The debate regarding sex and marriage, and how it relates to the LGBT+ community within Biblical Parameters

Many Christians within the church believe different things about the clarity of God’s position regarding sex, gender, and marriage. Our truest, dogmatic beliefs as followers of Jesus should be founded and centered on God’s word and Jesus’ teachings. Opinions are valuable, and everyone is entitled to have them—but for this debate, use scriptures found in the Bible to support them.

For those who already feel heated reading this, remember that as brothers in Christ, we should always be seeking ways to edify ourselves and each other against the spiritual assault of the enemy. Speak and write with love in your hearts for one another, not hatred or pride. Seek to know the truth and help eliminate confusion within our community–at least as much as possible. Please, share what you know and help us all.

1 Like

Since I opened this can-o-worms, I’ll be the first to ask for guidance on the matter.

It is my truest belief as of yet, that it is a sin for a man to have sex outside of marriage, with anything or anyone who is not a woman. The same for women, but with cisgenders flipped. I believe this is made relevant in several passages:

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV): “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

1 Corinthians 7:2-3 (KJV): “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”

Genesis 2:24 (KJV): “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

1 Corinthians 6:18 (KJV): “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

Galatians 5:19-21 (KJV): “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Ephesians 5:3 (KJV): “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.”

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 (KJV): “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV): “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Colossians 3:5 (KJV): “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”

I believe it also makes clear that our lustful thoughts are also called to attention in:

Matthew 5:28 (KJV): “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

What do you all think?

1 Like

I’ve had this discussion dozens of times over for the past 15+ years, from both sides of the isle, and here’s a summary of my current thoughts on the approach to the Bible:

It’s my belief that the Bible is our best window into the person of Christ, who is the center of our faith. Christianity is about following His example and living as He taught us. Because He is no longer walking the Earth, it’s valuable that we have a series of ancient documents that gives us the best understanding of Him, His teachings, and the context surrounding them. That’s why the Bible is so valuable.

It’s important, when understanding the Bible, to recognize who wrote every part of it, to whom they wrote it, why they wrote it, and the context in which it was written. One cannot simply just read a sentence of an English translation of the Bible and then instantly have full understanding of what they need to know. God and the Bible are so, so much bigger than that. It takes a lot of thought, prayer, and study to truly unpack even some of the simplest Bible verses, and even then there’s more to know, and often devout Christians will come to different conclusions about it. When Christians disagree on various tennets of Christianity or how to interpret parts of the Bible, it’s not always the case that some of them just “don’t follow the Bible.” Rather, they all want to follow what the Bible teaches us but have come to different conclusions as to what there is for it to teach.

On the topic of homosexuality, understanding the Bible on the topic is not especially simple, because “homosexuality” is a word that covers a LOT of things, and wasn’t even a word when the Bible was written. There are six verses in the entire Bible that speak condemningly about anything that relates to homosexuality, and when you dig into the history and whatnot, it’s not as clear-cut as it may seem at first glance.

It’s important to understand that in ancient societies, men would often have promiscuous sex with other men in contexts of prostitution, adultery, and even pagan worship. It goes without saying that this is wrong, and the writers of the Bible were right to call it out as sinful. One thing that WASN’T observed, was two women or two men who loved one another and sought to enter a monogamous relationship and/or marriage. At the time, marriage was basically an exchange of property (women) and a way to have offspring, and the Bible gives guidance on how to make the best of that arrangement, even if it wasn’t endorsing the “women as property” approach.

So then the question is, when the writers referred to things like “abusing yourself with mankind,” how exactly should that be translated? Many translators had decided to go with “homosexuality,” but that’s not really a precise choice. “Homosexuality” covers everything from a teenager being attracted to the same sex, to a woman who loves and is deeply devoted to her wife, raising their children together, to a man going out and having sex with several male strangers in one night. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that the authors of the Bible ever-so-conveniently were referring to the exact same concepts that we now think of when we use the English word “homosexuality.” So what to do? I think it’s best to understand the kinds of things they actually saw at the time.

In the case of the ancient Israelites, there are prohibition of men “lying with men as they would women” in Israel’s laws. It’s worth reiterating that Israel’s laws don’t apply to Christians, but it’s still good to try to understand why there was a law against it. Just like there was a law against eating pork because at the time pork was very unsanitary and caused diseases, so too was sex. ANY sex was unsanitary, but straight sex at least enabled offspring, so it was tolerated (but with a lot of rules, such as no sex near a menstrual period). Additionally, Israel was a nomadic nation constantly under pressure from larger, more powerful militaries. It was absolutely necessary for their survival to keep having new sons to be soldiers, so non-procreative sex was a no-no. The Old Law, similarly, condemns non-procreative sex between husband and wife for this reason. And ADDITIONALLY, as I mentioned earlier, gay sex was part of some pagan rituals and the Old Law sought to discourage people from participating in those rituals, because it brought them away from God. All in all, we’re no longer in need of a ton of soldiers to survive (our population is QUITE stable and is actually growing too fast), and sex, gay or straight, procreative or non-procreative, can be done sanitarily, especially if it’s done monogamously between two spouses (which means no risk of STDs). The prohibitions in Leviticus served an important purpose in Leviticus, but there’s a reason Christians are not held by its law; Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, and brought about a New Covenant. It’s the same reason Christians can eat shellfish now despite Leviticus calling it an abomination.

The Old Testament also has the oft-cited story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but this is really a pretty big misunderstanding. All one has to do is actually read the story and they’ll see this is NOT a story about homosexuality. Lot and his daughters lived in Sodom, and they were hosting an angel who appeared male. The men of the city wanted to assault the angel, which was a huge violation of the Middle East’s sacred hospitality (if someone was a guest in your home, you had a lot of obligations to them). Lot refused and offered his daughter (this comes back to bite him later, but it’s not especially important to this part), but they refuse. They didn’t refuse because she’s a woman; they refused because she was a local. The fact that some people read men attempting rape of a man and assume the problem is not that it was rape but that it was gay is, frankly, kind of troubling to me. Plus, if these men were just looking for gay sex they could have just slept with each other. No, their goal was to violate a traveler in their city. It’s worth noting that there is a much-less-discussed story in the book of Judges about a city called Gibbeah. In it a similar thing happens, only HERE, the family ARE travelers, and they DO accept his daughter and rape her to death. The punishment from God is still severe. It didn’t matter if it was attempted sexual assault of a man (Sodom) or a woman (Gibbeah). Additionally, the book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:49-50) also makes it clear that this wasn’t about homosexuality: “Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

If one wants to make a moral argument from the Bible, the New Testament is typically where they want to go. However, this topic isn’t discussed much in the New Testament either. The main thing people refer to is Paul’s condemnation in his first letter to the Corinthians of a word he created, “arsenokoites.” Many translators decided this was “homosexuality,” but this is kind of missing the mark. What Paul was doing in this letter was calling out the Corinthian church for adopting the sinful practices commonplace in Greece rather than being holy (“set aside”) like he taught them when he started the Corinthian church. And what did those practices include? Men sleeping with younger boys, male prostitutes, and with male slaves. Paul was right to condemn these Greek sexual practices, but I believe many people were wrong in mistakenly believing he was referring to any and all pairings between two men or two women; heck, he didn’t even MENTION women here. It’s also worth noting that this is the same word used in the Timothy verse, so there’s really no point in addressing that one separately. They were both Paul expressing similar concerns.

This leaves Romans 1. Here Paul describes how sinful Roman society is, and in part of it, he mentions their sexual habits between men. Just like Greece, Rome ALSO had some promiscuous sexual habits, and he was right to acknowledge them as wrong. Also, like Greece, the idea of two men or two women who want to pair up romantically in a way analogous to a moral heterosexual pairing was not a consideration, so it’s not really being discussed here. Paul even describes that it was straight men doing these things, not gay men (in these societies, it was less about sex and attraction and more about decadence and social dominance, after all). But even that’s kind of beside the point; why was Paul giving this description of Rome’s sin? The answer is in Romans 2: Paul was saying all this in order to have his reader sneer at the sinfulness of the Roman pagans, and then he hits them with this line: “Therefore, you hypocrites, you are no better, for you have done these same things!” Paul was calling out the church in Rome for conforming to pagan Rome’s sinful practices and then going around and acting like they’re better than them. Romans 1 is not about telling the reader what is or isn’t a sin. It’s about telling Christians that for us to act like our faith is better, we have to PROVE it. We need to LIVE our faith, and follow Christ’s example. We can’t just act just like everybody else and tell ourselves “Oh but we have Jesus so we’re morally superior.”

So in light of this, how should we handle two women who love each other and want to be a couple, or two men who love each other and want to be a couple? What’s the Bible’s guidance on this? This precise situation isn’t discussed at all in the Bible, so we are forced to handle it like the closest thing we can. And I disagree that the closest parallel in the Bible is a man leaving his wife to go sleep with his slave. I believe the closest parallel to two people of the same sex who love each other and want to be a couple is two people of the opposite sex who love each other and want to be a couple. Which is why I use that as the baseline for Christian relationship and sexual morality.

I thank you for your interpretation of what you have read. It’s a hot topic for everyone, especially those of us who are part of the LGBT+ community. However, we need to cite scripture to back up our point of view. Otherwise, it’s just an opinion not centric in the Christian faith. Simply saying…

…doesn’t give any direction. We know that understanding doesn’t just come casually, but rather from studying and searching for the context within scripture. I’d like to avoid this style of conjecture because it discourages some from reading and discussing for themselves for fear of “getting it wrong”. Remember, no one has a monopoly on all Christian knowledge.

I did not use the term “homosexuality” for the very reasons you’ve stated above. However, to help clarify, the sin of fornication and adultery have to do with having sex outside of marriage (Fornication is sex outside of marriage if you’re single; Adultery is having sex with anyone you’re not married to, when you’re married.)

As previously stated:

But the Bible doesn’t set the “exchange of property” as the basis for marriage itself. Rather, it clarifies it in Genesis 2:21-24:

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The Bible clearly notates cisgender in this passage and what role a man and woman take.

If we were to stick to the argument that marriage was just an exchange of property historically, then women would have no authority to marry at all, as they did not own “men” at that time unless she was a queen with slaves—But that convoluted the point.
The Biblical definition of marriage (which is the one we should focus on) would seem to be defined as a holy union between a man and a woman. Not between two men or two women. Doesn’t this then condem any act of sex outside the sanctity of marriage? And if not, where else is sex allowed outside thereof?

1 Like

I completely agree with you on:

And there is actually quite a lot discussed on the topic of marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:2-4
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Colossians 3:18-19
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

What other interpretation is there from these scriptures, within context, about the principles of marriage? They would seem to remain very much the same.

1 Like

There is a big logical flaw that’s often used when citing verses like these. A lot of people forget that explicit condoning of one thing is not the same as condemning of another.

I can say, for instance, “I love dogs”. That doesn’t mean that I hate cats and to infer one from the other is incorrect at best, and wilfully misconstruing my statement at worst. It is entirely possible to love both dogs and cats: the two are not mutually exclusive.

It’s exactly the same with bible verses about men and women in marriage. If they don’t explicitly condemn homosexuality, then they certainly are not condemning it by showing support for or mentioning structures and rules for heterosexual marriages.

It’s also important to look at context. If you look at Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees are asking Jesus about a man divorcing his wife so Jesus speaks about husbands and wives. The Pharisees never asked about homosexual relationships so Jesus didn’t refer to them there.

Likewise, with Ephesians. Paul was writing specifically to heterosexual couples in the Ephesian church about what their relationships should be like. He wasn’t writing to homosexual couples. therefore those letters have no relevance to homosexual relationships.

The example in Genesis 2 is again open to interpretation. It says why a man chooses to love a woman. It doesn’t say that a man can’t love a man. To put that interpretation into it is saying things that simply aren’t there.

You also have a bunch of verses there that are saying marriage = good, sexual impropriety = bad that aren’t expounding on what that impropriety is aside from adultery. Clearly adultery and homosexuality aren’t the same thing, and again, condemning one doesn’t mean condemning the other.

In fact, the word “homosexual”/“homosexuality” wasn’t even included in the Bible until 1946, and do you know who put it in there? Conservative American Christians. Other translations of the Bible, including in other languages, used phrases like “Man shall not lie with young boys” and “boy molesters shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Heck, the German bible didn’t include the word “homosexuality” until 1983! And guess who put it in? Biblica, the company that owns the NIV Bible.

One final note: whatever one’s thought’s on homosexuality though, it’s important to remember what Jesus said in Matthew 22 and Mark 12: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

That means no excluding homosexual people, no trying to convert us, no demonising or villainising us, no criminalising us. Treat us with the same love and respect with which you yourself expect and deserve to be treated.

Jesus literally says that loving God and LOVING EACH OTHER are the most important commandments and too many people forget that second part.

That is correct. However, I’m not staking the claim that homosexual marriage is wrong just because there is no mention of it, but rather that I can’t find the allowance for it in the Bible. The Bible recognizes marriage as a holy bond, under oath, between a man and a woman specifically. But it does not leave room for interpretation that cisgenders can be left open for interpretation regarding who is the “husband” and who is the “wife”.

Again, correct—mostly. The term “homosexual” was first coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny (also known as Karl-Maria Benkert), a Hungarian journalist and human rights campaigner. He coined the term in 1869 in a pamphlet advocating for the decriminalization of homosexuality. The term itself is clearly a modern term that combines the Greek word “homo,” meaning “same,” and the Latin word “sexus,” meaning “sex.” So, of course the word “homosexuality” doesn’t appear in the Bible. But so do many other words we use today. I’m not going to provide the huge list of those terms though, as I’m sure you’re able to deduce my meaning.

Yes! Of course, I agree with you here. And love for my neighbor and myself has been the whole reason for this debate, certainly not hate.

But let’s not try to wrap this debate up with a neat little bow and say that it doesn’t matter, so long as you love everyone as you love yourself. Let’s not forget that it is our duty to keep seeking truth and to keep realigning ourselves to be in sync with the teachings of God:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

And though some truths are hard to receive, but the truth found in the Bible is always going to be the desire of the followers of Christ:

Hebrews 12:11
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

The whole reason this debate is open is because no one has yet been able to bring Biblical justification/proof to synch up with the claim that marriage does not care about cisgender. If cisgender doesn’t matter for marriage, then that means we can marry whoever we want > Which means “homosexual” sex isn’t a sin, as long as it remains within the confines of marriage > Which means we can feel free and encourage seeking out gay relationships > Which means I could finally propose to the man I love and live guiltlessly, enjoying all the joys and pleasures that marriage gives–but with another man.

The debate is here because I can’t find that, which is why I’m asking for help in finding that Biblical justification.

Again, explicit support for one thing does not mean condemnation of another. What you’re looking for is a passage in the bible that specifically says homosexuality is fine. And, to be honest, that doesn’t exist. Nor does the bible ever explicitly say homosexuality is wrong. You are correct that the bible does talk a lot about heterosexual marriage but that’s because THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE WERE ASKING JESUS/THE APOSTLES ABOUT. Heterosexual marriage always was and still is the most common form of marriage so that’s what the biblical authors felt it was most important to address. Nowhere does the bible say that marriage is specifically and only for straight couples though, rather it says that men and women get married.

You’re missing my point here. I used the term “homosexual”/“homosexuality” as the modern translation. Nowhere in the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew versions of the bible is a word used that can be translated as “homosexual/homosexuality”. The original words were always translated as, and always meant, “men molesting boys” until American conservatives started using the bible to push their own agenda in 1943. Homosexuality is never condemned or even mentioned in the original texts.

And this is the whole crux of the issue. The whole debate is not about what the bible says, but rather about how people want to interpret it. People always want to read a lot of extra meaning into bible verses. I, on the other paw, subscribe to the Occam’s Razor theory. The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. The biblical authors never wrote about homosexuality because they considered it a non-issue. Something harmless and not sinful that they didn’t need to address. They were far more concerned about rampant infidelity in marriage and rampant child abuse than they were about two consenting adults loving each other. They were saying “Hey, wasn’t your marriage blessed by God? Weren’t you made for each other? Why are you cheating on each other and tearing it apart?” not “gay marriage is bad”.

The moment a capitalist corporation owns the rights to a Bible translation is the moment Christianity is in trouble, hoo-boy

For what it’s worth, the bible also doesn’t say a single thing about being furries. Or other insignificant things, like reading picture books or watching movies. By this logic, I guess we should burn every film that’s ever been produced, no matter how Christian they may be, because the Bible doesn’t explicitly saw we’re allowed to watch them. See the logic problem here?

I’m not really trying to get wrapped up in this conversation, just wanted to toss in these two meager cents.

Perhaps to avoid talking past each other, let’s not use the term “homosexuality”. Sleet was the first to use it and I’ve tried avoiding it as I’ve mentioned, and now you’re using that term as a strawman in a tangential topic of why the word “homosexual” is found in modern-day English translations of the Bible.

This is why you should avoid the term “homosexual”. Just this standalone statement is technically true. But, the argument you present is solely on the usage of the term, and since the term is not found in the original texts, there is no condemnation of it. You can hopefully see how this is not useful here.

The act of men having sex with other men is mentioned in the Bible and it does condemn it. In fact, it’s mentioned soooo many times, each with condemnation

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Leviticus 18:22
“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Romans 1:26-27
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10
"9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

Admittedly, in 1 Timothy 1 “Sodomites” is the closest contextual term used. In the original Greek it’s “arsenokites” which would provide a sound argument against the claim that “Homosexuality” was just a weaponized term used by conservative American Christians as I recall. But that is another topic.

Again, the term “homosexuality” gets in the way here. But that aside, the Bible does talk about allowances of what some considered sin at the time. In Acts 10:9-16 we read:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.
12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds.
13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

This one was pretty obvious to everyone. But it was for food.

Correct. People always want to interpret what the Bible says and mold it into something that it’s not.

My point is that sex outside of marriage is portrayed as a sin. It seems clear to me, but to others who do not like that conclusion for whatever reasons, will fight against it and claim to interpret the Bible in a way that allows sex outside of marriage.
I’m not sure, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your argument is based off of the assumption that marriage between men is not sinful. And therefore:

…which I’m sure you’ll agree is pure opinion at its core. And again, the term homosexual is an easy word to defend within this opinion. As for the sexual acts occurring between two consenting men, they did address that as shown in the scriptures noted above.

Here’s what I find most interesting about this take: If marriage between two men was uncommon or rare, but not sinful, why isn’t it mentioned anywhere in the Bible? Why didn’t the Pharisees use it as a way to challenge Jesus’ teachings? Surely a non-sinful thing such as marriage between two people of the same sex would garner some attention from God, no?

Marriage, and therefore sex, is a thoroughly talked about topic in the Bible. We have a lot to pull from here!

2 Corinthians 6:14
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Avoid marriage with a non-believer

Leviticus 18:6-24
6 “ ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 “ ‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “ ‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “ ‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “ ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “ ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.

No incest (v. 6, 6-17), no polygamy or threesomes+ (v. 17,18), no unclean sex (v. 19), no adultery (v. 20), no child sacrifice–suddenly (v. 21), no sex between men (v. 22), and no bestiality (v. 23).

Matthew 19:3-9
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10:2-12
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Emphasizing that marriage should be a lifelong commitment. To say nothing about the cisgenders used here.

From what I gather, marriage is never linked with two men because it does not recognize it at all or even recognize it to be possible. Therefore, it isn’t mentioned. You’re right, it was a non-issue because at the time it was clear that there was no such thing as a marriage between two men or two women.

I’d really like to encourage you to reconsider! As Christians, it’s important to make sure we understand the Bible and guard against how it can be manipulated against us. Please feel free to take part in this discussion. Don’t be afraid of us, your brothers in Christ! You might just bring a brand new perspective to the table no one has considered.

To go further, the Bible also doesn’t mention abortion, drug abuse, internet pornography, human trafficking, environmental destruction, cyberbullying, or greedy corporate practices by name. But what the Bible does give us are its Biblical principles and teachings that infer that many unnamed issues are sinful and inconsistent with God’s teachings. I’m certainly not saying that being a furry is a sin. After all, Jesus is referred to as both a lion and a lamb. Satan was also referred to as a ravenous lion and a literal serpent for what it matters. The point is, there is no logical problem here. Only a difference in interpretation.

That aside, there are direct Biblical scripture references that I’ve brought alongside my interpretations as support for them. As I’ve mentioned at the beginning, use scripture to support your opinions. (“Your” as in ‘everyone’).

Hi everyone!
I’m really grateful that this was posted. When I was more active here, I considered making a forum about this very topic, however I decided not to so that I could avoid sparking arguments that would become sinful. However, God does tell us that, as Christians, we should not be ashamed of our faith or beliefs, so I’ll go ahead and throw my two cents in here.

One part of the Bible I like to reference regarding this topic is Romans 1:26-27, which, in NIV, says this:
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

I also agree with the belief that any sex outside of the God-ordained marriage of one man and one woman is sinful. Any unmarried couple (or more than two people), or married couple/more than two people of the same sex, is what I believe God would consider to be sin.

Beyond what the Bible says explicitly, I just don’t think that humans were biologically made to be sexually compatible with others of the same sex. With all life that does not asexually reproduce, there needs to be a male and female present in order to have offspring. The male sexual organs were designed for reproduction with female sexual organs and vice versa.
While it can be said that human relationships are dissimilar to those of animals, I agree! Human relationships obviously have many more emotional, psychological, and spiritual things connected to them, because unlike animals, the sole purpose of romantic human relationships is not just reproduction. However, God doesn’t really acknowledge romantic relationships between humans until they’re joined in marriage. And I would argue that sex is an essential part of marriage. So while there do exist stages of romantic relationships that happen before marriage, and even relationships that are mutually never intended to reach marriage, it is my opinion that people are either called to get married and have sex, or not get married and remain abstinent. I know some people who don’t really feel any desire to get married or have sex, and it would make sense if God’s plan for their life does not include marriage. Which is perfectly fine, God’s plan for every individual is unique and different.

Anyway, just thought I’d drop this that has been on my heart for a little while. I need you all to know that I mean no hate or judgement to anyone who disagrees with me in any way, as God also calls us not to judge one another, since only He is the almighty and all-knowing one who reserves the right to judge us lesser beings. In the same sense, He also calls us to love one another as ourselves, since again, we are all equal in value to each other in God’s eyes.

I will pray for all of you and please have a blessed morning, afternoon, or night :raised_hands:t4:

1 Like

I’m glad you made this observation! I can’t say I know of any unified stance the Bible takes on ‘romance’ itself. It only models romance in book of Song of Solomon where we read all kinds of beautiful outward expressions of love–which isn’t to say that there’s all there is to it. I guess it depends of what you believe romance to be. Also, some people might consider some things to be “romantic” and other not.
Now, love is certainly a related concept, but it’s not equivalantly the same thing. Two people can love each other, but not view their relationship as being necessarily “romantic”, or they could have mixed views about it, not to mention how others outside of their relationship view it as well. But the Bible does give us it’s stance on Love especially within marriage. For example:

  • Ephesians 5:25 instructs husbands to love their wives just as Christ loved the church, highlighting a deep, selfless form of love.

  • 1 Peter 3:7 urge husbands to be considerate and respectful towards their wives.

  • 1 Corinthians 13 focuses on selflessness, patience, kindness, and forgiveness.

I mean, I think the Bible is God’s expression of love for us! All of it.

Just because you can’t marry someone, or have sex with them, doesn’t mean that you can’t have a big, meaningful, mutually exclusive even, relationship with them. It’s up to the individual to decide for themselves what they consider to be/ what purpose they assign to “Romance”, and judge whether it’s a good idea to integrate it in their relationships. There are tons of ways I believe romance is used in everyday relationships! I’ve seen it be rewritten as “bromance”, but if you do the same things within your marriage, it’s “romance”. I don’t see the problem. The problem arises when you seek out romance for the sole purpose of marriage and/or facilitating sex. But that’s just my take on it. Again, please understand that I hold no hate or judgement against anyone who disagrees.

Edit: added context

So a big hangup I have here is that we cannot assume a priori that marriage must, by definition, be heterosexual. Same-sex marriage takes the exact same form as opposite-sex marriage; the only difference is the gender of the people.

Keep in mind the Bible very much speaks to the world it was written to; it only mentions sandals, not boots, because that’s what shoes looked like back then. Not because sandals are God’s design for shoes. Heck, the Bible discusses slavery, considering that’s how society existed.

Marriage, at the time, was exclusively heterosexual for entirely secular reasons. The verses in the Bible discussed how to exist in that framework. Not as a commandment that it’s the only gender configuration allowed. Modern opposite-sex marriage has more in common than modern same-sex marriage than it does with Bible-era opposite-sex marriage. The details change with time, but the values God endorses for it do not. Same-sex couples can take the same biblical wisdom on marriage as opposite-sex couples, and should do so.

If the idea is truly that straight and gay people play by the same rules with the sole exception that gay couples can’t get married, the question I would raise is this: Why? Why would gay people have the exact same love, commitment, and drives as straight people, and those relationships take the exact same form, and yet marriage is only God’s design for straight people?

The debate is here because I can’t find that, which is why I’m asking for help in finding that Biblical justification.

I think it’s also important to look at it the right way. Can you find Biblical justification for alienating gay people as belonging in a lesser position, which is essentially what this position is? How does that fit with the greater narrative of the Bible? I think we should have to justify exclusion from a default position of inclusion, not the other way around.

To go further, the Bible also doesn’t mention abortion, drug abuse, internet pornography, human trafficking, environmental destruction, cyberbullying, or greedy corporate practices by name. But what the Bible does give us are its Biblical principles and teachings that infer that many unnamed issues are sinful and inconsistent with God’s teachings.

I think this is a super important point you made. I agree 100%. And I would argue that loving, committed same-sex relationships and marriage are in this category; it’s not something that is truly discussed in the Bible, but we need to work to apply Biblical principles to it. And I don’t think there really is any justification for condemning outside of what amounts to variations on “we’ve always done it this way.”