The passages used to condemn same-sex relationships are few. They are also, on close reading, doing something very different from what they have been recruited to do. Each one has a specific context, a specific target, and a specific meaning — none of which is a loving, consensual relationship between two adults.
What follows is a plain-language examination of each passage. For those who want to see the underlying textual evidence, a Prove It toggle is available beneath each section.
Leviticus — Not About Sex
The two Leviticus passages most often cited against same-sex relationships hinge on a Hebrew word that means resting, dwelling, or lying down — a broad term used elsewhere to describe land lying fallow. Crucially, surrounding verses use a completely different and more specific word when the author actually means a sex act.
The author switched words deliberately. Which means the 'abominations' in question are not sex acts at all. In the ancient world, women were considered property. To "lie with a man as with a woman" meant reducing a free man to the legal status of chattel — stripping him of his personhood and ownership of himself. The associated death penalty makes sense in that context: kidnapping free persons into slavery was also a capital offense in the ancient law.
This is not about loving relationships. It is about chattel slavery.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 — Both use shakab (H7901), a broad term for lying down. Surrounding verses use shikbah (H7903) when explicitly describing seminal emission. The author had a precise word for sex and chose not to use it here.
Exodus 21:16 & Deuteronomy 24:7 — Kidnapping free persons into slavery carried the death penalty under the same legal framework, consistent with the penalty in Leviticus 20:13.
Paul's Lists — Violations, Not Orientation
Two of Paul's letters contain lists of behaviors he considers incompatible with the faith. Two Greek words in those lists — often translated as effeminate and homosexual — have been used to condemn same-sex relationships for centuries. But the words themselves tell a different story.
The first word, malakoi, is used by Jesus himself to describe royal clothing — flamboyant, showy display. In the context of a list of sexual sins, it points toward indecent exposure. The second word, arsenokoitai, points to sexual exploitation: coerced sex, rape. In one of the letters it appears directly before the word for slave traders. The structural logic of both lists moves from sexual misconduct toward exploitation and abuse. Paul arranged these lists deliberately.
The progression isn't: immoral → gay → thieves.
It's: immoral → indecent exposure → sexual assault → slave trading.
These words describe violations — coercion, exploitation, abuse. Not orientation. Not a relationship.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 — Contains both malakoi and arsenokoitai at the structural hinge between sexual sin and sins of abuse.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 — Contains arsenokoitai but not malakoi. Here it appears directly before andrapodistais (slave traders), placing it structurally in the domain of exploitation rather than consensual sexuality.
Matthew 11:8 & Luke 7:25 — Jesus uses malakoi to describe the clothing of those in royal palaces — flamboyant, ostentatious display, not softness or effeminacy.
1 Timothy 1:10 — Arsenokoitai appears directly before andrapodistais (slave traders), placing it structurally in the domain of exploitation rather than consensual sexuality.
Sodom — The Sin They Don't Mention
The story of Sodom is one of the most misused passages in Scripture. A mob surrounded Lot's house and demanded he hand over his guests so they could "know" them. This was not flirting. It was not desire. It was attempted gang rape of strangers by a hostile crowd asserting dominance — closer to prison violence than to romance.
But we don't need to speculate about what Sodom's sin was. Scripture tells us directly. The prophets name it explicitly — and homosexuality is not on the list. The sins named are arrogance, indifference to the poor and needy, injustice, adultery, and enabling evildoers.
Comparing a mob attempting to gang rape vulnerable travelers to a loving, consensual same-sex relationship isn't just bad theology. It's an abomination unto itself.
Genesis 19 — The mob's demand to "know" (yada) the visitors mirrors the language of assault and domination, not consensual desire. Lot's response — offering his daughters instead — underscores the dynamic of power and violation at work.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 — "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Isaiah 1:10-17 — Connects Sodom to injustice and neglect of the vulnerable.
Jeremiah 23:14 — Names adultery, lying, and enabling evildoers as Sodom's sins.
Romans 1 — Covetousness, Not Attraction
The passage in Romans most often cited against same-sex relationships uses two Greek words for what is typically translated as lust or desire. But neither word is the standard term for sexual desire. Paul had those words and didn't use them.
The first word is defined elsewhere in the same letter as covetousness — obsessing over what isn't yours to have. The second word appears in the rest of Scripture only in contexts of craving leadership, money, and status. It means reaching to acquire and possess.
Neither word is about attraction. Both are about taking. The author isn't describing orientation or a relationship. He's describing people treating other people as commodities — objects to be acquired and owned.
Whatever Romans 1 is about, it is not about sexual attraction. This is one of the most debated portions of Scripture — and the debate is legitimate.
Romans 1:24 — Uses epithymia. Romans 7:7 — Paul defines the same word: "I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'" The word is covetousness, not sexual desire.
Romans 1:27 — Uses orexis, derived from oregomai (G3713). This root appears elsewhere only in: 1 Timothy 3:1 (craving leadership), 1 Timothy 6:10 (craving money), Hebrews 11:16 (longing for a homeland). It denotes acquisitive reaching — not attraction.
A Personal Note
I have to admit I'm not proud of how long it took me to be affirming of same-sex relationships, and I'm likely not the best resource for this information. I do affirm and share my views about it — but hopefully, gay and lesbian readers will be at a point where they simply don't give a crap what I think. But if I can change, your cranky friends and family can too.
Four passages. Four problems. None of them about a loving, committed same-sex relationship.