Is Homosexuality Sin¶

By Mike Rightmire¶

Molecular Biotechnologist, Bioinformaticist & Data scientist

[ Question on Quora ]

Updated: May-2026
The Bible describes homosexuality as a sin, yet many Christian churches today support same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights—how far does this change align with the original teachings?

[ Answer ]

Because the Bible doesn’t really say that. You’re falling into two common mistakes made by many Churches, but especially the American Evangelical Churches, which are:

Assuming the relatively recent English translations of the Bible are the same as the original scriptures.
That Church dogma is the same as the Bible

They are, of course, not the same.

ONE:

The Bible has been re-transcribed and re-translated thousands of times during the last 1800 years—AD 180 being the oldest copy of the Bible we have in our possession. In that time, literally tens of thousands of changes have been introduced into the text both intentionally—due to the political/religious/cultural preferences of the society doing the transcription/translation—and unintentionally, due to errors.

The passages condemning homosexuality appeared relatively recently as translations. Previous versions in both English, as well as Greek, Latin, and Hebrew did not make this distinction.

TWO:

The culture of the Church, I.e. “Church dogma”, I.e. What people interpret the Bible to mean and how they should implement it into their lives - is based almost entirely on social convention, not Biblical authority.

Ironically, many of these changes to the Bible which condemn homosexuality were added as a result of the cultural biases of the Church during the time the translations/transcriptions were made. I.e. The society that made “X” transcription/translation of the Bible felt homosexuality was bad, thus ambiguous passages were interpreted this way - when they previously had not been interpreted this way.

Details can be provided for those individuals interested in digging deeper.

Comments such as, “Nuh-uh! The modern English translations of the Bible are infallible because God was working with the translators” will be ignored as obvious nonsense. Even now, you can go into any Bible bookstore and find a dozen slightly different translative interpretations of the Bible … and this after decades of multi-Church panels got together to try and make the translations cohesive.

If the Bible were infallibly clear, then there would be one and one only denomination of Christendom, instead of around 45,000.

Any argument about “infallibility” is an obvious self-gaslight, and I won’t waste my time writing references for people unwilling or unable to look at what is right in front of their faces.

Edits¶

EDIT 2026–06–01¶

I’ve been getting so many comments I can’t address them individually anymore. I’m going to try and address (as succinctly as possible) some of the most common arguments…

EDIT 2026–06–03¶

P.s. I wouldn’t try to read this straight through verbatim. There’s a lot. My recommendation would be to scroll through and find the questions that you specifically have, and read those explanations.

Unless you have a lot of time to kill 😉

1. Dead Sea Scrolls¶

But we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which validate nothing has changed in the Bible and the translation are all accurate, including those stating that homosexuality is forbidden.

ARGUMENT FLAWS:

The Dead Sea Scrolls actually did not contain copies of Leviticus 18:22, and the two copies of Leviticus 20:13 were found to be similar but not identical.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found between 1947 and 1956. Individual fragments were translated by a single team only once, often using already commonly accepted translations available. There has been little scrutiny applied to the translations.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were a library of antiquity, not a storage of “The most authorized copy.” Even when multiple scrolls/fragments addressed the same passages, there were differences between them.

Even if the Dead Sea Scrolls had proven the transcription was completely accurate, this has no bearing whatsoever as to whether the translations of the text were correct (of the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, or any of the Masoretic texts.) This is the debate which is still being examined.

2. Translations of Leviticus¶

The Translations of Leviticus are clear.

ARGUMENT FLAWS:

My argument in the OP is that the translations may be inaccurate, even if the untranslated words are unchanged. This argument is supported by…

The Septuagint Leviticus 18:22 reads: “καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν” literally translates as "and with a male you shall not lie a woman's bed/lying; for it is an abomination."

George Hollenback argued that the Greek translation addressed grammatically the receptive party in male-male sex, not the insertive party, making it more narrow than a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as a whole.

This LXX text then becomes the basis for Paul's allusions in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10, where he creates the compound arsenokoitai ("men-bedders.") Scholars argue that this Pauline term has been mistranslated into English as "homosexuals" only since the mid-twentieth century.

Dispute how the Hebrew consonants should be be rendered.

The standard English translation "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" inserts both as and with, which have no equivalent in Hebrew. The literal Hebrew is: wĕʾet-zākār lōʾ tiškab miškĕbê ʾiššâ tôʿēbâ hīʾ literally translates to "and male you shall not lie lyings-of woman; abomination it."

K. Renato Lings (Love Lost in Translation, 2013; Theology & Sexuality article, 2009) makes the central case that the comparative reading is a translator's gloss, not what the Hebrew syntax requires.

Mark Preston Stone (2022 survey in Currents in Biblical Research) summarizes that "all translations are freely interpretive in their understanding of miškevē ʾiššâ."

The rare word miškevē (the plural construct miškevē - literally "lyings of" - appears in the entire Hebrew Bible only in Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, and Genesis 49:4. Genesis 49:4 refers to Reuben's incest with Bilhah, his father's concubine.

The form also appears, as noted, in 1QSa I:10 among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The argument runs: the rare word “miškevē “ found only in incest-related contexts probably carries an incestuous connotation in Leviticus too, again implying strongly the ban is against incestuous sex or child abuse, not homosexual sex between two adults.

Lings, following David Tabb Stewart (Ph.D. dissertation 2000, Queer Bible Commentary 2006), and supported in part by Jacob Milgrom's monumental Leviticus commentary (Anchor Bible 3A, 2000, p. 1786), reads Lev 18:22 as: "And with a male, sexual relations of an incestuous nature should be just as abominable to you as they are with a female." This reading the verse closes the chapter's incest list with a "catch-all" rule that the male versions of all the previous female incest prohibitions also apply.

Bruce Wells (On the Beds of a Woman: The Leviticus Texts on Same-Sex Relations Reconsidered, in Sexuality and Law in the Torah, T&T Clark, 2020), argues that miškab in the verb-plus-adverbial-accusative construction means a location, not a manner.

He surveys all eleven other uses of the verb šākab with an adverbial accusative in the Hebrew Bible and finds that in eight, the accusative clearly indicates location (e.g., 2 Sam 4:5, 11:9, 12:16; Ps 88:6; Ruth 3:8, 14). In the remaining three texts (Lev 15:18, 19:20; Num 5:13), where it refer to a sexual manner, the phrase šikbat zeraʿ ("lying of seed," i.e., seminal emission) is used, a phrase clearly available and yet not chosen for use in Lev 18:22 and 20:13.

Wells concludes the verses prohibit sex with a man who is already attached to a woman's sexual domain (i.e., the woman's husband or her young male dependents) making the prohibition a form of adultery or invasion of household, not a universal ban on male same-sex intercourse.

Leviticus 20:13 says, wəʾîš ʾăšer yiškab ʾet-zākār "and a man (ish) who lies with a male (zachar)…"

Ish in Biblical Hebrew normally denotes an adult man, while zachar is the broader word for any male including male children, male animals, or even a male infant.

Nowhere else in Leviticus 18 or 20 does the text use zachar for the prohibited partner; every other prohibited partner is described as a woman or female.

Steven Greenberg (Wrestling with God and Men, 2004), argues that the verse may originally have addressed the specific Greco-Roman cultural practice of using sex as a male domination technique — not all consensual adult male relationships. He argues that Lev. 18:22 should not be read as a blanket condemnation of all male-male intimacy or all gay relationships, but that the verse is focused on a specific penetrative act when bound up with domination, humiliation, or violence.

Philo of Alexandria (1st century CE) read the verse this way, and Luther's German translation rendered zachar as Knaben (boys): "Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe."

The reason most modern English translations don't reflect this may be that translation choices ossified early as a result of Jerome's Latin Vulgate which translated zachar as the gender-neutral masculus. LXX then glossed it as arsen ("male") and the pederasty-specific reading was lost in transmission. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV all followed the Vulgate/LXX pattern, and modern English translations (NIV, ESV, NRSV) inherit this reading.

3. The term Sodomy¶

Question: the old Testament's naming of Sodom is historically accurate, and sodomy is considered a sin. Is sodomy a word based on an inaccurate description of one of the sins being committed in that city, applied by puritanical clergy or a biblically accurate description of sins being committed according to the Old Testament?

ANSWER:

TL;DR

The term Sodomy was coined from the assumption that the sin in Sodom was sexual in nature, or specifically anal sex (without reference to whether between a man and a man, or a man and a woman.)

Sodom (the city) was not named for the acts of anal sex happening in the city.

Good question! But, the argument is a bit circular. My understanding is as follows. First, it should be mentioned that “Sodomy” does not mean homosexual sex. It means anal sex, regardless if it is between a man and a man, or man and a woman.

So, as I understand it, the name “Sodom” (Hebrew: סְדֹם, Sədom) as the name of the city was a Hebrew word probably translating to something like “Scorched” or “Volcano.” “Gomorrah” (Hebrew: עֲמֹרָה, ʿAmora) most likely derives from a root meaning "submersion" or "deep water."

Whether Sodom and Gomorrah actually existed as cities named “Sodom and Gomorrah“, were complete fiction for narratives sake, or those names were a literary device describing actual cities by other names is unknown. The names being such a common, powerful, juxtaposed symbol (like “Fire and Ice”, “Earth and Sky”, Etc.) - to me - immediately makes me suspect it’s a literary device to make the meaning of the story more impactful.

(Again in my understanding) the first use of the word “Sodomy” to describe anal sex (not specifically homosexual anal sex) was ~1049 CE when the Italian Benedictine monk Peter Damian coined the Latin term sodomia in his treatise Liber Gomorrhianus ("Book of Gomorrah") addressed to Pope Leo IX.

It was coined based on the idea that the sin of sodomy (anal sex) was the sin being committed in Sodom. This, of course, is exactly what my original answer is talking about - that the beliefs of the people/culture at the time were determining their understanding of the Bible - not the other way around.

Recent scholars associate the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah with general physical abuse of people, rape, or a general sinful nature in all realms. The sin is not explicitly defined in the Bible, but the the word “Yada” is used. Other references in the Bible refer to this…

Ezekiel 16:49–50 (the most explicit biblical reference) "Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Verse 50 adds that they did "toʿevah" (abomination), but does not specify sexual content.

Isaiah 1:9–10, 3:9 injustice, oppression, brazen sin

Jeremiah 23:14 adultery, lying, strengthening evildoers (a heterosexual sin in context)

Amos 4:1–11, Zephaniah 2:8–11 oppression of the poor, pride, mocking

The interpretations both for and against the reading of “anti-homosexual sex” (or even just anti-anal-sex) such as the Apostolic Constitutions (late 4th century), John Chrysostom (c. 349–407), Augustine (354–430) Philo's reading, Peter Damian, Liber Gomorrhianus (c. 1049), Peter of Poitiers, Peter Cantor (12th century), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Summa Theologiae II-II q.154 a.11–12, Dante, Inferno (early 14th century) are all interpretations by people, not clear Biblical understandings. I.e. As I have mentioned before, Church dogma not scripture.

A recognized timeline of the perspective that “Sodom and Gomorrah” was about homosexual acts is …

Hebrew Bible (pre-400 BCE): sin is pride, inhospitality, social injustice
2nd century BCE (Jubilees, Testaments): generic sexual immorality enters the reading
1st century CE (Philo, Josephus): first explicit same-sex reading, shaped by Hellenistic categories
1st century CE (NT): mixed signals — Jesus emphasizes inhospitality; Jude/2 Peter ambiguous
4th–5th century (Apostolic Constitutions, Augustine): same-sex reading becomes Christian default
11th–13th century (Peter Damian, Aquinas, Dante): codified as "sodomy"; locked into Catholic moral theology via natural-law framework
1955 (Bailey): modern scholarly challenge — sin is inhospitality and gang rape, not same-sex behavior
1980 onward (Boswell, Trible, Carden, Vines): expanded into a mainstream alternative scholarly view

Mark Preston Stone, "Don't Do What to Whom? A Survey of Historical-Critical Scholarship on Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13" (Currents in Biblical Research 20:3, 2022)

Saul Olyan, "And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman" (Journal of the History of Sexuality 5:2, 1994)

K. Renato Lings, Love Lost in Translation (Trafford, 2013)

Bruce Wells, "On the Beds of a Woman" (in Sexuality and Law in the Torah, T&T Clark, 2020)

Idan Dershowitz, "Revealing Nakedness and Concealing Homosexual Intercourse" (Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6:4, 2017)

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (Anchor Bible 3A, 2000), which is sympathetic to a narrower reading.

Eugene Ulrich et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XII (Oxford, 1994)

Kugler and Baek, Leviticus at Qumran: Text and Interpretation (Brill, 2017).

4. Modern Translations¶

Most modern translations are made from the earliest texts and not from previous translations

ANSWER:

Agree to disagree. The statement is simply not true (see the chart below.) Also, we don’t HAVE the original texts. The oldest post-Jesus fragment we have is from AD180.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were dated to roughly 250 BCE through 68 CE, a 3 century period. And even the Dead Sea Scrolls had variation amongst them when scrolls/fragments containing the same passages were compared.

They were not “the most authoritative copy” but just a library of collected copies stored in the same place.

Also, even when translations are attempted again from the original texts, the pressure of the past meanings (of course) always crept in as assumptions, bias, and the translator accepting the traditional understanding of ambiguous passages.

Although, the issue is not just the actual words written in the ancient languages, but the translations and what the translated words mean dogmatically.

Words have deeply nuanced meanings. When translating what the original ancient words meant, there is deep argument as to whether the current translation carries the correct meaning. Anyone who speaks more than one language (such as English and German) where both languages are still living and being spoken by native speakers will tell you how common it is that a translation fails to capture the proper nuanced meaning of the word or phrase.

As an example, I give you the modern phrases “horse play” and “pony play.” To a non-native speaker (especially one 2000 years from now) those phrases appear to be identical. Horse and pony are the same thing. Play is play.

However, in actual usage, “horseplay” refers to “people, usually children, playing in a wild and rambunctious manner” where as “pony play” is a sexual fetish sub community.

5. Being Gay is Wrong¶

We should not judge or condemn etc., but the (selected passages from the old/new testaments, Torah, Talmud, Etc.) make it clear that being gay is wrong.

ANSWER:

While we have traditionally been taught that being gay is wrong, and accepted the traditional understanding of all these passages - there is unending, reasonable argument as to whether these passages were transcribed correctly, translated correctly, and interpreted (dogmatically) correctly.

Whether these arguments are correct or incorrect - this arguable nature, when taken with the fact that being gay is not a choice, nor is it something within a person’s nature that can change make me assume the “that’s not what they mean” side of the argument.

BECAUSE—If being gay is an abomination BUT being gay is in inherent, uncontrollable state of being, we only have two options:

Assume we have mistranslated/misinterpreted the passages
Assume God is a bit of a psychopath.

Since God is not a psychopath, we can choose only option 1: we have misunderstood.

5. Homosexuality is “Unnatural”¶

Nature teaches us that a male and a female mating is natural, thus homosexuality is “unnatural” and thus against God.

ANSWER:

This is the argument that always, both, makes the least sense and is the most baffling when people make it.

What is “natural” is determined by observing what happens in nature. Homosexuality has appeared in the human species, consistently, in roughly the same percentages of the population since the dawn of recorded history. This is, in fact, the literal scientific definition of a natural variation within a species. It has also been regularly recorded in other species.

When people start claiming “what is natural” not by an observation of what happens in nature, but instead from their religious text (where, BTW, it is never mentioned as unnatural in the first place) you know something is amiss.

6. The Book is Infallible¶

God’s Word (as we read it in whatever translation fo the Bible) is infallible. The differences in it do not change the “essence” of God’s Word.

ANSWER

Nonsense.

God’s Word is infallible.

However, the scriptures that we have were written by the fallible, easily confused hands of humans. God’s word is infallible. The Bible we read is not.

There’s a dozen different English language translations in the Bible Bookstore with variances between them. The variances are even greater between modern, living languages.

There’s appx. 45,000 different denominations of the Christian Church. If the scriptures as we have them were infallible, there would be one and one only.

The evidence that the scriptures have been modified during transcription and translation is overwhelming and undeniable. Ignoring this is a failing as a Christian.

Whether homosexuality is a sin is a very specific detail and, in fact, a detail that classifies as minutia. The only reason it feels important, is because homophobes try to make it important. The minutia that is homosexuality has nothing to do with the “essence” of God’s word, and correcting the mistake in no way alters the essence of God’s Word. It simply corrects a human-induced error that leads to the abuse and pain of 10–20% of the population.

I agree the “essence” of His word doesn’t change - the most important “essence” is Love one another. The way most Christians employ “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is entirely against the essence of God’s Word.

As a Christian, it is your duty to try and understand God’s Word as He intended it - and not simply absorb the rote traditional dogmatic culturally-derived understanding, which all evidence implies is deeply flawed and incorrect.

If you have to wear blinders to stay on your path of Christianity - you may be on the wrong path.

7. No Ambiguity¶

What do you mean, “Traditional, culturally derived dogma?” The wording is plain, there is no ambiguity. For 2,000 years there was no dispute about what the Bible said and meant with these passages. It’s only been in the last decade or so that this new thinking has surfaced, which also happens to mirror what the current culture is promulgating.

ANSWER

There is:

God
Scripture, written by the hand of humans, based on 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand (Etc.) contacts with God, as well as general commentary by people (such as all the Biblical letters.)
Dogma, which is a persons understanding of what the scriptures actually mean and say - as well as how they should affect how that person lives their life.
The Church, in which each denomination is made up of a group of people who have all agreed on a specific dogma (interpretation of what the scriptures mean.)

There are around 45,000 Christian denominations, which means the Bible is hardly “plain, without ambiguity.” If there was no ambiguity, there would be one and one only Christian denomination.

Human beings are adept at taking a tiny seed of understanding, and expanding it to volumes of narrative.

We do this with dogma as well. We take a passage, or couple of passages, and write a library’s worth of narrative around it - based entirely what people “understand the Bible to mean”, or “Using their spiritual eye”, or however you want to phrase.

Church dogma is entirely shaped by this denominationally derived assumptive narrative, derived from “what people think the Bible means.”

The culture and social traditions of the times invariably and strongly affect their interpretation of the Bible (I.e. the Church dogma.)

For 2,000 years there was no dispute about what the Bible said and meant with these passages…

Actually, if you were to do a legitimate and sincere study of your own religion’s history, it’s Churches, and its Church leaders…you would find nothing but disputes about these, and other passages.

Look at the diagram in my OP showing the history of the translations of the Bible. At each of there's, there’s disputes - including regarding the passages discussing sexuality and homosexuality.

The idea that these always meant what you understand them to mean now for 2000 years is a gaslight fed to you by your denomination, and a gaslight you accept because it’s easy and comfortable.

To make the Bible say something it doesn’t say is, itself a sin…

I agree.

Unfortunately, the sin occurred decades and centuries ago…both intentionally and unintentionally by both well intended people and disingenuous people with an agenda.

My goal now is only to find the truth of what it originally said and meant.

People who choose to live in the dark with a mindset of, “The Bible (of my preferred translation) said it, I believe it, and that’s the end of it” choose to live in peaceful ignorance instead of seeking the truth of God’s word.

And that’s fine. Lots of Christians do.

But those who use this defense to condemn and ostracize 10–20% of the world’s population - abjectly against God’s Word of Love - need to examine their own sin.

8. The Hebrew is the Hebrew¶

An interesting comment from J.B. Sacks. I haven’t fact checked it, but it’s interesting enough to include here. I recommend to my readers to look into and validate it independently.

… One could also add that the verbal form in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 is שכב את and not שכב עם. It is quite clear from the Hebrew in 2 Sam 11–14 (compare v. 11 with v. 14) that the latter is used for consensual sexual intimacy, while the former (i.e. the phrase in Leviticus) is used for forced sexual intimacy, i.e. sexual assault, and not applicable to mutually loving, consensual relations. The Hebrew is the Hebrew.

9. Changing the Word is Sin¶

Any who change the Word are sinning. You are filled with/influenced by the devil for making these claims.

ANSWER

Any who change the Word are sinning.

Quite Biblically correct. Unfortunately, the sin appears to have been committed decades and centuries ago. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, with sincerity or by being disingenuous, the evidence is inarguable that the modern transcriptions and translations are not consistent with the original documents.

We can then try to seek the truth of the Word. Or simply absorbing the dogma presented to us by our own specific denomination of Christianity by rote.

Either is fine, honestly, as long as one doesn’t use their personal dogmatic understanding of the Bible to ostracize, demonize, or abuse 10–20% of the human population.

Regardless of what the passages say, using them this way is quite against Christ’s teachings.

You are filled with/influenced by the Devil.

Instilling shame, guilt, fearfulness, or threats (of ostracization or even physical harm) for refusing to “toe the line” of any policy is a practice used by despots and authoritarian dictators in an attempt to control the narrative, quash dissent, and (generally) prevent any truths from being discovered.

I, personally, don’t believe God is a despotic authoritarian dictator. Jesus’ own word would imply quite the opposite.

IMHO, anyone using this approach to try and influence anyone (including me) seeking of the truth of the original Biblical Word is using evil tactics to (at best) find an excuse to live in their own ignorance or (at worst) try to stomp out all other thoughts on God but their own.

I would suggest those people spend some time reflecting on their own flavor of Christianity, and see if it matches what has been preached by Jesus.

10. What to Believe¶

What gives you the right to tell others they must believe what you believe!?

ANSWER

Me personally? Nothing. And I don’t.

But…

I’m a data scientist. If you misquote or otherwise abuse facts (any facts) to follow an agenda that is not legitimately indicated by those facts - I’ll call you out!! :D

If person-X wants to hate LGBTQ+ people, then hate them.
If they use the Bible to justify their hate, I’ll call bullshit and tell them why it’s bullshit.
If they hurt LGBTQ+ people (because of their hate, regardless of what justification they use for that hate) they will be called out and actively intervened with.
And constantly telling people they are an abomination, are going to hell, badgering them to change (or worse, trying conversion therapy on them), ostracizing them in society, driving them (gently) from worshiping how they want to because they are LGBTQ_ … ETC … are all forms of hurting people.

Thats my simple logical proof ;D

11. The No Procreation Fallacy¶

If M>M or F>F relationships was the way of life, there would unfortunately be No life.

ANSWER

This is a common logical fallacy that unfortunately persists.

Certainly if ALL relationships were same sex, then there would be no life.

However, having a certain level of non-breeding pairs in a population does not led to species failure and, in fact, there seems to be evidence (at least in human populations) that a minimum level of non-breeding individuals and pairs in a population is highly desirable from an evolutionary standpoint because these individuals are able to contribute more energy to the group for non-child rearing tasks (such as hunting, gathering, altruistic care of the older, wiser members, assisting in the childcare of others, Etc. Etc. Etc.)

Since the dawn of recorded history, the human LGBTQ+ population has stayed consistently around 10–20%. There is no reason to think that homosexuality started at the same time as recorded history, so we can safely assume this has been the state for most if not all of the existence of homo sapiens - and (if you have noticed) we’re pretty big group :D

12. He Can. But Won't.¶

What you are implying is the the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God cannot preserve his word and that meat humans thwarted his efforts to do so.

ANSWER

I'm not actually saying He can't. But He doesn't.

We know He doesn't because we can see that He doesn't.

As stated in the original answer, we have thousands of ancient Bibles and fragments that show the changes over the centuries.

This is inarguable.

For the current, modern English translations to be infallible, that means all the previous copies had to have errors, and He only got it right—FINALLY!!😉 —sometime around 1950.

OR the previous copies were right and the current copies have errors.

Either way, it is clear that God does not interfere with humans when they transcribe and translate the Bible, allowing errors to come in.

It's up to us to untangle our own errors. God has chosen not to do it.

13. Approval?¶

Regardless of [Leviticus and Paul’s letters} nowhere in the Bible are homosexual relationships approved of in the same way as heterosexual relationships.

ANSWER

This is always one of the most baffling responses I get.

The story of David and Johnathon is the most obvious and clear homosexual relationship in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter. If David and Johnathon (1 Samuel 18, 1 Samuel 20) were made into a movie, but had a heterosexual couple, it would be touted (including by Christians) as one of the greatest romantic stories of all time - surpassing even the Songs of Solomon.

As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. 5

…

And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. 42 Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’”

…

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you were very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women."

The ancient language words used in Samuel are confounding, because they are used BOTH in the context of romantic and non-romantic relationships elsewhere in the Bible.

אָהַב (ahav) Love: Jonathan is repeatedly said to ahav David. This is the most common Hebrew word for love in all its forms. It is the same word used for the love between husband and wife (Isaac and Rebekah, Genesis 24:67; Jacob and Rachel, Genesis 29:18) It is used for God's love for Israel It is used for parental love (Abraham and Isaac, Genesis 22:2) It is the word used in the Song of Songs throughout בְּרִית (berit) Covenant:The same word for any convenant, including marriage/ God's covenant with Noah (Genesis 9) God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15, 17) The Sinai covenant with Israel (Exodus 19-24) Marriage — Malachi 2:14 explicitly calls marriage a berit: "the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth...she is your companion and your wife by covenant (berit)" The David-Jonathan covenant (1 Samuel 18:3, 20:8, 23:18) ק (nashaq) Kiss: The same word used for familial and romantic kisses. For the kiss of greeting between relatives (Jacob and Esau, Genesis 33:4; Laban and Jacob, Genesis 29:13) For the kiss of farewell (Naomi and her daughters-in-law, Ruth 1:9,14) For the erotic kiss in the Song of Songs 1:2 ("Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth") ד (hesed) — "Steadfast Love / Loyalty" The primary word used for God's faithful love toward Israel Used in the covenant context of Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:8, 3:10) Deeply tied to berit (including the love of marriage.) You enact hesed within a covenant relationship When David discusses that the love of Johnathon was more wonderful than the love of women. נִפְלְאַתָה (nifleta) "wonderful" or "surpassing": from the root pala, meaning to be extraordinary, beyond comprehension, miraculous. It is the same root used for God doing wonders and miracles. David is saying Jonathan's love was beyond ordinary reckoning. me'ahavat nashim, "More than the love of women": uses the standard word ahavat (from ahav) and nashim (women). David is making an explicit, direct comparison himself, and declaring Jonathan's love superior. He is not saying it was different in kind — he is placing both on the same scale and saying one exceeded the other. The word "brother" (אָחִי, achi): achi was commonly used in the ancient Near East in both fraternal and covenantal/treaty contexts, and notably in love poetry. In the Song of Songs, the male lover calls his beloved achoti ("my sister") repeatedly — it was a term of intimate endearment, not only biological relation. These ambiguities (used both within and without romantic intent) in the language make it easy for people who (for whatever reason) feel the need to deny the obviousness romantic component of the relationship.

Personally, I suspect these are the same people who convince themselves that their old ‘spinster’ aunt has been living in the same house with “their best friend” in a purely platonic relationship, even though the house only has one bed that ever seems to change sheets. 😄

13a. David was Married¶

But David was married.

Sure. So are a lot of gay men.

In the ancient world, marriage and romantic love were rarely associated. It was a social contract, mostly to ensure children, political, social, and financial security. This is, in fact, why a marriage of romantic love was so prominently displayed in the Bible when it was. It was wholly outside the norm.

I think this is obvious, even to the armchair scholar and naysayer - which is why it only gets a subheading :D

More to follow as I have time…

EDIT 2026–06–14:¶

Well, the comments we’re finally just rolling around the same arguments I’ve already addressed in my edits above - with the exception of the kind comments from people thanking me for the clear and concise description of the facts.

So it’s finally time to turn commenting off.

For those of you who wished to continue sincere discussion, I hope my edits above will address your thoughts.

And many, many thanks to those of you who offered support and kudos for the thread.