where on Earth the nation is located. When your nation is governed by theocracy, God's expectations for ceremony are more important than when you're living in an aristocracy or a democracy. But as the Creator of the universe (and more specifically of all life) His expectations for morals are universal. This is important because it's proof people who warn against homosexuality aren't automatically being homophobic nor hateful. How we go about it is a relevant detail, but there is a strong reason why a Christian would warn anyone not to choose to do any sin, and it's typically motivated by love, not hate (Proverbs 3:11-12, Hebrews 12:11, Revelation 3:19).4 Remember:
    • The rules of ceremonial cleanliness of Old Testament law were explicitly laxed when God corrected Peter in Acts 10, followed up by the apostolic letter to gentle believers in Acts 15:28-29, and reinforced in 1 Corinthians 8:8-9, 10:25-27, and Hebrews 7:27.
    • Old Testament morality has never laxed, rather the opposite: the bar has been raised, for example Matthew 5:27-28 and 31-32. (Note, both of those examples are on the subject of sexual immorality.)
    • Old Testament ceremony was exposed for what it was by Jesus in Matthew 15:17-20 / Mark 7:18-23. Notice in this passage, in the same sentence, Jesus specifically names "adultery" and "sexual immorality," making explicit there is sexual immorality beyond adultery. Where are we supposed to get the definition of this "evil" that we are supposed to avoid, so we're clear on Jesus's expectations? We're supposed to get it from God's word. What else would be "immoral" if the things He called "detestable" and assigned capital punishment to, aren't? Our relationship with the law has changed but God and His opinion doesn't (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8). (Another example of Jesus dismissing the ceremonial law was Mark 2:23-28.)
  9. It might be claimed someday that Paul clearly differentiated homosexuality from sexual immorality because he clearly called them out separately in 1 Timothy 1:10. That'd be a nice try, but later in that same verse we observe he differentiated perjury and lying, even though perjury is a form of lying. And the preceding verse calls out killing your parents and murder separately (1 Timothy 1:9). Clearly Paul is not picking on people who accidentally kill their parents, because God's love and wrath revolve around choices more so that results, though our choices are typically demonstrated through our actions and have real results (consequences). Just as killing your parents is one form of murder, homosexuality is clearly one form of sexual immorality. The full context of this statement is​ 1 Timothy 1:8-11, where Paul is briefly explaining the value of the Law in response to people who were trying to teach false doctrine as described in the preceding paragraph, 1 Timothy 1:3-7.
  10. If Paul meant (in his letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy) "men with boys" when he wrote "men with men," he would have said so. But he didn't. It's rude and wrong to claim now, whether two years or two millennia later, that he meant "pederasty" even though he wrote "homosexuality," because there's no contextual support for this. The same logic holds if we try to claim Paul meant the hyper-specific case of homosexual temple prostitution. He didn't say "homosexuality, when done in prostitution in service to a false God, is wrong," but if that's what he meant then he could have easily said so. Besides, it's not like any form of prostitution or adulterous child rape is/was acceptable, so why would he single out the homosexual variety, if that was what he was referring to? These are nothing but pitiful wishful thinking of those who want to affirm what Paul condemned.
Indirect
  • Genesis 9:13-16  hub, int
  • Ezekiel 1:28  hub, int
  • Revelation 4:3  hub, int
  • Revelation 10:1  hub, int

    God invented the rainbow (back in Genesis) and He used it twice as part of His description of Himself on His throne. The use of this symbol for gay pride (or any unrepentant sin) is sadly sacrilegious.
  • Deuteronomy 22:5  hub, int

    Sex has already been established as an unusually significant activity in the "marriage", "adultery", and "living together without marriage" sections above, and will be analyzed further in the conclusion below. For a man to play the role of a woman in a relationship involving sex with another man, would be significantly beyond (worse than) the scope of this Deuteronomy verse which simply refers to clothing, but Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 show the consistency of attitude.
  • Deuteronomy 23:17-18  hub, int
  • 1 Kings 14:24  hub, int (Rehoboam)
  • 1 Kings 15:11-12  hub, int (Asa)
  • 1 Kings 22:46  hub, int (Jehoshaphat)
  • 2 Kings 23:7  hub, int (Josiah)
  • Job 36:14  hub, int

    Women were never recorded in the Bible as employing the services of a prostitute, but rather only selling their services. Only men were recorded as buying prostitutes. So the obvious implication is a male prostitute was selling his services to other men. In English we call men who sell sex to women gigolos. The fact that they were selling sex was bad by itself, but the homosexual part was clearly an intentional add-on making it even worse. Read the context for yourself in 1 Kings 14:22-24, 1 Kings 22:43-46, and 2 Kings 22-23. The comment from Job 36:13-14 was made by Elihu. He was introduced in Job 32:1-5, spoke through the end of chapter 36, and was the one acquaintance of Job who was not criticized by God in Job 42:7-9.
  • Matthew 19:4-6  hub, int
  • Mark 10:6-9  hub, int

    When Jesus was asked what was intended to be a trick question about marriage (divorce), His answer was entirely based on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. To a Christian who starts all theology with the Bible, this should have implications on the legitimacy of gay marriage, and the nature of marriage itself.
  • Isaiah 3:9  hub, int

    Isaiah implied the people of his day had their version of gay pride parades, and maybe a gay pride month. God is specifically condemning this and gave us His advice on what we should have pride in (or boast about) in Jeremiah 9:23-24.

Bible Stories
  • Genesis 19:5-7  hub, int (whole story is Genesis 19:1-28, and Genesis 13:13 and 18:16-33 are relevant backstory)
  • Isaiah 3:9-11  hub, int
  • Ezekiel 16:48-50  hub, int
  • Ezekiel 16:53-58  hub, int
  • Zephaniah 2:8‭-‬10  hub, int
  • Luke 17:29  hub, int
  • 2 Peter 2:6-8,10  hub, int
  • Jude 1:7-8  hub, int

    God comments on the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah multiple times. The first time they're mentioned (Genesis 13:13) the people of Sodom are declared great sinners and wicked. Then in Genesis 19:6-7, Lot confronts the people (the men) to their face and decries their plan as wicked. Their plan was given in the previous verse: Genesis 19:4-5. I've heard the argument that the sin was their poor hospitality, not the homosexuality. Granted, their hospitality was dismal, but that's never defined by God as sin. Homosexuality was. Further, remember the lineage of this account. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Moses didn't live through any time described in Genesis, he was told what to write by God (through an angel). So it was God Himself who chose what details Moses should be told about so they'd be recorded. God chose to single out their plan for homosexual activity, not anything else, as what to call wicked (sin). Let's look at each of the scriptures that later elaborated on why the people of Sodom & Gomorrah were intended to be an example:

    • While Ezekiel mentions multiple grievances those towns made against God, included in the terms he used were "detestable" (v50) and "lewdness" (v58). If we do a text search for "detestable," we find it 50 times before Ezekiel, with 20 in Moses's time. Mostly it was used to refer to sexual immorality and idolatry. Most notably in this case Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. And yes, the original Hebrew word in both Leviticus (int, int) and Ezekiel (int) are exactly the same. By definition, when Ezekiel used the word we've translated to lewd, he was explicitly referring to sexual practices.
    • Jesus spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah at least once, maybe twice. First, it might have been Jesus who was there and spoke to Abraham in Genesis 18:20-21. Second, when He came for the gospels, He affirmed that as soon as Lot left, the towns were destroyed (Luke 17:29, Genesis 19:23-25), validating that what Lot recognized as wicked was what was wicked (Genesis 19:5-7), not any other random sin we can excuse (like hospitality, as some have claimed).5
    • Claiming God condemned their sexuality is not some B.S. modern Christians with a gripe against the sexual revolution have forced upon the Bible. Clearly, early believers were aligned with this interpretation because Peter makes a point of citing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, calling them depraved, and concludes by saying they "followed the corrupt desire of the flesh" (2PE 2:10).
    • Then Jude specifically convicts the people of Sodom and Gomorrah of sexual immorality, perversion, and polluting their own bodies (compare Jude 1:8 to 1 Corinthians 6:18).

    Notice, unlike God's message to Ezekiel, neither Jesus, Peter, nor Jude bother to mention any other offense besides their sexual immorality. And to be clear, we can be sure it wasn't just any nondescript sin, nor was it rape, because rape was never declared by God a capital crime. It was criticized and had consequences, but execution was not one of them. Homosexuality, specifically, was the only explicitly defined and committed capital crime in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that's specifically what resulted in entire towns being destroyed. The poor hospitality was just insult to injury. Recent Christians have not forced this interpretation on the scriptures, and claiming sexual sin was absent from this story is denying the validity of the major prophet, Ezekiel, the primary apostle, Peter, and Jesus's earthly brother, Jude.

    Further, Jude used a choice word. Perversion (according to Google in 2016) is "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended." All of the examples of sexual immorality described in the Bible (and hence, this webpage) can fit this description (including adultery, fornication, prostitution, transgender, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, masturbation, polygamy, and divorce). Note the word "perversion" has a specific, informative meaning and is not being used as a derogatory slur. God invented the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" long before we recognized it. (God's embracing this concept was demonstrated in His reaction to our sins as early as in Genesis 3 & 4, and even more explicitly in Jude 1:22-23.)
  • Judges 19:22-24  hub, int

    This is a lesser known parallel to the Sodom and Gomorrah story above. Not entirely redundant, and certainly relevant. Namely the understanding of the people of this time that homosexuality was a perversion, reinforcing this interpretation is not some B.S. forced upon the Bible by modern Christians. (Remember, according to Ussher, the events of Genesis 18 would have happened somewhere around 1800 BC, and Judges 19 would have been somewhere around 1300 BC.)

    Coincidence or not, this is not only the second story about homosexuality, it's also the second occurrence of a request for gang rape. Only this time the girl actually was handed over and she died by her mistreatment. Even worse, this time it is Israelites who committed the offense, not random gentiles. Because of that, a civil war ensues in the next chapter. Highlights from that chapter are Judges 20:4-5, 27-28, 35, and 48. (Before we jump to criticizing how the unnamed man sent out his concubine in v25, don't forget v2. Not saying v2 justifies what actually happened, but was reason the man may have been more willing than most to turn over said concubine. He certainly may not have realized just how depraved these people were, nor expected that she would be mistreated so badly she'd die.) Here again, both times a public admission of desire for homosexual activity is recorded in the Bible, the people who hear it were verbally disgusted, and immediately following God destroyed the entire town. Now certainly, you can argue that Judges 19-20 is clearly a messed up story. But the whole story pivoted on Judges 19:22. In other words, there would have been no civil war in which 65,000 men (total) died in 3 days combat and 2 towns would not have been leveled, had the men of Benjamin not acted on their homosexual desires (the gang rape came after each man decided their homosexual desires were justification to act).

    This story is so messed up, if you want to say it was the "gang rape" which lead to death of the victim rather than the "homosexuality" part, then I don't have a strong case to argue (not saying I automatically concede, though). But I can point out this seems to be a perfect example of what Paul talks about later in Romans 1:26-27, when he declared there to be a connection between lust, shame, homosexuality, God turning on you, and penalty. At best this story is non-helpful to the reputation of the legitimacy of homosexuality.

    If you try to contrast the legitimacy of gang raping homosexuals to committed, monogamous homosexuals, then you've got a point, but you're missing an even more important one. While consent and commitment are extremely important parts of sex, sex is about so much more than that. If you haven't already read the previous sections on being single and marriage, you need to. And be sure to read the upcoming section on general sexual immorality and the conclusion, where I make relevant points I don't duplicate here.
  • 1 Samuel 18:1  hub, int
  • 1 Samuel 18:3-4  hub, int
  • 1 Samuel 19:1  hub, int
  • 1 Samuel 20:41  hub, int
  • 2 Samuel 1:26  hub, int

    In the scientific realm, when trying to come up with a formula to express a law of nature to explain the world we observe, if we find even one exception to our formula then it is invalidated. The same does not hold true in all of science, nor in theology. The story of David and Jonathan (described in entirety in 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1) is not a lone, indirect, queer-positive revelation that through implication invalidates and overrules all the other queer-negative direct references in the rest of scripture.

    In 1 Samuel 18:1 and 3, when Jonathan is described with the word we [correctly] translate as "love", the word is numbered in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and we can see it's usage in all of scripture here. This Hebrew word was used for the whole spectrum of intentions of the English word "love." The exact same word is used in Leviticus 19:18 (int) when God commanded His people to "love your neighbor as yourself." Leviticus 19:18 was smack in the middle of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, so unless you throw away chapters 18-20 of Leviticus, using 1 Samuel 18:1 and 3 to claim Jonathan was gay is at best wishful thinking. Also note that when religious leaders tried to trick Jesus by asking which was the most important commandment in the law, His answer included a quote of Leviticus 19:18 in Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, and Luke 10:27. The Greek word all these gospel writers used to quote Jesus was "agapeseis," which is unconditional (not romantic) love. To claim the beginning of 1 Samuel 18 is an indication that Jonathan was gay just shows you're trying to read into scripture what you want (or have been told) to see and resonates as a Romans 1:32 kind of perspective.

    In 1 Samuel 20:14-15, Jonathan seemed pretty concerned about his family. The concept of family was a very narrowly defined and honored concept in Bible times and in Jewish culture. If Jonathan had committed adultery with David, even besides the homosexuality part, that would've been a capital crime on the individual level, but also a disgrace to his entire family. His family would've necessarily included a wife, even though she's never mentioned directly.

    In 2 Samuel 1:26, when David uses the word we [correctly] translate as "love", this word was also numbered by Strong and we can see it's usage in all of scripture here. This Hebrew word was used for the whole spectrum of intentions of the English word "love." The same word is used by David later in Psalm 109:4 (hub, int) and immediately again in Psalm 109:5 (hub, int) but clearly wasn't referring to romance nor sex. It's also used by God (or to describe God) in Hosea 11:4, Jeremiah 31:3, Isaiah 63:9, and Zephaniah 3:17. If we're going to claim that direct commands from God (like Leviticus 20:13) can be ignored or reversed then we need a much stronger case than Jonathan and David's friendship. David was what some men might call a "man's man." He slew the giant (1 Samuel 17:50), he was a mighty warrior (1 Samuel 18:5), he had lots of women (1 Samuel 30:18, 2 Samuel 5:13), and he was eventually a king (2 Samuel 2:4). Back then, it wasn't uncommon for women to be considered little more than baby factories (heir producers) and meal preparers. Jonathan fought wars with David and saved his life on at least one recorded occasion (1 Samuel 20:32-34). Jonathan was a somewhat young war hero in 1SA 14, David definitely was in 1SA 17, so to say they were kindred spirits in 1 Samuel 18:1 should be unsurprising. For David to say that the simple friendship of his best guy-friend meant more to him than the friendship-with-benefits of any of his wives is not a far fetched concept.

    Just because same gender romance is a sin does not mean two men or two women cannot be better friends than some married couples. And that could be perfectly fine, because human relationships are complex. But this reality should not be used as an excuse to:
    1. pervert the concept of marriage
    2. redefine what sexual immorality is
    3. give in to sexual immorality
    4. inject immorality into Bible heroes (most of them had enough without us artificially adding more to the mix)
    5. pervert the intent of scripture (for example, 2 Timothy 4:9 was not a sexual comment, and it would be equally stupid and wicked to claim it was)

    Every parent knows what it's like to have basic rules for their child and at some point that child will inevitably notice some technicality that happens sometime and they'll childishly, naively, incorrectly, and matter of factly declare, without asking first, "this means that rule was never valid." Just as children demonstrate wishful thinking against their parents to get out of rules parents made to protect their kids, so do we to God. Claiming the story of David and Jonathan was queer positive is a perfect example.
  • John 13:23-25  hub, int

    Here we have a theme some people try to use, on occasion, to claim Jesus himself was gay, as was at least one of the disciples. John refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" 5 times in the last 9 chapters of his gospel account (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20). If homosexuality is a sin, then accusing Jesus of it is a serious allegation. But only dogma would dismiss the claim, and it's not a sin to ask for an explanation of why these verses are there.
    • Jesus never sinned. There's no record of Him ever doing so, and this theology was attested to in writing (that still exists today) by two eyewitnesses in 1 Peter 2:21-22 and 1 John 3:3-5, plus the astute theologian who wrote Hebrews 4:15 & 7:26.
    • Remember the Greeks had multiple words to describe what in English we just summarily call "love." (The big 3 were mentioned earlier in Living Together Without Marriage footnote 6). Four of these five verses (13:23, 19:26, 21:7, 21:20) use the Greek word "egapa" (referring to unconditional love). This word is used one other time by John, in John 11:5 (int). In John 11:3 (int) and in John 11:36 (int), it was explicitly claimed by other people that Jesus loved a man, but the Greek word used in the former is "phileis" and the later "ephilei" (both referring to brotherly love, hence the city name Philadelphia). The fifth verse (20:2) also uses the Greek word "ephilei." While Jesus talked a lot about love, outside the completely fictional book (and movie) The Da Vinci Code and the quasi-religious musical adaptation in Jesus Christ Superstar, there is no evidence that Jesus had a romantic relationship with anyone (including either of the two Mary's, Martha, Lazarus, or John). And there's Mark 10:21 (int), which uses a very similar Greek word, "egapesen".
    • Strong's Exhaustive Concordance considers egapa and egapesen forms of agapao.6 Agapao is the verb (Strongs, Wiktionary) and agape is the noun (Strongs, Wiktionary) expressing unconditional love, goodwill, and benevolence. Strong considered ephilei and phileis forms of phileo. Phileo is a verb (Strong, Wiktionary) meaning to be a friend.
    • If you want any of these 5 references to be euphemisms for romance or sexual connotations (the Greek word "eros"), then sorry, it's not contextually implied.7
    • Remember the gospel writers were human. All the disciples were human. They argued about who was going to be the greatest (Luke 9:46, Matthew 18:1) because until after the resurrection, they still had it stuck in their mind that Jesus was going to be a military hero. This was why they freaked out and ran when Jesus let Himself be arrested in Mark 14:50. Matthew avoided saying anything bad about Peter, even going out of his way on at least one occasion (Matthew 26:51-52, John 18:10-11). It was John's mom who made that bold request of Jesus (Matthew 4:21, 20:20-24).8 With this context in mind, it's not difficult to imagine John was just writing well of himself by referring to himself as the one Jesus loved in brotherly love more than all the others. There's not even a hint of romance in his words, and there's no need to dishonor John by forcing that upon his writing.
Worldview

Sadly, some people who don't approve of homosexuality are excessively violent in their opinion. And some of those people simply have an opinion with no basis for it other than neophobia (the fear or dislike of anything unfamiliar) or xenophobia (the fear or dislike of anything strange or foreign, including ideas as much as nationalities or species).9 But to a God fearing, Bible believing Christian, this is the opposite of fear and the opposite of hate. It's about respecting the stated opinions of our God, and being for people in such a way that we would all be aligned with our Creator.10 Jesus explicitly said in Matthew 5:19 and Mark 9:42 not to disregard God's opinions, and not to teach kids to either. We neither want our kids to be dragged away from God nor do we want our neighbors to be either. Those who are violent in their opinions are forgetting the character of God (for example Philippians 2:3-4). God's people can do dumb things, because all people do dumb things. But don't blame God for His followers, they upset Him long before they upset you (Jeremiah 9:7-9, Ezekiel 36:22-23). Neither violence nor sin deserve defense.

Our biological sex is determined at conception but our psychological sexuality (what we want to have sex with) does not develop until puberty, though certain carnal and erotic stimuli can force the issue prematurely, and usually only ends up perverting it. This is why, when an infant breastfeeds, it's not a sexual act, and why young boys (even boys who will someday grow up to be womanizers) think all girls have cooties. God did not make anyone homosexual. He made everyone sexual (Genesis 5:1-2, Matthew 19:4). Our thoughts during puberty don't influence our sex but they do influence our sexual desire. This is not a concession, it's the opposite of what sexual liberation lobbyists want to hear. Our role models, friends, and culture have a serious, almost permanent influence on our sexuality, which is a significant reason why it's so important not to normalize sin in society. The mental process of establishing our sexuality is like wearing grooves in the paths of our mind, and once those grooves are carved, it's difficult to cut out and trace new paths. The new pathways are so difficult to form that people mistake them as being inborn. But they're not, they were informed, and they can be changed. If you spent your formative years pouring over the scriptures, then you'd end up with a very clear perspective on human sexuality. If you spent your formative years hanging with peers or other worldly influences, then you claim "God made me [think] this way," you're being illogical. God made you very clearly genetically defined with one binary sex. Whoever you trust makes you think the way you do. The more normal we make sin look in society, the more common it'll be, which creates a self fulfilling prophecy for immorality, which is a recipe for disaster. This also means, no matter how much it was explicit or implicit, our sexual preferences are the result of our choices. This doesn't mean our brokenness is entirely our own fault (remember, it takes a village to raise a child). If you're stuck with forbidden sexual desire, then I sympathize and am sorry. We're all in this together and most people can relate to one or more sexual temptations, and there's no need to say one forbidden passion is worse than another, nor is there an excuse for the opposite: to say one forbidden passion is actually ok.

God tried to make life easy on us, giving us immortality and innocence in Genesis 2. But as embarrassing as it is to admit, we were duped by Satan to throw it away for intelligence and choice in Genesis 3. American culture (like many others) has been the victim of spiritual warfare, or if you prefer a non supernatural term, social engineering. It's important to recognize there's a difference between an individual homosexual (or pair of homosexuals) who just want to live the life of their choice in peace, and the agenda of those who would use the homosexual as a political pawn. Many homosexuals, like many persecuted people, are more concerned about avoiding persecution and going about their lives. It isn't until someone else tells them (the persecuted) they have rights to more that they typically start asking. There are plenty of atheists who prefer their Godless life (John 3:19-20) and want to see Christianity and the Bible outlawed because of its literal condemnation of their worldview. Knowing the Bible has such a clear message about homosexuality, these atheists with political (rather, religious) agendas are all too happy to use homosexuals and their allies as pawns to see their own selfish goals accomplished, and are all too happy to make examples out of anyone they can find (either for or against). These people, who carefully stay behind the scenes, are the ones we should be wary of, far more so than random individual practicing LGBTQ's we may encounter (Ephesians 6:12).

People who approve of homosexual choices want everyone to believe the only humane attitude is (hence, the only "Christian" attitude should be) to encourage and affirm these choices. They have two common phrases:
  • Preserve the dignity
  • Love is Love
I fully agree that preserving people's dignity is good. But excusing immorality will ultimately have the opposite effect. Encouraging people it's ok (good even) to make choices that God has specifically declared a bad idea, under any pretense including dignity, is at best hypocrisy. Because disobedience has negative consequences which often leave us very undignified. "Love is love" is a well intentioned thought, and fine for the Greek words agape (unconditional) and philao (brotherly). But when it comes to eros (erotic) a more important truth is "God is God and the rest of us are not." He reminded us of this multiple times while speaking to the prophet Isaiah (not just once or twice, but ten times in five chapters): (Following scripture quotes are from WEB translation)
  • Isaiah 42:8 "I am Yahweh. That is my name. I will not give my glory to another," hub, int
  • Isaiah 43:10 "I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me." hub, int
  • Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." hub, int
  • Isaiah 44:8 "Is there a God besides me? Indeed, there is not." hub, int
  • Isaiah 45:5 "I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Besides me, there is no God." hub, int
  • Isaiah 45:6 "There is none besides me. I am Yahweh, and there is no one else." hub, int
  • Isaiah 45:18 "I am Yahweh; and there is no other." hub, int
  • Isaiah 45:21 "There is no other God besides me, a just God and a Savior; There is no one besides me." hub, int
  • Isaiah 45:22 "Look to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." hub, int
  • Isaiah 46:9-10 "I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me;" hub, int
When God said there is no other God but Him, He meant capital G God. Lowercase g gods (meaning, false gods) were acknowledged numerous times: Exodus 12:12, 20:3, Judges 10:14, Psalm 82:6, 97:9, Isaiah 42:17, Jeremiah 5:7, etc. (and in rare translations, Deuteronomy 32:8 NRSV.) He wasn't being like Whitney Houston and claiming in her song, "[as far as you should be concerned,] I'm every woman." He's saying there is no one and nothing that can compare to Him, He has no equal, and He's making a declaration of fact not an emotional plea.

This wasn't a new concept. He'd already told Moses back in Exodus 9:13-14, and Moses repeated it for the people in his most famous sermon: Deuteronomy 4:35, 4:39, 7:9, 10:17, and 32:39. By nature of being God, what He declared as moral and immoral, even thousands of years ago, still is. We know God is real and the Bible is His word because:
  • God foretold the future through prophecy that ultimately fulfilled.
  • Our capacity to reason and the shared fundamental moral framework of humanity had to come from somewhere besides simply a common ancestor because both are unique in the world among other living things.
  • The history of the Bible was recorded a hundred generations ago (and more) and holds up in the long run to every form of attack (by someone who knows good apologetics).
  • God works in the real world to prove it. But His way is not our way (Isaiah 55:8, 1 Kings 19:11-13) and often we miss His presence. To supplement our deficiency, we can be assured both all of science and all of history confirm the Bible, as discussed in my Creation vs Evolution FAQ, here (even if many public school textbooks ignore this alignment).
Since God is real, we are accountable to His expectations for our life, our attitude, and our behavior.

All sin is choice no matter how a government classifies it. This makes for annoying dilemmas when the law conflicts with our morals. (Morals are the study or application of right and wrong from an absolute or spiritual perspective, ethics are the same study from a relative or social/​cultural perspective.) When push comes to shove, we should always obey God's laws over man's (Daniel 6:13, Acts 5:29) but not every disagreement means we have to rebel (Romans 13:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-15). Most of us don't even agree with everything our own church does, much less our government. The trick is to be respectful (of both our neighbors, our leaders, and our laws) without compromising our beliefs. The people who advocate for sexual liberty and same-sex marriage have played heavily the "civil rights" card. They want the public to believe that calling homosexuality a sin, or defining marriage as between a single man and woman, is no different than racial or gender discrimination.11 The most famous person in American civil rights history was Martin Luther King, Jr. (he was the guy with the "I have a dream" speech). Because of this, many pro-homosexual people have tried to say MLK would have been on their side to elevate sexual orientation to a protected & honored status in government literature. But let's look at one of his most famous quotes, written from a Birmingham Jail:

“ There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. ” (source)

There is a huge difference between
  1. Discriminating against a person because my ancestors crossed an ocean to arbitrarily pick up their ancestors and haul them back across the ocean to be a slave, or we just stereotypically look like someone who's ancestors might have treated or been treated that way.
  2. Telling people they shouldn't choose to do what God specifically declared wrong.
This is a great example of how this isn't a civil rights issue, and isn't even about sexual orientation after all. This is about whether we have a Creator and (equally important) whether we're accountable to His standards/​expectations. Arguments directly about homosexuality have little chance for success because it's a symptom and not a cause. This is one of many reasons why knowing and understanding our Creator, as revealed in the Bible, is vitally important.

As a final thought on this specific topic, remember homosexuality can't be fully understood in isolation, it's one of about a dozen forms of sexual immorality described in the Bible and explored on this webpage (which has been split into multiple pages if you're reading on a mobile device). The purpose of sex itself was already discussed in the marriage section and will be reviewed again in the conclusion section. Sexual immorality as a generalization is also covered in its own section with important insight that is very relevant to this topic (homosexuality). Once we understand God's opinion on human sexuality and chose to care about it (called repenting) that's when God's unique grace amazes us. Most religions in the world point out how we condemn ourselves, and if we're lucky, how to redeem ourselves. But the God of the Bible uniquely forgives when we relent and repent. This isn't just ethereal babble, there are two highly relevant quotes to point out.
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Remember this is one of the 5 verses at the top of this page. But this time pay special attention to the very next verse, verse 11. Paul was reminding his readers that they were these people. He wasn't just picking on some out-group. And He was reminding them that thanks to Jesus, they are no longer those same people, they are new, and forgiven. The same forgiveness is available today, to each of us.
  • Matthew 10:15 - Jesus Himself said there is worse than homosexuality. All sexual sin, including homosexuality, is evil, but there's worse. The worse sin Jesus described in Matthew 10:5-15 is knowing who God is, but not caring. (See also Lamentations 4:6, Matthew 11:24, and the parallel in Luke 10:12)
Don't stop here, keep reading to get the full picture of how God's word has established His expectations for our gender identity, inter-gender, and intra-gender relations.

Homosexuality Footnotes
  1. Distinctions:
    • Homosexuals (the people) deserve all the same protection as everyone else. Homosexuality (the choice, the attitude, the actions) deserves zero protection.
    • Homosexuals deserve all the same benefits as everyone else. Homosexuals deserve zero additional benefits compared to anyone else just because they are homosexual.
    • Homosexuals are free to marry just like anyone else, but no one is free to redefine the word marriage away from the Genesis understanding.
    (return)
  2. Beyond the simple contrast of words used in Leviticus 11, 18, and 20, we should wonder how else these same words are used by God and His prophets in the rest of the canon? This is not about you, me, our feelings, our culture, or our preferences. This is a question of "did God have an opinion on this before we were even born, and did He go out of His way to communicate that to us in the form of an expectation for our lives?" Let's review those keywords found in Leviticus 11, 18, and 20 (click each word to open an NIV text search):
    • blood on their own heads - only use in the Torah is in Leviticus 20 (6 times, 4 are regarding sexual immorality).
    • clean - used over 50 times in Leviticus.
    • cut [them] off - used over 20 times in Leviticus, notably for animal sacrifice norms and sexual norms. Also used a half dozen times in Exodus to excommunicate people who disregard God's instructions.
    • defile - used for quite a blend of reasons, all of them negative, including sexual immorality
    • detestable - only use in Leviticus is regarding sexual immorality.
    • disgrace - only use in Leviticus is regarding sexual immorality.
    • dishonor - only use in the Torah is regarding sexual immorality.
    • perversion - only used 3 times in the whole Bible, all regarding sexual immorality.
    • put to death - used many times throughout the Bible, when we look at Leviticus it's most notably used in chapter 19 regarding child sacrificers, chapter 20 regarding sexual immorality, and chapter 24 regarding blasphemy and murderers.
    • unclean - used over 100 times in Leviticus.
    • vomit - used 3 times in the Torah (all in Leviticus) and a few more times after that, all negative.
    • wickedness - while used a hundred times as a generalization in the whole Bible, the only times in the Torah this term is used to describe a specific activity is in regards to sexual immorality in Leviticus 18:17, 19:29, and 20:14.
    (return)
  3. In Leviticus 18:22, the word translated by NIV into "detestable" can also be translated "abomination" (see it in the Interlinear Bible, here). Similarly, the word translated into "unclean" in Leviticus 11:10-11 can also be translated to "abomination" (see it in the Interlinear Bible, here). There are three easy responses to the claim that this parallel invalidates the distinction made above between unclean and immoral.
    1. While both words can be translated to the same English word, the original Hebrew words in chapters 11 and 18 are different.
    2. Verses 10-11 are sandwiched in between another 40 verses talking about unclean animals. In verses 4-9, the word unclean had already been used 4 or 5 times. It's not a stretch to think the Angel of the Lord was getting tired of saying it and began adding emotional emphasis. If the angel knew why the command was being given but wasn't allowed to give the audience a science lesson, the attitude displayed makes perfect sense.
    3. Most importantly, the command is clearly repeated in Deuteronomy 14:10, and this time the word "unclean" is explicitly used (see it in the Interlinear Bible, here).
    (return)
  4. This is also not about civilized "progress." God is a living God, not some inanimate idol. God invented time, so exists outside of it and is therefore never changing (in His purest essence) and His standards of morality don't reverse. You don't have to agree with God, but then you may have to suffer the consequences. Those of us who give-a-care what God cares about aren't being backwards or avoiding social progress, we're avoiding divinely declared sin, and the consequences of those sins. What parent would let their toddler play with a steak knife? What friend would knowingly let their friend walk into a trap? What kind of neighbor would simply watch while their neighbor's house was being sacked? What kind of Christian would sit back and watch a fellow human being make God mad? Answer: (assuming they truly do fit the definition of parent, friend, neighbor, Christian) only a confused one. Jesus, through the Bible, offers us clarity (John 8:32). Make no mistake, this is about love, not hate. Calling it hate is just a cop-out to force upon man what can't be forced upon God: conformance. (return)
  5. It's certainly possible there was more than one sin that was disgusting about the people of Sodom. It's certainly possible they were jerks, and that added to the charges against them. But that wouldn't be enough to make the story of Sodom and Gomorrah queer-positive, as many pro-homosexual Christians have claimed. Lot's offer of his two daughters in place of the two visiting men is extremely weird to modern readers, but that doesn't invalidate the interpretation that men-being-with-men-as-with-a-woman is wrong (GE 19:8). As hard as it is today to believe a father would even think to use this analogy, this story logically suggests that men having sex with men is worse than men raping women. This doesn't mean men raping women is even remotely acceptable, it just means homosexuality was perceived as even worse by Lot, and by the owner of the house in Judges 19:22-24. The men of Sodom put Lot in a ridiculous position, and while he mostly kept his cool, it's entirely possible even he looks back at his on-the-fly compromise (his daughters) and thinks of it as foolishness. That's one of the things about the Bible: it's not a book full of perfect examples. It's a record of how a perfect God interacts with us fallen/​flawed people. Don't get distracted by how poorly the women were treated in these two stories. The woman's suffrage movement didn't happen until a few millennia later, and our cultural perception of women now is far different than it was at the time of these stories. That difference has nothing to do with these people's religion, it was the norm in most of the world. This norm doesn't make it right, but we're not going to solve that injustice by critiquing it multiple millennia later. (return)
  6. Strong's is admittedly based on KJV and is not a study of Greek per se, but is the best resource I can find, not being a Greek scholar myself. Here's a link to a resource that explains. And here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the Greek agapao, which confirms the connection to agape. Notice that the most important commands in the law (Matthew 22:39, int, Mark 12:31, int, and Luke 10:27, int) all use the word agapeseis. (return)
  7. For a little more detail on the various expressions of love in Greek, here are two great articles, one by a Ph.D., here, and another here. (return)
  8. There are at least two reasons to believe most of the disciples were teenagers.
    1. When the religious leaders tried to trick Peter into saying he didn't need to pay the temple tax, Jesus only had Peter get enough money (miraculously) for the two of them, and not any of the other disciples (Matthew 17:24-27). The temple tax of Jesus's day was likely an adaptation of Exodus 30:14, which God only expected of men at least twenty years old.
    2. Peter is the only apostle who was ever described as having a mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38). None of the others are described as being married, but some are described with their own mom or dad, and their reaction to Jesus's attitude about divorce is almost comical (Matthew 19:10) (showing their lack of experience with women).
    (return)
  9. Note that cainotophobia is the fear or dislike of anything new, and misoneism is a hatred or dislike of anything that is new or represents change. (return)
  10. Our culture is quick to claim people who defend Biblical worldviews have homophobia (a fear or dislike of homosexuals). This is an unwarranted extrapolation and assumes standards must come with negative emotions. Conversely, people who are supportive of homosexual choices demonstrate homophilia, and there is even such a word as heterophobia. (return)
  11. There is already marriage equality for all in the USA, without needing to redefine it. Redefining it to include same gender unions is not an attempt at inclusion and love, contrary to the marketing lingo. Since redefining it to mean whatever we want makes it a meaningless concept, redefining it is simply practicing Critical Theory and demonstrating misogamy (the hatred of marriage). Critical Theory is, as Andrew Breitbart put it, "a theory of criticizing everyone and everything everywhere," especially Judeo-Christian morality, and was the core philosophy that led to the sexual revolution in the 60s. Again, not all practicing sinners necessarily share this philosophy, but the people who are forcing their opinion on the American culture largely do. (return)




Last Modified: Wednesday, August 28, 2024