Category Archives: Text


Does the Bible Say Homosexuality/Bisexuality is a Sin?

The Old Testament

The Old Testament prohibits homosexuality (and therefore bisexuality).

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).”

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;… (Leviticus 20:13).

But these verses are from the Old Covenant that God made with Moses and the Jewish people. Christians live under the New Covenant and therefore these passages are not binding.”

While much of the Old Covenant is not binding on Christians, it is mistaken to assert that none of it is binding on Christians. What primarily carries forward are moral commandments. Nine out of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. The prohibition against homosexuality is not just repeated in the New Testament but is even more clear. And both chapters 18 and 20 in Leviticus are clear that God is not only finds homosexuality sinful for Jews but Gentiles as well.

“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 18:2-30).”

“You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them (Leviticus 20:22-23).”

So God judged the Canaanites sexual sins to be so serious He had them driven out of their land. Leviticus 18:26 also mentions that both native (Jews) and strangers (Gentiles) were not to engage in the sexual sins listed in the chapter.

But these passages are referencing abusive homosexuality, such as between men and boys. That was common then and must be what Moses had in mind.”

Both passages speak of adults, men and women. To say otherwise is to read into the text and not what it actually states. There is simply no basis for such an interpretation.

These passages only speak of male homosexuality. Therefore, lesbianism must be permissible.”

There are no biblical or extra-biblical historical records of religious Jews approving of lesbian relationships. But the New Testament does directly address lesbianism in Romans 1.

The New Testament

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26-27).”

Again, this is addressing abusive homosexuality, such as between men and boys. That was common then and must be what Paul had in mind.”

First, the passage only references adults. Second, is was not common for women to abuse girls. This is further evidence the claim that the Bible means to only reference adult homosexuality with youth is unfounded. Third, notice both homosexual partners are “consumed with passion for one another.” Children are not consumed with passion for their sexual abusers.

Romans 1:22-25 states that these people became very sinful because of idolatry, worshiping created things instead of God. He then gives them over to their lusts and they delve into their sins, the first listed being homosexuality. So this passage doesn’t even apply to homosexuals worshiping God in Christian churches.”

The teaching of Romans 1 continues into chapter 2:

“We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed (Romans 2:2-6).”

So some of the Christians in the Roman church were engaging in the sins listed in chapter 1, including homosexuality. Such people “deserve to die” (Romans 1:32), are under God’s judgment (Romans 2:2-3) and wrath (Romans 2:5). The passage applies to both people inside and outside the church.


Romans 2:4 states that God is kind and patience towards people in order to lead them toward repentance. People of all sexuality have to struggle with putting God’s will above their own. But when we do this, the Bible states, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).”

god is love

If God is Love, Why Does He Condemn Homosexuality?

What is Love?

Everyone agrees: love does not mean to approve of everything. In fact, sometimes the loving thing to do is to reject or prohibits something. For example, a teenager might love to go to a party with alcohol and drugs, but it is percisely because of their parents love that they reject the idea and prohibit their child from attending.

God’s Love

God is love and just as a loving parent sets guidelines for their children, so does God. Sometimes children mistakenly believe their parents hate them for restricting their behavior. But in reality if a parent believes a given behavior to be harmful, the hateful thing for them to do would be to encourage the behavior. God is the creator and designer of life. He knows how best it should be lived. His commands are given, not to hurt us, but to help us.

God’s Purpose

God created sex to be practiced between opposite sexes within marriage. When any person, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or otherwise, rejects God’s design for sexual relationships, it is a sin. It is rebellion which says “My will is more important than God’s.” It is the opposite view of Jesus, who when faced with death said, “…not my will, but yours, be done (Luke 22:42).” It is also the breaking of the greatest commandment: “…You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (Matthew 22:37).” A heart that loves God shows it by obeying His commandments. Many claim to love God but their actions show their true fruit. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”


Romans 2:4 states that God is kind and patience towards people in order to lead them toward repentance. People of all sexuality have to struggle with putting God’s will above their own. But when we do this, the Bible states, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).”


Why “Definition of Marriage” Arguments Don’t Work

Definition #1 Marriage is between one man and one woman to bear and rear children.

A more thorough definition by three philosophers is as follows:

Definition #2 “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.”[1] 

I don’t necessarily want to address this topic. Many Christian leaders I know and love promote a “definition of marriage” type of argument. They’ve worked hard and been courageous where most are not (but should be). Many of these same leaders are comparing the redefinition of marriage to the legalization of abortion. They say that some of the reasons why the pro-life movement has had success is because they developed better arguments over time. I agree: better arguments need to be developed. So let’s evaluate the definition of marriage argument #1, see how is morphs into definition of marriage #2, and why neither work.

Definition of marriage arguments are appealing to Christians for the following reasons:

  1. They offer a legal secular argument. Biblical arguments (ruled out because of separation of church and state) and moral arguments (because of precedent in a sodomy case called Lawrence vs. Texas) are legally invalid to use in court.
  2. They offer an absolute standard by which to define marriage. This is preferable to a subjective standard, in which others would just respond our definition does not apply to them.
  3. They are less offensive. These arguments don’t directly address same-sex couples. They aren’t saying anything directly negative about gay people.
  4. They restrict marriage to only moral sexual relationships, that which is between one man and one woman.

My main problem with these arguments, no matter how appealing, is that they are not invalid. One could show this with either counter-arguments or analogies. Analogies compare different, but in some way, related things. The comparison is made to something the person offering the argument understands to be true. Since they understand the truthfulness of one thing, it is easier to explain the truth of another. Many advocates from same-sex marriage reject all analogies against their view while using them to promote their view. This is cherry picking and prohibits such advocates from truly understanding their own position. They claim those who disagreement with them are ignorant, and some are, but they are calling the kettle black, guilt of the same thing they accuse in others.

The typical and easiest response to definition of marriage #1 is to respond with an analogy like, “What about elderly people? Should they be allowed to marry?” Elderly heterosexual marriages are different from young heterosexual marriages. The young can procreate (unless there is a biological problem) but the elderly cannot (by biological design called menopause). All advocates of this argument understand that the elderly should be allowed to marry. The analogy is valid and shows procreation is not necessary for marriage.

But no problem” says the definition of marriage advocate. The elderly couple still exhibits the structure or type of procreative marriage that young couples do. Now this is a very similar but new argument, definition of marriage #2. The three philosophers use the phrase “of the type”. Their argument does not claim there needs to be actual procreation. It is the structure or type, not results, that really matters. Definition of marriage #1 has now changed in favor of definition of marriage #2.

This “structure or type” language is abstract and difficult to understand, but Girgis, George, and Anderson give us the only analogy I’ve heard to help make their point clear. They say a baseball team may not win a game but they are still a team. By comparison, although an elderly couple may not procreate (or win) they are still a valid married couple (a baseball team).

When evaluating an analogy, the goal is not to point out some differences and declare “disanalogy.” Of course there are differences – analogies compare different things. The goal is to be fair and understand how the analogy relates to an argument. So let’s relate their analogy to professional baseball. I’m doing this because marriage is the big leagues of romantic relationships. It is not appropriate to equate marriage to a little league team where the kids mostly play just for fun. So let’s say someone wanted to form a baseball team made up of 70 year old men to play Major League Baseball. This has never happened because there is no point. It would not be a valid MLB team. No owner will invest millions in it. Nobody will manage them. No spectators want to see a team guaranteed to lose every game. Even the players wouldn’t be interested. But elder couples are interested in marriage dispite they can’t win (have kids). In fact, most are happy they can’t win. Most would be horrified if they did.

So here is an alternative argument: “Only morally good relationships should be promoted.”

What I like about this argument:

  1. It offers a secular argument. Secular people have morals too. There are sexual relationships that they find immoral. If they are going to condemn Christians for having moral standards, they are to condemn themselves as well.
  2. It establishes common ground. All people have moral standards and it is commonly understood that differences are expected. Having different moral standards does not automatically make other people bad people (haters or bigots).
  3. It offers an absolute standard. This is because absolute moral laws exist (for example, it’s wrong to murder others for fun). This helps lead into an opportunity to talk about the Ultimate Law Giver, which is God.
  4. It addresses the root of the issue: morality. Marriage is really a symptom. For example, what if the Department of Education where to offer free condoms at proms throughout the country? Would Christians say, “Since it doesn’t involve marriage, we’re ok with that.” No, it’s immoral to promote per-marital sex and Christians should oppose such efforts.
  5. It is broad enough to address non-marital relationships, as the prom example shows.

What I don’t like about this argument:

  1. It won’t work in court. But I’m not a lawyer. My concern is not a court of law but the court of public opinion. I’m concerned with the large and increasing number of people who mistakenly think to oppose gay rights is hateful and bigoted. This needs to be dispelled if we are going to be able to share the love of God with people, the Gospel.
  2. It is rather offensive. Contrary to many peoples conception, most conservative Christians don’t like offending gay people. Focusing on marriage and avoiding addressing the morality of homosexuality is more appealing. But it does not address the root issue which is one reason we continue to lose ground.
  3. While absolute moral laws exist, getting secular people to understand this because they are rooted in the Ultimate Law Giver is a rare occurrence.


Honest arguments have a purpose: to persuade of the truth. This is the goal of Christians concerning marriage/morality. Definition of marriage arguments were developed to provide a secular legal defense in court. These arguments did not work, in part, because they are not valid. Just as pro-life arguments developed and improved over time, marriage/morality arguments need to do the same. Despite advances in the pro-life movement, if Roe vs. Wade were challenged at the Supreme Court today, the pro-life side would still lose. We cannot do much about the courts but we can do much about the court of public opinion. We need to change, adapt, and speak the truth in love.

[1] Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol 34, Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, p246.