First, what does it mean to be LGBTQ-affirming? It does not mean that one condones acts of promiscuous sodomy. Instead, to be LGBTQ-affirming is to affirm what the New Testament states in 1 John 4:15 [NRSVue]: “God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God.”

That verse applies to all people who believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God, including people who are members of the LGBTQ community. Nothing in the Bible prevents members of the LGBTQ community from believing and confessing that Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus said that all sins are forgivable except one, with the one unforgivable sin being blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Members of the LGBTQ community who believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God have not committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Second, the anti-affirming group gets sexual orientation mixed up with chosen sexual behavior. Medical science points to one’s sexual orientation not being a choice (Example A, Example B, Example C, Example D). If that is the case, then it is wrong to condemn members of the LGBTQ community for something that they have no control over. The Bible certainly doesn’t condemn them for such a thing.

In contrast, one’s sexual behavior is usually a choice when one is an adult, and it is behavior that the Bible addresses, not orientation. One having a particular sexual orientation doesn’t mean that one will automatically participate in sinful activity.

Third, the Apostle Paul did not write his letters within a cultural vacuum. Instead, he had the Greco-Roman culture of his day in mind when he wrote. In his letters, Paul addresses issues pertaining to that culture. So, if one wants to have a correct understanding of Paul’s teachings, then one needs to have a correct understanding of the Greco-Roman culture of his day.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul coins the Greek word Arsenokoitai, and it has no exact English equivalent. When Martin Luther translated the word into German, he translated it as Knabenschänder, which translates into English as pederast. Some modern German versions of the Bible also translate Arsenokoitai as Knabenschänder (English: pederast). When the Paul was writing his letters, pederasty was routinely practiced by free Roman men.

History scholar Mariah Cavanaugh writes the following:

“The act of pederasty was an integral part of society in ancient Greece and at that time they saw the practice as a pivotal moment in the maturing of young men. Greek men courted their younger Greek counterparts just as they were entering adulthood by ancient standards. Once a match was made, the older man became the teacher, protector, and model of courage, virtue, and wisdom for the young man on his path through early adulthood. We cannot fit the pederastic relationship within our modern beliefs about sexuality, pedophilia, or even our current definition of pederasty. Moreover, we should challenge our discomfort with this practice with our discomfort with the same practice for young girls at that time.”*

In Paul’s day, free Roman men routinely used sexual activity as a weapon, as Christian blogger Tim Challies explains:

“Romans did not think in terms of sexual orientation. Rather, sexuality was tied to ideas of masculinity, male domination, and the adoption of the Greek pursuit of beauty. “In the Roman mind, the strong took what they wanted to take. It was socially acceptable for a strong Roman male to have intercourse with men or women alike, provided he was the aggressor. It was looked down upon to play the female ‘receptive’ role in homosexual liaisons.”

A real man dominated in the bedroom as he did on the battlefield. He would have sex with his slaves whether they were male or female; he would visit prostitutes; he would have homosexual encounters even while married; he would engage in pederasty; even rape was generally acceptable as long as he only raped people of a lower status. “He was strong, muscular, and hard in both body and spirit. Society looked down on him only when he appeared weak or soft.” So Romans did not think of people as being oriented toward homosexuality or heterosexuality. Rather, they understood that a respectable man would express his dominance by having sex – consensual or forced – with men, women, and even children.”**

In short, free Roman men expressed dominance by raping other men and boys as well as raping women and girls. It is possible that such behavior on the part of free Roman men is what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26–27.

A similar thing happens in the the biblical story about the ancient city of Sodom. The men of that city tried to rape Lot’s two male visitors.

One should acknowledge that the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament) generally condemns one man sodomizing another man, but there may be a practical earthly reason for the condemnation. Science reveals that promiscuous sodomy is medically dangerous, just as heterosexual promiscuity is medically dangerous. Click here to read an example of the latter.

Here are links to some science articles that point out just how medically dangerous that promiscuous sodomy is:

Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men

Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health Issues

Sex between men, not skin contact, is fueling monkeypox, new research suggests

What are the Risks of Anal Sex?

Why the monkeypox outbreak is mostly affecting men who have sex with men

‘High-Risk’ Sex Could Raise Odds for Crohn’s, Colitis in Gay Men

Anal Sex – 5 Reasons Why it is Not Good for Your Health

Scientists Find That Gay Men Are Twice As Likely To Have This Disease

If one is going to accept what science has to say about the origin of sexual orientation, then one needs to also accept what science says about promiscuous sodomy. Otherwise one will be a hypocrite.

Considering just how medically dangerous that promiscuous sodomy is, one has a scientific reason to not condone promiscuous sodomy. As it turns out, one can be a member of the LGBTQ community and never participate in promiscuous sodomy. Thus, one can be LGBTQ-affirming without condoning promiscuous sodomy.

Now, one might ask, “What about lesbians? They don’t necessarily participate in sodomy. Doesn’t the Bible condemn lesbian sex?”

Here is Young’s Literal Translation of Romans 1:26: “Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature.” Paul’s statement is vague because he doesn’t explain what he means by natural use and against nature. It would be a mistake to read into Paul’s words something that isn’t there.

That mistake is made by people who put the word homosexual into modern versions of the Bible. In those versions, homosexual is being used as a substitute for sodomite. That is an error because the word homosexual has too broad of a meaning to be an accurate substitute for sodomite.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines homosexual as “a person, usually a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” The University of California, Davis defines homosexual as “An outdated term to describe a sexual orientation in which a person feels physically and emotionally attracted to people of the same gender. Historically, it was a term used to pathologize gay and lesbian people.”

A person can fit the definition of homosexual and never participate in sodomy. Indeed, one can fit the definition of homosexual and also be celibate. Thus, it is an error to use the word homosexual in versions of the Bible as a substitute for sodomite. If a word in the Greek biblical manuscripts literally means sodomite, then sodomite should be the translation, thus giving the reader a clear, specific understanding of the Greek word.

Now, regarding same-gender marriage, such a thing would not make sense if procreation were the only purpose of marriage. Yet, marriage has a purpose other than procreation, which why one finds same-gender couples desiring marriage.

That other purpose of marriage has everything to do with the legal benefits that marriage provides. It is the same reason why heterosexual couples desire marriage even if they don’t want to procreate. The Bible doesn’t require every married couple to procreate, just as the Bible doesn’t ban a married couple from using birth control.

One can see an advantage in two gay men or two lesbians marrying each other. If they are committed to monogamy, if they don’t commit adultery, then any natural consequences of their sexual activity will be confined to their monogamous relationship. The same is true for heterosexuals who marry each other.

As stated earlier, science reveals that promiscuous sodomy is medically dangerous. It would be bad for a community to be exposed to the dangers of risky sexual activity. Yet, when two people are committed to monogamy, they do not expose the community to the dangers of risky sexual activity. Thus, same-gender marriage has a public benefit as well as a private legal one.

Like it or not, marriage is a civil institution because it bestows certain legal benefits. Nothing in the Bible forbids members of the LGBTQ community from possessing those legal benefits.

If members of the LGBTQ community are sexually celibate or engaging in sex within the confines of marriage, then they are not risking harm to the general community. Harming the general community is what the Bible condemns.

Quote Sources:

*Cavanaugh, M. (2017, December 3). Ancient Greek Pederasty: Education or Exploitation? StMU Research Scholars. https://stmuscholars.org/ancient-greek-pederasty-education-or-exploitation/

**Challies, T. (2016, October 17). 3 Awful Features of Roman Sexual Morality. Challies. https://www.challies.com/articles/3-awful-features-of-roman-sexual-morality/