For LGBTQ+ people: how to respond to bigotry

1. The Bible never discusses sexual orientation

Perhaps the strongest scholarly argument is that the Bible does not address homosexuality as it is understood today: an enduring orientation, mutual attraction, lifelong committed same-sex partnerships, or marriage based on love and equality. The biblical world did not have these categories. The practices most visible in the ancient Mediterranean included temple prostitution, pederasty, prostitution, master-slave relationships, rape, domination, and military humiliation. Tolerant scholars therefore ask whether biblical writers can be assumed to condemn something they never encountered.

2. There are only a few relevant passages

Across roughly 31,000 biblical verses, only a handful are commonly cited regarding same-sex relations: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, and Jude 7. Affirming scholars note that the Bible speaks hundreds of times about justice, poverty, mercy, wealth, oppression, and care for strangers, and argue that this should influence how central the issue is within Christian ethics.

3. The Sodom narrative may not be about homosexuality

Traditional interpretation says Sodom was destroyed because of homosexual behavior. Much modern scholarship instead emphasizes attempted gang rape, violence, abuse of strangers, inhospitality, and domination. Ezekiel 16:49 identifies Sodom’s guilt as pride, excess, prosperous ease, and neglect of the poor and needy—not consensual same-sex relationships.

4. Leviticus is part of the Holiness Code

Leviticus contains many laws Christians generally no longer observe, including rules about shellfish, mixed fabrics, agriculture, ritual impurity after childbirth, and diet. Affirming theologians ask why Leviticus 18:22 should remain binding while surrounding commands are not. Traditional Christians distinguish enduring moral law from ceremonial law; affirming scholars answer that this distinction is not made explicitly in the text but was developed later in Christian theology.

5. Romans 1 may describe excess rather than orientation

Romans 1 appears within Paul’s broader critique of idolatry and humanity’s rejection of God. Affirming scholars argue that Paul describes people abandoning customary behavior, engaging in excessive lust, and participating in idolatrous practices rather than people whose enduring orientation is toward the same sex. Traditional interpreters disagree and read the passage as a broader statement about sexual ethics.

6. The meaning of arsenokoitai is uncertain

Paul uses the rare Greek word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Proposed translations include men who have sex with men, male prostitutes, sexual exploiters, economic exploiters through sex, and men who abuse males. Some scholars argue that translating it simply as “homosexuals” imports a modern category that did not exist in Paul’s time.

7. Jesus emphasized the heart

Jesus frequently redirected moral discussions from legal technicalities toward inner transformation: mercy over sacrifice, love over ritual, forgiveness, humility, and compassion. Affirming Christians ask whether relationships should be evaluated primarily by gender or by fidelity, sacrificial love, mutual care, and lifelong commitment.

Where the debate ultimately lies

Traditional interpreters understand the Bible to prohibit same-sex sexual acts across times and cultures, express an enduring ethic rooted in creation, and present marriage between a man and a woman as normative. Tolerant-focused interpreters understand the texts as addressing ancient practices, insist on historical and linguistic context, and apply the broader principles of covenant, love, justice, and fidelity to new contexts. The debate is about interpretation, not whether the verses exist.

A comparative mystical view

Christian mysticism asks whether this draws the soul toward Christ; Jewish Kabbalah whether it reveals the divine image and contributes to tikkun; Sufism whether it increases love of Allah and purifies the ego; Hindu traditions whether it reduces attachment and awakens the true Self; Buddhism whether it reduces suffering and delusion; Taoism whether it expresses balance; and modern Pagan mysticism whether it honors life, relationship, and the sacred.

A modern comparative mystic synthesis

Every major religion points toward transformation of consciousness. The deepest spiritual problem is not primarily sexual orientation but ego-centeredness. Love can be evaluated by its fruits. Exploitation, coercion, abuse, deceit, and selfishness are spiritually harmful regardless of orientation; fidelity, compassion, honesty, and self-giving love are signs of maturity. This is a modern interfaith mystical synthesis, not the official teaching of any one religion.

“The recurring question is not simply “What rule applies?” but “What kind of person—and ultimately what kind of soul—am I becoming?””

— Modern Mystic