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 exist within a legal and social framework that modern Christians rarely stop to fully examine — embedded among other rules of law that Christian theology has long since set aside, including prohibitions on mixing fabrics, eating shellfish, and trimming beards.
Could "lie with a man as with a woman" refer to homosexual intercourse? Taken as a snapshot by itself, very likely. But these verses do not exist within a vacuum and there are other observations worth making. For starters, why aren't there similar condemnations for women? If these verses are making a universal moral statement against homosexuality, the silence on female same-sex relationships is unexplained and awkward. The text isn't shy about addressing women elsewhere in the same chapters.
But consider this observation: In both chapters 18 and 20, the author had two terms available — the generic shakab (H7901) "to lie with" and the more explicit shikbah (H7903) for sexual intercourse. The explicit term shikbah shows up in nearby verses for adultery (18:20) and bestiality (18:23, 20:15). Yet the so-called "abomination" verses (18:22 and 20:13) deliberately use the broader, more generic shakab. That seems odd, and it's worth considering why the author would do this.
It is the position of this site that this word selection is not accidental or random. The author used shikbah specifically for verses unambiguously describing physical sexual emission — adultery resulting in seed (18:20) and bestiality (18:23, 20:15). For the male-with-male verses (18:22 and 20:13), the author chose the broader shakab even though shikbah was clearly available and used in nearby verses. If the author simply intended straightforward sexual intercourse in 18:22 and 20:13, the more explicit term was right there. The deliberate choice of shakab — a word whose primary meaning is "to lie down" for rest, sleep, or other purposes — suggests these verses may be operating at a different and broader register than the surrounding sexual prohibitions.
So why does a broader definition of "to lie with" matter? The chapter itself frames its prohibitions against Egyptian practices: "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived" (Lev 18:3) — and Israel had just emerged from generations of slavery there. In the ancient world, women were property. To treat a fellow Israelite man as though he occupied the social and legal position of a woman was to reduce him back to chattel — undoing the freedom God had just given him. To the author of Leviticus, that was a particularly sickening violation. The associated death penalty fits that context: re-enslaving a fellow Israelite male was a capital offense under the same legal framework.
This is not about loving relationships, and even if it was it wouldn't apply to Christians today. It is about an unjust violation of social hierarchy in a specific ancient culture.
Genesis 28:13 — Shakab can carry territorial and property connotations. God promises Jacob "the land whereon thou liest" (shokhev, participle of shakab), "to thee will I give it." Jacob's act of lying upon the land marks his inheritance. The shakab/mishkav root family operates in a possession-and-territory register throughout Hebrew scripture — supporting the reading that 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit reducing a man to chattel-position — or, in simplest terms, property — not love or attraction.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 — Both use shakab (H7901). The more explicit term shikbah (H7903) appears in Leviticus 18:20 (adultery), 18:23 (bestiality), and 20:15 (bestiality) — but not in the male-with-male verses, even though the author clearly had it available. The linguistic argument about register shift is the position of this site. However, fair warning — this interpretation is highly unlikely to be seriously considered by any credentialed experts. If that matters to you, you should consider other points of view. There are many out there.
Exodus 21:16 & Deuteronomy 24:7 — Kidnapping a fellow Israelite to enslave them carried the death penalty under the same legal framework, consistent with the penalty in Leviticus 20:13. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies the victim as "one of his brothers, the people of Israel."
I've spent a lot of effort looking at this portion of Leviticus, doing my best at honoring the intricacies and heritage of the text while also affirming justice for gay and lesbian readers. I've been trying to provide a more honest and humane perspective than what many have been force-fed. To me, these are seemingly difficult and primitive rules that were once useful in difficult and primitive times.
Today I am thankful for the lovely and wonderful Reform Jewish rabbis I've met through my family and friends. It has not escaped my attention how they manage to weave these otherwise difficult portions of scripture into a tapestry that supports care and justice while honoring tradition and heritage. I'm thankful they neither dismiss the scripture they inherited nor treat people with the crude abrasiveness many of these texts seem to echo on the surface level. Similarly, I'm thankful for most Christian leaders who, at least in practice, do not treat women as property or embrace much of the apparent crudeness of these texts.
So I find it particularly upsetting that so many "Christians" seem to gleefully embrace the absolute worst, out-of-context, interpretations of these verses their minds can construct. It is clear the larger Judeo-Christian culture has moved on from that kind of legalistic understanding of these texts. Plucking two otherwise random verses out of here and thinking they've got the whole truth on the matter and an iron-clad commission to brand their conclusions on the lives of others is just not the way the Torah or even most of the Old and New Testament works.
Admittedly, even in the best light, there are many surface level concepts among these texts that are upsetting — women as property and rules that seem to just make no sense yet carry mind-bogglingly severe punishments. Now it would be wrong for me to presume to tell Jewish teachers what to believe about their own Torah or how they should celebrate the heritage of their texts, but in my observation they do not treat scripture here like a grab-bag that can be so conveniently cherry-picked from. Christians should be more careful about using one-off verses and snippets, especially out of here. Especially when they are doing it to bully people while ignoring the rest as too inconvenient for themselves.
— Scott M. Nemeth; May 9th, 2026
The Vice Lists — Violations, Not Orientation
Two New Testament letters contain lists of behaviors regarded as 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 these lists and 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, and both words are in the middle of that progression. That placement suggests the words are in part sexual and in part abusive — in other words, forms of sexual abuse. These lists are arranged deliberately, not at random.
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 four key Greek words across verses 24-27. When each one is traced through other New Testament texts, they all point to the same place: covetousness, idolatry, and exploitation. None of them point to romantic attraction.
- Epithymia (v. 24) is the same word Paul uses in Romans 7:7 to define the Tenth Commandment — "thou shalt not covet."
- Pathos (v. 26) appears in Colossians 3:5 alongside epithymia and pleonexia (greed) — the latter explicitly identified as idolatry.
- Orexis (v. 27) shares its root with the verb used elsewhere for aspiring to office, reaching for money, and longing for a homeland.
- Aschēmosynē (v. 27) — translated "shameless acts" — is the standard Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew word for forbidden family relations in Leviticus 18: incest, in-law violations, household power abuse. It is not even the same word used for the alleged same-gender prohibitions, which use entirely different vocabulary and are debunked in a previous article (see "Leviticus — Not About Sex" above).
But Paul doesn't leave us guessing what he meant — he actually spells it all out. In verse 28 he says God gave them over to do "things not fitting" — and in verses 29-30 he lists exactly what those are: injustice, wickedness, greed, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, arrogance, boasting, inventing evil, defying parents, senselessness, faithlessness, heartlessness, mercilessness. Nothing on that list resembles a consensual loving relationship of any kind. The only sexual word some translations include — porneia (fornication) — is a textual variant from later manuscripts, and even when retained refers to prostitution-related exploitation, not romantic relationships (see Pillar 2 for the full porneia word study).
The passage describes people using other people — sex as power, status, and acquisition. Not love. Not attraction. Not anyone's orientation.
Romans 1:24 — Uses epithymia (G1939). Romans 7:7 — Paul defines the same word as covetousness: "I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'"
Romans 1:26 — Uses pathos (G3806). Colossians 3:5 — Groups pathos with epithymia and pleonexia (greed) — and identifies pleonexia explicitly as idolatry.
Romans 1:27 — Uses orexis (G3715), from oregomai (G3713). The verb root appears in 1 Timothy 3:1 (aspiring to office), 1 Timothy 6:10 (reaching for money), and Hebrews 11:16 (longing for a homeland). Acquisitive vocabulary, not attractional.
Romans 1:27 — Uses aschēmosynē (G808). The Septuagint uses this word throughout Leviticus 18 for forbidden family relations — incest, in-law unions, household sexual abuse. Even the alleged same-gender prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 use entirely different vocabulary.
Romans 1:28 — Paul says God gave them over to do "things not fitting" (ta mē kathēkonta).
Romans 1:29-30 — Paul's actual list of what those things are. Greed, envy, malice, murder, gossip, arrogance, boasting, defiance, faithlessness, mercilessness. Nothing even close to a consensual same-sex relationship is listed.
Romans 1:29 — Some translations include porneia ("fornication") at the start of the list. This word is absent from the earliest manuscripts. Even when retained, Paul's usage of porneia refers to prostitution (typically involving enslaved women with no legal agency over their own bodies), incest, and ritual sex acts in idol worship — categories of exploitation, coercion, and idolatry. Not consensual relationships.
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. However, I know a little affirmation can go a long way for someone who is struggling. Also, there is hope. If I can change, some of your cranky friends and family can too.
— Scott M. Nemeth; May 9th, 2026
Four passages. Four problems. None of them about a loving, committed same-sex relationship.