Homosexuality, in contemporary usage, means romantic or sexual attraction to the same sex. It describes orientation, not sexual activity. Orientation and conduct are not interchangeable: a person does not have to engage in sex to possess an orientation.
Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.
1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?
Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.
A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.
Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context
Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.
But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.
Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.
First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity
Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.
The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.
Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.
4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences
Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.
5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7
Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.
Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.
6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?
Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.
What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.
Conclusion — State the accusation accurately
“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.
A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.
Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.
Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.
Scripture addresses same-sex sexual conduct, but nowhere explicitly calls the mere possession of same-sex attraction sinful. To refute this, show a verse condemning orientation itself, not an action.
1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — What is prohibited?
Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with a male as with a woman; Leviticus 20:13 likewise addresses males who engage in that act. Whatever their continuing application, these prohibitions concern acts, not an orientation or someone who has never performed those acts.
A prohibition against an act does not establish that experiencing an unchosen attraction is that act. Indeed, Leviticus 18:22 describes what a man must not do; it does not say that a man who is attracted to another man has already done it. To equate the two is to replace the wording of the command with an inference.
Romans 1:26–27 — Actions, desires, and context
Paul describes exchanges of sexual relations and men inflamed with desire for one another. He calls the passions dishonorable and the relations contrary to nature. Paul is making a moral judgment; denying that would weaken the argument.
But Romans 1 concerns exchanges, desires and sexual relations within a wider indictment of idolatry. It neither defines modern same-sex orientation nor says that merely discovering such attraction is sinful. Nor has every gay person exchanged a former heterosexual orientation.
Romans 2:1 then cautions those who judge others. The surrounding argument matters. Some Christians read Romans 1 as condemning all same-sex relations; others argue its setting narrows the behaviour in view. That dispute cannot honestly be settled by pretending Paul gives a modern definition of orientation. He does not.
First Corinthians 6:9–11 — Wrongdoing, not a diagnosis of identity
Paul begins: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” His list concerns wrongdoing, including theft, adultery and swindling—not a catalogue of orientations.
The terms malakoi (“soft,” with disputed connotations) and arsenokoitai (commonly associated with males having sex with males) require care. Their scope is debated, though a behavioural meaning for arsenokoitai has strong historical support. Neither word straightforwardly means “someone who experiences same-sex attraction.” Translating them as “homosexuals” can blur conduct and orientation.
Verse 11, “And that is what some of you were,” concerns those categories and transformation in Christ; it does not explicitly say sexual orientation must change.
4. First Timothy 1:9–10 — Again, a list of offences
Arsenokoitai appears among lawbreakers, murderers, enslavers and liars. The text does not identify involuntary same-sex attraction as an offence.
5. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jude 1:7
Genesis 19 depicts threatened sexual assault, not merely same-sex attraction. Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies Sodom’s arrogance, abundance, neglect of the poor and abominations.
Jude 1:7 mentions sexual immorality and “strange flesh,” whose meaning is debated. Neither passage expressly condemns an orientation. Sexual violence is conduct, not orientation.
6. What about Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' teaching on marriage?
Genesis 1:27 describes male and female; Genesis 2:24 describes marriage between man and woman. Jesus cites this pattern while discussing divorce (Matthew 19:4–6). Describing marriage does not itself declare that someone sins by experiencing same-sex attraction.
What of Matthew 5:28? Jesus condemns looking lustfully with adulterous intent. That proves inner attitudes can have moral significance; it does not prove that every experience of attraction is lustful intent. Otherwise, we would have to equate recognizing someone as attractive with choosing to commit adultery. James 1:14–15 distinguishes desire, enticement and sin being conceived. These passages demand moral discernment about desires, not the automatic condemnation of an orientation.
Conclusion — State the accusation accurately
“Scripture prohibits certain same-sex acts” and “Scripture explicitly condemns same-sex orientation itself” are different propositions.
A verse concerning conduct does not automatically condemn orientation. Ancient behavioural terms cannot simply be replaced with modern identity labels. And this claim is deliberately limited: distinguishing attraction from acts does not, by itself, settle every Christian disagreement about same-sex relationships. It establishes that arguments about conduct must not be misrepresented as explicit biblical condemnations of an entire class of people for what they feel.
Identify the passage explicitly condemning same-sex attraction itself, independently of conduct. Do not attribute to Scripture a proposition it does not explicitly state.
Accuracy is not a concession to culture. It is a responsibility to Scripture.
