What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

Quick Answer

Christians disagree sharply on what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. The central axis is whether a handful of passages address all same-sex behavior or only specific exploitative practices known in the ancient world. A second fault line is whether monogamous, covenantal same-sex relationships—a modern concept—fall within the scope of those texts at all. Traditionalists read a consistent condemnation across both Testaments; revisionists argue the biblical authors never encountered the phenomenon they are asked to judge. Below is the map.

At a Glance

Axis	Debate
Scope of condemnation	All same-sex acts vs. only exploitative/cultic forms
Creation theology	Male-female complementarity as normative vs. as descriptive narrative
Pauline vocabulary	Arsenokoitai / malakoi as "homosexuals" vs. as pederasts or exploiters
Old Covenant applicability	Leviticus purity laws binding today vs. ceremonially obsolete
Hermeneutical frame	Scripture as univocal moral code vs. progressive revelation

Key Passages

Genesis 1:27–28 / 2:24

"Male and female created he them… Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife." (KJV)

What it appears to say: God's design for human sexuality is male-female pairing; marriage is defined by this complementarity.

Why it doesn't settle the question: The text narrates a particular creation event without explicitly prohibiting other arrangements. Megan DeFranza (Sex Difference in Christian Theology, 2015) argues the passage establishes a norm for procreation, not an exhaustive sexual ethic. Robert Gagnon (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001) counters that Jesus's citation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19 treats it as definitional for all sexual ethics, not merely descriptive.

Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (KJV)

What it appears to say: Male same-sex intercourse is explicitly prohibited and labeled an abomination.

Why it doesn't settle the question: The broader chapter regulates Canaanite cultic practices; John Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 1980) argued the prohibition is context-specific. David Wright (Homosexuals or Prostitutes?, 1984) disputed Boswell's reading and maintained the prohibition is categorical. New Testament Christians' relationship to Levitical holiness codes is itself contested (cf. Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council).

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (KJV)

What it appears to say: The prohibition of Leviticus 18:22 is reiterated with a stated penalty, signaling gravity.

Why it doesn't settle the question: Richard Hays (The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 1996) argues the death penalty for other offenses in the same chapter (adultery, cursing parents) is not enforced by any Christian tradition, raising questions about selective application. Traditionalists respond that New Testament reaffirmation of the sexual ethic, absent reaffirmation of the death penalty, distinguishes the two.

Romans 1:26–27

"For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another." (KJV)

What it appears to say: Paul describes both female and male same-sex behavior as "against nature" and as a consequence of idolatry.

Why it doesn't settle the question: James Brownson (Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 2013) argues Paul's "nature" language reflects Greco-Roman honor/shame categories and addresses excess passion, not orientation. Gagnon responds that Paul's echo of Genesis language shows a creation-order argument, not a culture-specific one. Whether Paul envisions anything like permanent orientation is disputed by both sides.

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators… nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai…" (KJV renders as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind")

What it appears to say: Two Greek terms in a vice list apparently refer to some form of same-sex behavior as disqualifying.

Why it doesn't settle the question: The meaning of arsenokoitai is disputed; it appears rarely before Paul and may derive from the Leviticus LXX. Dale Martin (Sex and the Single Savior, 2006) argues malakoi means "morally weak" generally, not specifically same-sex. Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner (The First Letter to the Corinthians, 2010) defend the traditional reading that both terms together address the active and passive roles in male same-sex intercourse.

1 Timothy 1:10

"…for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)…" (KJV)

What it appears to say: Arsenokoitai recurs in another vice list with no contextual qualifier.

Why it doesn't settle the question: Martin argues the list's context concerns economic exploitation, not sexuality per se. Gagnon maintains the lexical derivation from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (LXX: arsen + koite) settles the meaning as male same-sex intercourse.

Jude 7 (cf. Genesis 19, Sodom)

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha… giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh…" (KJV)

What it appears to say: Sodom's sin involved illicit sexual behavior.

Why it doesn't settle the question: Ezekiel 16:49 identifies Sodom's sin as pride and failure to aid the poor, not sexual ethics. Derrick Bailey (Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, 1955) argued the Genesis narrative concerns inhospitality and gang rape, not consensual same-sex behavior. Gagnon concedes the Sodom narrative is not the strongest biblical text but maintains it contributes to a broader pattern.

The Core Tension

The deepest fault line is hermeneutical, not textual: it is the question of whether biblical sexual ethics are grounded in creation order (and therefore transcend culture) or in the relational and social conditions the biblical authors observed (and therefore require recontextualization). Traditionalists such as Gagnon hold that Paul's argument in Romans 1 is explicitly creation-based, meaning no cultural development can relocate its target. Revisionists such as Brownson hold that Paul's reasoning depends on premises—that same-sex passion is always excessive, always idolatrous, always between social unequals—that do not apply to covenantal, mutual same-sex relationships. This is not a dispute that more data can resolve, because both sides agree on what the texts say; they disagree on what kind of authority those texts carry and whether the phenomenon Paul addresses matches the phenomenon under contemporary discussion.

Competing Positions

Position 1: Traditional Prohibitionist

Claim: All same-sex sexual behavior is prohibited by Scripture as a violation of the male-female design established at creation and reiterated in both Testaments.
Key proponents: Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (2001); Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II Q.154; John Stott, Same-Sex Partnerships? (1998).
Key passages used: Genesis 1:27, 2:24; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9.
What it must downplay: The cultural-specificity arguments for the Levitical purity laws; the lexical ambiguity of arsenokoitai; the silence of Jesus on the topic.
Strongest objection: James Brownson argues that Paul's stated reason for calling same-sex behavior "against nature" rests on an honor/shame framework, not a creation-order framework, meaning the prohibition does not transfer to relationships that lack those features.

Position 2: Revisionist / Affirming

Claim: Biblical prohibitions target exploitative, non-covenantal, or cultic forms of same-sex behavior and do not address committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.
Key proponents: James Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality (2013); Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian (2014); William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (2012) (partially).
Key passages used: Jude 7 / Genesis 19 (reread via Ezekiel 16:49); 1 Corinthians 6:9 (via arsenokoitai ambiguity).
What it must downplay: Romans 1:26–27's explicit "against nature" language; the Genesis 1–2 complementarity argument; the breadth of Leviticus 18:22.
Strongest objection: Gagnon argues the revisionist reading requires arsenokoitai to mean something it demonstrably does not, given its clear LXX derivation from the exact chapters prohibiting male same-sex intercourse.

Position 3: Celibacy-Only / Side B

Claim: Scripture prohibits same-sex sexual behavior but not same-sex attraction; gay Christians are called to celibacy and can form deep non-sexual covenantal friendships.
Key proponents: Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting (2010); Ron Belgau and the Spiritual Friendship movement; Eve Tushnet, Gay and Catholic (2014).
Key passages used: 1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26–27; also Matthew 19:12 (on celibacy as a gift).
What it must downplay: The pastoral sustainability of lifelong celibacy as a mandate rather than a calling; the question of whether "orientation" is a stable category Scripture could address.
Strongest objection: Brownson argues that if covenantal fidelity, not genital complementarity, is the relational norm Scripture actually defends, then celibacy-only is an over-application of the prohibition.

Position 4: Natural Law / Complementarian

Claim: The male-female body is theologically significant; same-sex unions cannot be morally equivalent to marriage because procreative complementarity is intrinsic to the institution, not incidental to it.
Key proponents: John Finnis, "Law, Morality and Sexual Orientation" (1994); Patrick Lee and Robert George, Body-Self Dualism (2007); Roman Catholic Catechism §2357–2359.
Key passages used: Genesis 1:27–28; Matthew 19:4–6.
What it must downplay: Infertile heterosexual marriages, which the tradition permits; the question of whether telos arguments belong in biblical exegesis.
Strongest objection: Luke Timothy Johnson (Homosexuality and the Church, 2006) argues the tradition has revised natural law reasoning before (on usury, slavery, religious liberty) and the same revisionary logic applies here.

Position 5: Trajectory / Progressive Hermeneutic

Claim: Scripture's trajectory moves toward fuller inclusion; the Spirit's work through Acts 10 (Gentile inclusion) and Galatians 3:28 models how apparent prohibitions are superseded by redemptive movement.
Key proponents: William Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (2001) (applies trajectory method but reaches a traditionalist conclusion on homosexuality, making this position largely a usage of his method against his conclusion); Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment (1996).
Key passages used: Acts 10:9–16; Galatians 3:28; the silence of Jesus.
What it must downplay: Webb's own conclusion that the homosexuality trajectory does not move in an affirming direction; the distinction between expanding inclusion of persons and approving practices.
Strongest objection: Gagnon argues the trajectory hermeneutic proves too much—it can be used to overturn any biblical prohibition—and that the Gentile inclusion analogy fails because the issue was never Gentile behavior, only Gentile identity.

Tradition Profiles

Roman Catholic

Official position: Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357–2359: homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"; persons with homosexual tendencies must be treated with respect but are called to chastity.
Internal debate: New Ways Ministry (Francis DeBernardo) and theologians such as James Alison dispute the "intrinsically disordered" language as inconsistent with a theology of creation. The 2023 Fiducia Supplicans declaration permitting blessings of same-sex couples without blessing the union itself generated significant internal controversy.
Pastoral practice: Catholic parishes vary widely; some offer Courage (celibacy-affirming ministry) while others quietly welcome partnered gay couples without formal recognition.

Reformed / Presbyterian

Official position: Westminster Confession of Faith XXIV.1 defines marriage as between a man and a woman; the PCA and OPC maintain this position. The PCUSA revised its definition in 2015 to permit same-sex marriage.
Internal debate: The split within Presbyterianism is institutionalized: the PCUSA is formally affirming; the PCA has expelled congregations for any affirmation. Scholars such as J. Todd Billings hold the traditional position while arguing for pastoral compassion; the Matthew Vines network operates within Reformed contexts.
Pastoral practice: PCA and OPC churches discipline members in same-sex relationships; PCUSA congregations ordain partnered gay clergy.

United Methodist

Official position: The Book of Discipline historically called homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching." A denominational split formalized in 2024 created the Global Methodist Church (traditionalist) and the continuing UMC, which removed prohibitions.
Internal debate: The Reconciling Ministries Network (affirming) and Good News Movement (traditionalist) operated within the same denomination for decades before the split.
Pastoral practice: UMC churches now vary by jurisdiction; Global Methodist congregations maintain traditionalist discipline.

Eastern Orthodox

Official position: No single magisterial document equivalent to the CCC; the consensus of the Fathers and canonical tradition (e.g., canon law collections including the Rudder) treats same-sex acts as sinful. Patriarch Kirill and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese have issued statements against same-sex marriage.
Internal debate: Theologians such as Alexander Schmemann's students have not produced a major revisionist Orthodox voice; the tradition is more uniform than Western counterparts, though diaspora parishes navigate pastoral complexity.
Pastoral practice: Chrismation and communion are not formally denied to those with same-sex attraction; partnered same-sex relationships are not blessed.

Evangelical / Baptist

Official position: The Southern Baptist Convention's Baptist Faith and Message 2000 defines marriage as between a man and woman; the SBC has disfellowshipped congregations with openly gay pastors. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is more mixed.
Internal debate: Voices such as David Gushee (Changing Our Mind, 2014) moved from traditionalist to affirming and represent a visible minority within evangelical scholarship. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has issued the Nashville Statement (2017) as a formal traditionalist affirmation.
Pastoral practice: SBC-affiliated churches vary in practice; some offer ex-gay or celibacy ministries; a growing number of younger evangelical churches quietly include partnered gay members.

Historical Timeline

Pre-modern (patristic through Reformation, ~200–1600) John Chrysostom's Homilies on Romans (c. 391) treated Romans 1:26–27 as a clear condemnation of all same-sex behavior as worse than adultery because it is "against nature." Augustine and Aquinas incorporated the prohibition into natural law frameworks. John Boswell's 1980 claim that medieval Christianity tolerated same-sex relationships was largely refuted by subsequent scholarship (Robin Darling Young, Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History, 1994); the patristic consensus appears uniform in condemnation, though the social reality was more complex. This matters for the current debate because both sides appeal to tradition: traditionalists cite the uniformity; revisionists cite the disconnect between formal condemnation and actual pastoral practice.

19th–early 20th century: Emergence of "homosexuality" as a category The term homosexuality was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and medicalised by Richard von Krafft-Ebing (Psychopathia Sexualis, 1886). This matters theologically because revisionists such as Brownson argue that a stable, constitutive sexual orientation—rather than acts chosen from vice—was simply not the category biblical authors addressed. Traditionalists such as Gagnon respond that the presence or absence of the modern concept does not change the scope of the biblical prohibition of same-sex acts.

1955–1980: Academic revisionism begins Derrick Bailey's Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955) initiated the revisionist academic trajectory by challenging the Sodom narrative's traditional reading. John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980) extended the argument and became a major cultural reference point. The scholarly response (Wright, 1984; Gagnon, 2001) largely closed the academic debate on the lexical questions, but the broader hermeneutical argument remained open. This period established the terms of the current debate.

2003–present: Institutional fracture The Episcopal Church's consecration of Gene Robinson as the first openly partnered gay bishop (2003) triggered the formation of the Anglican Church in North America (2009) and accelerated denominational splits across mainline Protestantism. The United Methodist split (formalized 2024) is the largest structural consequence to date. These splits matter because they demonstrate that the hermeneutical disagreement is not resolvable within shared institutional structures; the question is no longer merely academic.

Common Misreadings

"Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality." This claim collapses under Ezekiel 16:49 ("Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness… neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy") and the gang-rape context of Genesis 19, which involves coercion and inhospitality. The attempted assault in Genesis 19 is not evidence of consensual same-sex relationships. Bailey's 1955 analysis of the term yada ("to know") introduced this correction into scholarship; even traditionalists such as Gagnon do not rely primarily on the Sodom narrative.

"The Bible says nothing about lesbian relationships." Romans 1:26 is the primary ancient reference to female same-sex behavior in the biblical text ("their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"). Revisionists dispute whether this verse refers to lesbian acts at all—Bernadette Brooten (Love Between Women, 1996) argued it does; some earlier revisionists claimed it referred to non-procreative heterosexual acts. The claim of biblical silence on lesbianism is not sustainable given Romans 1:26, whatever one concludes about its application.

"Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, so he approved of it." This argument from silence is methodologically weak in both directions. Jesus's silence is cited by revisionists as significant; traditionalists (Gagnon) note that Jesus also never explicitly condemned incest, bestiality, or pedophilia, yet his citation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:4–5 is read as implicitly normative for sexual ethics broadly. An argument from silence cannot bear the weight placed on it without additional hermeneutical premises that must be argued independently.

Open Questions

Does Paul's "against nature" argument in Romans 1 depend on creation-order premises (and thus transcend culture) or on Greco-Roman honor/shame conventions (and thus do not apply to modern covenantal relationships)?
Can arsenokoitai be lexically settled by its LXX derivation, or does usage in context override etymology?
If a sexual orientation is constitutive rather than chosen, does that change the moral analysis of acts that express it—and does Scripture's framework allow for that distinction?
Do the Levitical holiness codes function as moral law, ceremonial law, or both, and on what basis do New Testament Christians distinguish?
Does the Genesis 1–2 complementarity narrative establish a prescriptive norm for all human sexual ethics, or a descriptive account of one form of human flourishing?
If the trajectory hermeneutic (Webb) is applied to this question, does the biblical trajectory move toward inclusion or remain stable?
What pastoral practice is appropriate when a tradition's formal position generates severe psychological harm to gay members—and who has authority to answer that question?

Passages analyzed above

Genesis 1:27 — Creation of male and female; cited by traditionalists as the sexual norm.
1 Corinthians 6:9 — Vice list including arsenokoitai and malakoi.
1 Timothy 1:10 — Arsenokoitai in a second vice list.

Tension-creating parallels

Frequently cited but actually irrelevant