Updated January 31, 2026 (MST): This article has been substantially revised and expanded to engage more thoroughly with contemporary revisionist arguments, including detailed exegesis of key biblical texts and interaction with the strongest versions of opposing viewpoints.
Opening: A Question That Deserves Honest Engagement
Few questions in contemporary Christianity generate more heat—and less light—than whether the Bible supports or condemns same-sex relationships. This is not merely an academic debate. Real people are asking whether they can be both gay and Christian. Families are wrestling with how to love children who have come out. Churches are dividing over ordination policies. And the wider culture increasingly views any traditional sexual ethic as bigotry dressed in religious language.
We do not approach this question dismissively. The person wrestling with same-sex attraction and wondering whether God can accept them deserves a serious, theologically grounded response—not bumper-sticker slogans or culture-war rhetoric. Doubt and struggle are not the enemies of faith; they are often the pathway to deeper understanding.
At the same time, compassion cannot override our commitment to truth. If Scripture speaks clearly on this matter—and we believe it does—then genuine love requires us to say so, even when the message is unwelcome. The question is not what we wish the Bible said, but what it actually teaches.
The Central Question
Does the Bible, rightly interpreted, affirm same-sex sexual relationships, or does it consistently present them as contrary to God’s design for human sexuality?
This question carries enormous theological stakes. If the revisionist position is correct, then the church has been guilty of terrible harm for two millennia—wrongly condemning what God blesses. If the traditional position is correct, then the revisionist movement, however well-intentioned, is leading people away from obedience to Christ under the guise of compassion.
We cannot have it both ways. One of these positions is catastrophically wrong.
Our Theological Commitments
Before examining the arguments, we should be transparent about our commitments:
- Scripture as final authority. We believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word and the ultimate standard for faith and practice. Experience, tradition, and reason are valuable, but they must submit to Scripture, not the reverse.
- God’s sovereignty over all reality. The Creator defines what is good for His creatures. We do not get to vote on God’s moral standards.
- Human reason as real but fallen. We can know truth, but our minds are affected by sin. We are prone to rationalize what we desire and suppress what we find inconvenient (Romans 1:18).
With these commitments stated, let us engage the strongest arguments from the revisionist position.
Steel-Manning the Revisionist Arguments
Credibility requires that we present opposing arguments at their strongest, not as caricatures. Writers like Matthew Vines (God and the Gay Christian) have articulated sophisticated cases for affirming same-sex relationships. Here are the three most compelling arguments:
Argument 1: The “Bad Fruit” Argument
Vines argues that Jesus gave us a clear test: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit” (Matthew 7:18). The traditional non-affirming position, he contends, has produced terrible fruit for centuries: self-hatred, depression, alienation from God, and suicide among LGBT youth.
The logic runs: If the traditional interpretation destroys people and drives them away from God, it cannot be the correct interpretation. Mandatory celibacy is a burden God does not require, cutting gay Christians off from the relational companionship God declared “good” in Genesis.
Argument 2: The “Anachronism” Argument
Vines argues that biblical authors had no concept of “sexual orientation” as a fixed, exclusive attraction. In the ancient world, same-sex behavior was viewed as a vice of excess—like gluttony. Everyone was assumed to be heterosexual; those who slept with men were simply so lustful that women no longer satisfied them.
Therefore, when Paul condemns “unnatural” acts in Romans 1, he is condemning heterosexuals acting contrary to their nature due to insatiable lust—not gay Christians acting consistently with their orientation in a loving, committed relationship.
Argument 3: The “Patriarchy vs. Anatomy” Argument
Vines argues that the prohibitions in Leviticus and Romans are not about biology but about maintaining ancient gender hierarchies. In the patriarchal ancient world, it was shameful for a man to act like a woman (to be penetrated). The Bible calls these acts “abominations” because they disrupted social status, not because they violated a moral law.
Since we no longer accept the inferiority of women, these patriarchy-based prohibitions are no longer binding.
These are serious arguments that deserve serious responses.
Why This Objection Persuades
Before offering our response, we must understand why the revisionist position feels so compelling to many. It is not enough to say people “just want to sin.” The affirming position persuades because it appeals to genuine moral intuitions:
The Appeal to Compassion. Modern culture views morality primarily through the lens of harm reduction. If something doesn’t hurt anyone and produces loving relationships, how can it be wrong? When we see gay couples who seem happy and committed, experience tells us “this can’t be sin.”
The Conflation of Desire and Identity. Society has accepted the premise that sexual orientation is the core of human personhood. When the church condemns same-sex behavior, the world hears a condemnation of the person. If homosexuality is who you are rather than what you do, then asking for repentance sounds like asking someone to cease existing.
The “Right Side of History” Narrative. Revisionists frame the debate as moral progress, arguing the church has been wrong before (slavery, Galileo) and is wrong again. No one wants to be a modern-day slaveholder. By linking gay affirmation to abolition, revisionists claim the moral high ground.
The Failure of the Church. The affirming view often offers what the orthodox church fails to provide: genuine community. If the church offers only moral prohibition without offering a loving family, the affirming view wins by default.
Understanding these dynamics helps us respond with both truth and compassion.
Clarifying Biblical Categories
Much confusion arises from failing to distinguish biblical categories that the modern discussion collapses together.
Creation Ordinance vs. Cultural Custom
Revisionists argue that since Christians don’t follow Levitical laws about shellfish or mixed fabrics, we shouldn’t follow laws about homosexuality. But this commits a category error.
The prohibition on same-sex intercourse is not a Jewish “purity taboo.” It is embedded in a moral code (alongside incest, adultery, and bestiality) that applies universally. God explicitly warns that the Gentile nations were judged for the sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18—but God never judged Gentiles for eating pork or not keeping the Sabbath. The sexual prohibitions are universal moral laws; the dietary laws were temporary covenant markers for Israel.
Furthermore, Jesus explicitly declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), treating diet as a ritual matter. But regarding sexuality, Jesus strictly reaffirmed the Creation narrative of Genesis 1-2 (Matthew 19:4-6).
Structural Complementarity vs. Mutual Affection
The sin of homosexuality in Scripture is not merely about “excessive lust” or “exploitative dominance.” It is a rejection of the material shape of God’s creation.
Paul’s use of “contrary to nature” in Romans 1 refers to the material, anatomical design of male and female bodies. The argument that “the parts don’t fit” is not crude; it is theological evidence that God designed the two sexes to form a single organic unit. Two men or two women cannot form a “one flesh” union because they lack the biological distinctiveness required to reunite the “halves” of humanity mentioned in Genesis 2.
Original Sin vs. “Born That Way”
Just because a desire is innate does not mean it is natural in the sense of being designed by God. A Christian anthropology acknowledges that the Fall corrupted our entire nature. Many impulses may be genetic or innate—predispositions toward alcoholism, violence, anxiety—but we do not validate them as “identity.” We view them as part of the fallen condition to be resisted.
The “born this way” argument proves too much. It would validate any innate desire as morally good, which no one actually believes.
The Christian Response
Having clarified our categories, we now turn to the specific texts that address homosexual practice.
Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
The Revisionist Claim: The sin of Sodom was inhospitality and threatened gang rape, not consensual relationships. Ezekiel 16:49 proves the sin was social injustice, not sexuality.
The Response: While inhospitality was present, the nature of Sodom’s wickedness was sexual perversion. Jude 7 explicitly interprets Sodom’s sin: they “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (Greek: sarkos heteras). This refers to the violation of the created order—men desiring men rather than women.
Furthermore, Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob, but they refused them, insisting on the male visitors (Genesis 19:5-9). If their intent was merely violence or domination, the daughters would have sufficed. The mob’s specific demand proves their intent was sexually specific to males.
Revisionists often stop reading at Ezekiel 16:49. Verse 50 continues: “They were haughty and committed abomination before Me.” The Hebrew word for abomination (to’evah) is the exact term used in Leviticus 18:22 for homosexual acts.
The Levitical Prohibitions (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
The Revisionist Claim: These verses condemn idolatry (temple prostitution) or patriarchal gender violations, not same-sex love. The “Shellfish Argument” applies.
The Response: As noted above, the “Canaanite Test” proves these are universal moral laws. God judged the Gentile Canaanites for these sexual sins before Israel ever existed—but never for eating shellfish.
The contextual grouping is decisive: the prohibition on homosexuality sits alongside bans on incest, adultery, and bestiality. If we discard the homosexuality ban as “ceremonial,” we lose the biblical basis for prohibiting incest and bestiality as well.
The Hebrew phrase “lying as with a woman” indicates that the abomination is gender confusion—treating a man as if he were a woman, violating the structural complementarity of Genesis 1-2. Notably, both partners (active and passive) are condemned to death in Leviticus 20:13. If the sin were merely about a man lowering his status, the active partner wouldn’t be punished. Both are condemned because the act itself is the issue.
Romans 1:26-27 (The Key Text)
The Revisionist Claim: Paul is describing heterosexuals who override their natural orientation to indulge in excessive lust. This passage condemns lustful excess, not those who are “naturally” gay.
The Response: This is the most important text to understand. Paul uses the biological terms “males” (arsenes) and “females” (theleiai) rather than the social terms “men” and “women.” This recalls the creation account of Genesis 1:27 (“Male and female He created them”). Paul is arguing that homosexual acts violate biological design, not internal “sexual orientation.”
“Contrary to nature” (para physin) in this context refers to the Creator’s material design—the anatomical and procreative fit—not a person’s subjective feelings. To act “contrary to nature” is to use the body in a way the Creator did not design.
Crucially, Paul explicitly condemns the mutual desire of the participants: “burned in their desire toward one another” (Romans 1:27). This refutes the claim that Paul was only condemning exploitative pederasty. He condemns adult, consensual, mutual desire when it violates God’s design.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 (The Greek Terms)
The Revisionist Claim: The Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai are obscure; malakoi means “soft/lazy” and arsenokoitai refers to economic exploiters, not loving partners.
The Response: The word arsenokoitai is a compound of arsenos (male) and koiten (bed/lie). It is a direct citation of the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13. Paul coined this word to explicitly reference the Moral Law of Leviticus. It means “men who have sex with men,” regardless of context.
Malakoi in sexual contexts of the ancient world referred to the passive partner in a same-sex act. By listing both terms, Paul creates a “merism”—covering both active and passive roles to condemn the act in its entirety.
Most importantly, Paul says, “Such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11). The past tense implies that the behavior defines a person’s past, not their identity in Christ. The gospel empowers people to leave sinful behaviors behind.
Internal Critique: The “Born That Way” Narrative
The modern objection rests on two pillars: Scientific Determinism (I am fixed this way) and Ontological Identity (This is who I am). If these stand, the biblical command to repent feels like a command to self-destruct.
But these pillars are weaker than they appear:
No “Gay Gene.” Despite media claims, research has not identified a single gene that determines orientation. Identical twin studies show that if one twin is homosexual, there is only a modest chance the other will be—proving environmental factors play a massive role.
Plasticity of Desire. Sexual orientation is often fluid, particularly among women. Many people experience shifts in their attractions over a lifetime. The claim that orientation is an immutable block from birth is scientifically unsupportable.
Innate ≠ Good. Even granting a biological predisposition does not render the behavior moral. A person may have genetic predispositions toward alcoholism or violence, but we don’t validate these as “identity.” We view them as part of the fallen condition to be resisted.
Identity in Christ. To define oneself by sexual desires (“I am gay”) rather than by God’s Word is to commit a form of idolatry. The solution is not to deny the struggle but to deny that the struggle defines the person.
Addressing Common Rejoinders
“You eat shellfish, don’t you?” See the “Canaanite Test” above. God judged Gentiles for sexual immorality but never for dietary violations. The sexual prohibitions are universal moral law; dietary laws were Israel-specific covenant markers. Jesus declared all foods clean; He reaffirmed Genesis on sexuality.
“Sodom was about inhospitality.” The New Testament explicitly interprets Sodom’s sin as sexual (Jude 7). Lot offered his daughters, and the mob refused them—proving their intent was specifically sexual desire for males. And Ezekiel 16:50 calls their sin “abomination”—the same term Leviticus uses for homosexuality.
“The ‘bad fruit’ proves the traditional view is wrong.” We cannot redefine “good fruit” based on human happiness. The fruit Jesus refers to is obedience and holiness, not emotional satisfaction. The cost of discipleship is high for everyone. The heterosexual must deny fornication and adultery; the person with same-sex attraction must deny those urges. Jesus never promised lack of suffering—He promised we would find life by losing it.
Redemptive and Pastoral Orientation
Our goal is not to win arguments but to point people to Christ. The pastoral heart of this discussion requires several emphases:
Reframe Identity. Our identity is not found in our temptations but in our union with Christ. Using the label “Gay Christian” robs people of the hope of transformation. “Such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11)—in Christ, the old identity is washed away.
Acknowledge the Cost. We do not minimize the difficulty of this calling. Sanctification is war. Obedience often feels like throwing oneself off a cliff. But Jesus didn’t come to help us fulfill our sexual potential; He came to make us holy.
Offer Community. You cannot ask someone to give up their community without offering them a better one. Jesus promised that those who leave family for His sake will receive a “hundredfold” in this life (Mark 10:29-30). The church must be that family—offering genuine hospitality, not mere moral prohibition.
Distinguish Acceptance from Affirmation. Jesus welcomed prostitutes and tax collectors but did not leave them in their sin. True love means “befriending the homosexual while withholding approval,” helping them carry their burden rather than lying about the weight of it.
Conclusion
The Bible is not pro-homosexual. It consistently presents homosexual practice as contrary to God’s design for human sexuality, rooted in the Creation order of Genesis 1-2. This is not a matter of a few “clobber passages” but a coherent theology of sexuality woven throughout Scripture.
Yet this truth must be held with pastoral tenderness. The person struggling with same-sex attraction is not the enemy—they are someone for whom Christ died. They deserve honesty about what Scripture teaches, community that welcomes them in their struggle, and hope that their identity can be found in Christ rather than in their desires.
We hold out no cheap grace that leaves people in their sin. But we also extend no condemnation to those who are fighting the good fight, carrying their cross, and seeking to follow Jesus however imperfectly. The gospel message remains: Come as you are—but don’t stay as you are. Let Christ transform you from the inside out.
“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:11
Recommended Resources
For those wanting to study this issue more deeply, we recommend:
- Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press, 2001) — The definitive scholarly treatment of the biblical texts.
- Michael L. Brown, Can You Be Gay and Christian? (FrontLine, 2014) — Accessible and pastorally sensitive.
- James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell, The Same Sex Controversy (Bethany House, 2002) — Clear apologetic engagement.
- Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (Crown & Covenant, 2012) — A powerful personal testimony from a former lesbian professor.
We welcome honest dialogue. Where do you find this response most challenging? What questions remain? The conversation continues.