By: Max Mills

Aight, so in this document, I am going to make the case that homosexuality is never condemned as objectively immoral in the Bible. Then, there at the end, I make the case against it being immoral, but only after making the case that scripture is silent on the subject in terms of explicit references. If you disagree, you should read this. If you do not read this, you cannot claim to be open minded to alternate views.

As we dive into this topic, remember, when reading an ancient text, the very first question you should ask is what does the text... say?

A lot of people like to start talking about what it means or implies right off the bat, instinctively applying their 21st century lenses to a translation of an ancient document, but before you take that step, you need to start at what it says, and take small steps that you can justify with evidence and reason towards any given interpretation.

With that in mind, lets start with the Old Testament.

The first verses that come to mind when people talk about homosexuality in the Old Testament is the two relevant verses in Leviticus - 18:22 and 20:13

So, let's take a look at those first.

Specifically, lets take a look at the Hebrew word there, "abomination". The ancient Jewish understanding of it is pretty weird, because it doesnt necessarily mean something which is intrinsically and objectively evil. In its use in Deut 22:5, for example, it has been interpreted to be decidedly subjective and an instrumental abomination - it was wrong for them to wear clothes for the opposite sex for fear of it leading them to actual abominations - that men would go on to pretend to be women or women to be men so that crimes could be committed (you can find this interpretation of the word in the Talmudic tractate Nazir)

Because this word is actually relative to the culture and, moreover, often indicative of problems as it is manifested in culture rather than objective moral complaints, we can dig a bit into the manifestations of homosexuality among the two sexes at the time and perhaps see why it was permitted for one sex and not the other. Among men, homosexuality in local cultures (notably Greece) typically took the form of things like pederasty - a clearly immoral practice. Among women, it was probably found between women in the same household (as part of the same marital covenant) either with their husband or blowing off sexual steam with one another.

Its also worth noting that men pairng with men in an era where how many children you had literally correlated with your chances of survival and the chances of your tribe's survival, men pairing up and not having babies is kind of not super great.

We live in an era where people can marry just for love. That wasnt always true.

This explains why, given the meaning of the word, the verse explicitly condemns male/male homosexual behavior. There is no reason to believe it extends to women (some will argue that it is an implicit condemnation of both, but the Hebrew wording is extremely male-centric and is not used elsewhere in the text to mean both genders - indeed, the verses that follow this one condemns the same thing in both men and women explicitly).

So it would make more sense for there to be some fundamental difference in the way male/male homosexuality was practiced that made it lead to abominations in a way that female/female homosexuality did not. The most obvious differences are that male/male homosexuality often, in this time period, manifested in some intrinsically abusive way, like pedarasty, while female/female homosexuality was more likely to manifest inside a polygamous household, where the women were part of the same marital relationship and were not abusing one another or taking anything from the society by fooling around. More on the ethics of polygamy in the Bible later.

So one (male/male) leads to an actual abomination, the other (female/female) does not. So one is instrumentally an abomination which the Jews, culturally, were called to abstain from, and the other is not. But to understand this as an objective condemning of homosexuality in all cases seems like a mistake.

The word is used to mean a variety of other things which deal with cultural no-nos rather than objective moral wrongs. The same word is used to describe tithing the cost of a dog or of a prostitute, it is used to describe Egyptians eating with Hebrews, and sometimes for various unclean animals. No other individual objectively wrong sexual act, like incest or sex with an animal or anything else, is called that. Different words which more specifically mean sexual immorality are used instead.

The ancient Hebrews didnt perceive this word as meaning an objective moral sexual immorality, the text doesnt, and there's no reason to believe that is what it means.

Friedman makes a pretty good case for this (I quote him a lot because he does a good job of communicating things on a layman level):

//So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts. The question is: is the term tō‘ēbāh an absolute—meaning that an act that is a tō‘ēbāh is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative, meaning that something that is a tō‘ēbāh to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a tō‘ēbāh in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a tō‘ēbāh in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another—in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change? Elsewhere in the Bible the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they are cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh) to the Egyptians.64 But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians do not eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh) to them.65 But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and do not find it offensive.66 See also the story of the exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh) to the Egyptians.67 But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.68

A former student of ours pointed out that right here in the list of laws that we are considering in Leviticus 18, naming acts that are tō‘ēbāh, are some that prohibit actions that the great patriarchs of the Bible had done.69 For example, Abraham marries his half sister Sarah. He says: She is, in fact, my sister, my father’s daughter but not my mother’s daughter, and she became a wife to me. (Gen 20:12) But the law in Leviticus explicitly forbids such relations with a half sister: Your sister’s nudity—your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, born home or born outside—you shall not expose their nudity. (Lev 18:9) So what is not a tō‘ēbāh in the generation of the patriarchs has changed and become one in the generation of Moses. In a somewhat different way, the land itself can change from not being a tō‘ēbāh and can become a tō‘ēbāh as a result of the behavior of its residents on it. The prophet Jeremiah says: You defiled my land, and made my possession into an offensive thing (tō‘ēbāh). (Jer 2:7) An act or an object that is not a tō‘ēbāh can become one, depending on time and circumstances.//

Friedman, Richard Elliott; Dolansky, Shawna (2011-06-03). The Bible Now (p. 37). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition

Want more evidence?

If you’re convinced, feel free to skip over the next few quotes and into the next topic. If you’re still skeptical on the meaning of this word, I will lead with a quote from a friend of mine, Jack Butler, who has his PhD in Biblical History and is a fluent speaker in Hebrew:

“Hebrew actually has three words that mean "abomination":  toʿevah,  shekeẓ, and piggul.

To'evah (or "tow'ebah", as you are spelling it), means "irregularity, oddness, and that which offends the accepted order." Its not so much "abomination = evil" as it is "abomination = unacceptable."

"Shekez" means "that which goes against the law of god", essentially, and the implication there *is* "abomination = evil".

"Piggul" has a very specific meaning: "a sacrifice made in a sacreligious manner". Like sacrificing a pig to YHVH. This is also "abomination = evil".”

And, finally, a look at its use in the Targum Onkelos. The Targum Onkelos is basically an Aramaic rendition of the Torah from 2000 years ago. It says:

“And he washed [JERUSALEM. And he washed] his face from tears, and came forth, and hastened and said, Set bread. And they set for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Mizraee who ate with him by themselves; for it was not proper for the Mizraee [Egyptians] to eat bread with the Yehudaee [Jews], because the animals which the Mizraee worshipped the Yehudaee ate.”

Here the word “tow’ebah” is understood in the ancient Aramaic rendition of the Torah to mean “not proper”, and the justification for it being tow’ebah is given as being a violation of their subjective religious rituals, rather than objective immorality

Having established the definition of this word...

Another important reference is Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a story for which we might as well briefly go into the NT to talk about Jude, too.

Jude's quotes from the Book of Enoch which precede this make it apparent that his fear was not men breeding with men, but angels breeding with humans. Furthermore, the plural male form in Hebrew does not necessitate that they are all men, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah makes it clear that every man, woman, and child, young and old, was guilty and calling out for these angels. We dont even know for certain whether the angels were men.

For your convenience, I am once again going to cite my favorite scholar for communicating difficult concepts to laymen (not necessarily my favorite in other areas but he does this exceedingly well), Friedman.

//..[following a discussion of the earlier parts of the story].. There is still no hint of any single offense here. The idea that homosexuality has something to do with this story comes in the next part, where two angels arrive in Sodom and are taken in by Abraham’s nephew, Lot. Here is the first part of the story:

And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting at Sodom’s gate, and Lot saw and got up toward them, and he bowed, nose to the ground. And he said, “Here, my lords, turn to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet, and you’ll get up early and go your way.” And they said, “No, we’ll spend the night in the square.” And he pressed them very much, and they turned to him and came to his house, and he made a feast and baked unleavened bread for them, and they ate. They had not yet lain down, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, from youth to old man, all the people, from the farthest reaches. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the people who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let’s know them!” And Lot went out to them at the entrance and closed the door behind him, and he said, “Don’t do bad, my brothers. Here I have two daughters who haven’t known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as is good in your eyes. Only don’t do anything to these people, because that is why they came under the shadow of my roof.” And they said, “Come over here,” and they said, “This one comes to live, and then he judges! Now we’ll be worse to you than to them.” And they pressed the man, Lot, very much and came over to break down the door. And the people reached their hand out and brought Lot in to them in the house, and they closed the door. And they struck the people who were at the house’s entrance with blindness, from smallest to biggest, and they wearied themselves with finding the entrance. And the people said to Lot, “Who else do you have here—son-inlaw and your sons and your daughters and all that you have in the city—take them out from the place, because we’re destroying this place, because its cry has grown big before YHWH’s face, and YHWH has sent us to destroy it.” (Gen 19:1–13)

Now, on first reading, one would not necessarily think that this story has anything to do with sex of any kind, either heterosexual or homosexual. Interpreters have understood it to be about sex because the people of Sodom call for the two guests in Lot’s home to be sent out “so we may know them.” The word know in biblical Hebrew can indeed mean to know someone with sexual intimacy. (Joke: An ancient Greek says to an ancient Jew: “Know thyself.” The ancient Jew punches the ancient Greek.) For example, an earlier text says, “Cain knew his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth” (Gen 4:17). It can also mean any other kind of knowledge, but sexual knowledge is likely here in the Sodom story because Lot responds by offering them his virgin daughters, and he says, “do to them as is good in your eyes”—which means “do whatever you want to them.”

Another reason for thinking that the story is about sex is that there is a parallel story later in the Bible. In Judges 19 is a story with many obvious similarities. In this story, a Levite man is provided hospitality by a fellow Israelite in the town of Gibeah. The other people of Gibeah, although Israelite as well, do not take kindly to strangers, and they surround the house where the Levite and his concubine and his servant have been welcomed for the night. As the unwelcoming crowd gathers around the host’s house demanding that the stranger be sent out so that they might “know” him, the owner of the house pleads, “Don’t, my brothers. Don’t do bad. Since this man came to my house, don’t do this foolhardy thing. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out. And degrade them and do to them what’s good in your eyes, and don’t do this foolhardy thing to this man.” Like Lot in Genesis, the host offers his virgin daughter and the traveler’s concubine in place of his guest. But in this story the concubine is actually handed over to the crowd by her man. The crowd “knew her and abused her all night until morning and let her go at sunrise. And the woman came toward morning and fell at the entrance of the house where her man was, until it was light.” And there she dies. In this horrifying story the “knowing” that the crowd wants is manifestly sex, and the parallels of story line and specific wording are so close to those of the Sodom story that they certainly indicate that the Sodom story is about sex as well.

But, granting that the story is about sex, one still would not read it and automatically think that it is about anything homosexual. Interpreters have taken it to be about homosexual sex because they understand the text to say that the men of Sodom call for the two men in Lot’s home to be sent out so that the crowd may know them. But the Hebrew text in this chapter speaks of two “people” (not necessarily both male) in the house, and it speaks of all the “people” (not necessarily just the males) of Sodom wanting to know them. It does not necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality. The misunderstanding arose because Hebrew, like many other languages, uses the masculine when referring to mixed groups. That is, in Hebrew the word for “men” and the word for “people” are the same. (The word in Hebrew is ’ănāšîm.) Likewise, when Lot says, “Don’t do bad, my brothers,” the word brothers need not refer to just males. Like the word brotherhood in English, it has the meaning of fellow humans, not just fellow males. Outside of this story, the word ’ănāšîm occurs in twenty-one places in Genesis with this indefinite meaning, in which it could mean either people in general or just males.2 In two places it must mean both males and females.And in fifteen places it means just males.4 English translators quite commonly translate almost all of these as “men.” But that is not correct. In most Bible stories, this does not make a big difference. But here in the case of the story of Sodom, it makes all the difference in the world. It is only because the interpreters and translators understood the word to be men that people thought that the story was about something homosexual. The most cautious statement would be: it might mean just men, and it might mean people. We do not know.

Those who are aware of this problem but still think that it means men, not people, here say that the issue is homosexual because the crowd rejects Lot’s offer of females—his daughters. But the offer and rejection of his daughters are more probably about ancient Near Eastern bargaining than ancient Near Eastern sex. When Lot offers his daughters and says, “Here, do whatever you want to them,” we cannot assume that he means it. As in many other cases in Genesis, this story is consistent with the going conventions of bargaining.5 When buying the cave of Machpelah as a tomb for his wife, Abraham says, “I’ll pay full price.” The owner responds, “Pay nothing. I’ve given it to you!” Abraham insists, “I’ve given the money.” The man says, “Well, what’s four hundred shekels between you and me!” Abraham understands the man’s point and pays the four hundred shekels. Likewise in the story of Jacob: when Jacob is about to face his brother Esau, whose blessing he appropriated twenty years earlier, Jacob sends a tremendous gift in advance. Esau declines the gift. He says, “I have a great deal, my brother. Let what’s yours be yours.” But Jacob insists, and the text concludes: “And he pressed him, and he took it.” Likewise in the story of Esther: at Esther’s soiree, King Ahasuerus says, “What do you ask, Queen Esther, and it will be given to you! What is your request, up to half my kingdom, and it will be done!” (Esth 7:2).

But he is not offering her one half of the Persian Empire, and she does not accept it. And so on: Abraham’s servant bargains over the acquisition of a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24). Jacob bargains with his future father-in-law, Laban, over the bride-price for Laban’s daughters, and later they bargain again over the compensation for Jacob’s work (Gen 29:15–19; 30:28–34). Jacob and the king of Shechem bargain over the fate of Jacob’s daughter Dinah and the relationship between their two communities (Genesis 34). Judah bargains with Tamar for sex with her (Genesis 38). When a king says, “I’ll give you half my kingdom,” he does not mean it, and you are not supposed to take him up on it. That has been the way of the Near East for thousands of years. Anyone who has been there knows this. Some find it fun; some find it annoying; some find it challenging. But if one does not understand it, one is at a disadvantage there today, and one can misinterpret several stories of that world in Bible times. Some think that Lot’s offer of his daughters reflects Near Eastern traditions of hospitality.

But offering your daughters for rape is far beyond what almost anyone in any culture would consider to be an obligation of hospitality. Neither Lot’s offer of the young women nor the crowd’s rejection of it proves anything about what the crowd is after. It is not good evidence on which to conclude that the rest of the story is about homosexuality. Likewise in the Gibeah story, the host offers his virgin daughter, but the crowd does not take him up on his offer. The guest gives his concubine, conceivably to protect the host (and his virgin daughter?) from suffering on the guest’s account. This story, too, has been thought to be about homosexuality because again the “people/men” (’ănāšîm) want to “know” the guest. But they in fact accept and rape the concubine. Moreover, they do not ask for the guest’s male servant, and neither the host nor the guest is pictured as ever considering or mentioning the male servant rather than the female concubine. The Gibeah story shockingly establishes the sexuality of both stories, but it does not establish homosexuality. Another thing that may possibly shed light on this is the fact that all the people of Sodom are destroyed—male and female, young and old. This fits with the emphatic statement in the text that

all the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, from youth to old man, all the people, from the farthest reaches as well as the statement that the angels struck the people who were at the house’s entrance with blindness, from smallest to biggest.

The text is taking pains to emphasize that everyone is involved. That is what justifies what happens, namely, that God destroys “all of the residents.”6 This point favors the reading that Hebrew ’ănāšîm here more probably means the people, and not just the men, of the city. Indeed, if we were to read the story as meaning “men” rather than people, then this would mean that Sodom is pictured as a place where the entire male population is homosexual (or bisexual). And if homosexuality is the great sin for which God seeks to destroy Sodom, the same would presumably apply to the other “cities of the plain” that are destroyed along with Sodom (Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim). Why would the biblical author picture such a thing, where every single man is gay (or bisexual), which is contrary to all human experience? And what in the world is Lot doing there with his family? Why would he go there? Why would they accept him? Is he their token heterosexual? Moreover, the Sodom episode is not found only here in Genesis.

Many other biblical books speak of the destruction of Sodom and the other cities.7 Not one of them connects it to homosexuality. They do not mention this at all. Ironically, the very word for anal sexual intercourse in English, “sodomy,” derives from this unsubstantiated understanding of the story of Sodom. And in any case, the story is about rape—whether homosexual or heterosexual—not just about having sex. The ongoing criminality of the people of Sodom and its neighbor cities is never identified, and this story that conveys the degree of their corruption is about abuse and violence. It does not mean that the whole town was gay. However one feels about homosexuality, one should not base his or her view of it on this story.8//

And this is what Ezekiel says about Sodom:

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

So.. that settles that.

Now, to dive into the New Testament.

Before we get into specific references, it is time to address one of the most common arguments you'll hear - that the Bible defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

This statement is false.

The Bible never explicitly defines marriage in such a sense. When discussing marriage, the model of one man and one woman is often used, but it is never stated to be the only proper way for marriage to manifest. Meaning that our first test in Biblical interpretation - what does the text say? - does not support this interpretation

In fact, the Bible says quite the opposite. In the Old Testament, polygamy was very clearly ethical, and in 2 Samuel 12, David's polygamy is said to be a gift from God, recognizing that this polygamy is of God. Which means that marriages outside of one man/one woman happen in scripture. Exodus 21 features laws regarding the rights of a polygamous spouse, and some of our most well loved Old Testament characters, like the Jewish Patriarchs, were all polygamous, with no condemnation of any kind.

Here is a quote on the topic from Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

"If the ideal union of man and woman is an exclusive one, why should a "nation of priests and a holy people" compromise?

The simple answer is that Torah deals with life on earth, and the gamut of social life and human experience over all of history and world geography is too diverse to be restricted to one narrow ideal. Take, for example, an agrarian society whose male population has been decimated by war. How are women to survive and how is the population to replenish itself without the mechanism of polygamy? Similarly, a man married to a barren woman who could not produce sons to help in the field and defend the fort would find himself ill put to survive in those times. In an exclusively monogamous society, his wife would find her position insecure. Although, in normative circumstances, being "only one of many" compromises a woman's value as a person, in these situations a permit for polygamy is a form of compassion.

The only case of a polygamous rabbi recorded in the Talmud provides an excellent illustration: Rabbi Tarfon married 300 women. Why? Because there was a famine in the land. But Rabbi Tarfon had plenty of food, since he was a Kohen and received the priestly tithes. The wife of a Kohen is also permitted to eat those tithes. Those 300 women were very happy that the Torah permitted polygamy."

In short, while Adam and Eve's one man/one woman standard is the ideal Edenesque scenario, we live in a world of sin, where certain realities change the ethical nature of certain marital structures. Back then, polygamy had a lot of benefits that helped the human race in a world of sin. In the modern era, we have to deal with the reality that some people, through no choice of their own, are homosexuals, and are in love with other homosexuals of the same sex. So it seems like the same logic would apply here.

Moving forward, though, let's look at some specific New Testament references.

I will respond to two verses in the same way - 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This word, which many translations translate as homosexuals, is actually a Greek word we dont know what means. Weve never seen it before outside of those two references, and there's limited context because both uses are part of a list. Our definitions depend solely on etymology - the etymology suggests that it has something to do with male homosexual sex, but we dont know what exactly is meant, whether it is male homosexual sex generally or some specific manifestation of it which is more obviously sinful - Ill point to the interpretation in my OT thread here, in the first response to that thread, where I pointed out that the reason OT Law condemned, in a solely subjective sense, homosexuality could have been its manifestation in that time period, in the form of things like pederasty and sex with male prostitutes.

Because we dont know, this word has been translated a variety of ways - "Male prostitutes/those who utilize them", "[male] homosexuals", or even things as vague as the word itself, "abusers of themselves with mankind". Some have argued that the etymology here harkens back to the Leviticus verses, but since the Leviticus verses do not condemn homosexuality in an objective sense, this could simply mean a condemnation of those who led to the condemnation of male homosexuality in the OT - pederasts and male prostitutes.

Let’s now turn to the final battle - Romans 1.

The offending verses are found in verses 26 and 27:

//For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.//

The modern mind reads this passage and makes a few assumptions. Lets start with a blank slate, and ask the question that I expressed my fondness for in my OT thread - what does the text say?

What does it say about lesbians?

It says the women exchange natural relations for unnatural ones, then describes men having sex with men. But it doesn’t actually describe the unnatural relations women were having with women - the assumption the modern mind makes is that it is describing female homosexuality, and if it does it is the only text in the Bible that does so, but as it turns out the Church Fathers were pretty divided on whether this indicated homosexuality or merely extramarital affairs. Anastasios and Augustine both explicitly reject this, and the earliest guy to champion this interpretation showed up in the 5th century AD, if I remember correctly.

Thats more of an aside, though. It doesnt much matter, because if the text does refer to female homosexuality, my overall response to these verses will rebut them both. I just wanted to note that therei s no clear, explicit, undeniable response of any kind to female homosexuality in the Bible, which fits very nicely into my interpretation in the Old Testament thread (which, again, you should all read).

Now, that point aside, we can interpret this verse one of two ways, into either of the two possible interpretations we used in the Old Testament:

We could take the interpretation that it is objectively immoral, fit that in both the OT and NT passages, and t would fit.

However, just as with the OT verses, there is room for another interpretation. In the OT thread I made a (good) case for the idea that the reason these laws were explicitly subjective is because they were condemning the evil manifestations of male homosexuality in their day and culture. If we take that interpretation and look at Romans 1 as a whole, it is ABUNDANTLY clear that these people are not in loving, monogamous, Christ-centered homosexual relationships, but are rather engaged in extramarital sex romps and a wide variety of sin besides. That is to say, the kind of sex being condemned is the kind of sex that the subjective regulations in the OT were trying to avoid. Extending this to mean a condemnation of monogamous Christ-centered relationships is a leap, and not a necessary one.

By itself, the New Testament, like the Old Testament, does not explicitly condemn or condone homosexuality in a general sense, just the evil manifestations of it in the time period.

But silence does not necessarily mean that homosexuality is acceptable. A lot of people are adamant that it is, and would point to a variety of justifications.

So, since the Bible is silent on the subject, we can say that there are two teachings that fit within the Biblical framework: That it is wrong, and that it is right. Fortunately, Jesus gave us a criteria through which we can discern a false teaching from a correct one, in Matthew 7:

//Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.//

So in order to decide which teaching is correct, let us examine the fruit of each teaching.

Right now, children across the country are suffering in all kinds of horrible ways. Many of them are killing themselves. Churches are fighting to do things like prevent teachers from protecting homosexuals from bullying:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

And this is not an anomaly. Look at these statistics, in America, for what we are doing to our homosexual kids:

- The Suicide Prevention Resource Center synthesized these studies and estimated that between 30 and 40% of LGBT youth, depending on age and sex groups, have attempted suicide.

- U.S. government study, titled Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, published in 1989, found that LGBT youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.

- "More than 34,000 people die by suicide each year," making it "the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24 year olds with lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth attempting suicide up to four times more than their heterosexual peers”

- Research has found the presence of gay-straight alliances (GSAs) in schools is associated with decreased suicide attempts; in a study of LGBTQ youth, ages 13–22, 16.9% of youth who attended schools with GSAs attempted suicide versus 33.1% of students who attended schools without GSA

- "LGBT students are three times as likely as non-LGBT students to say that they do not feel safe at school (22% vs. 7%) and 90% of LGBT students (vs. 62% of non-LGBT teens) have been harassed or assaulted during the past year."

Kids shouldn’t have to feel like that. Going through puberty is confusing enough without having to deal with the kind of persecution and the burden we put on them.

And dont make the mistake of assuming that this is because homosexuality is a mental illness or connected to mental illness itself. On the contrary…

“A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be harmful.”

The harm of trying to force people to deny their homosexuality is detailed by the American Psychological Association (Wiki’s source for the above assertion), and the main point is, if we stopped oppressing them, it would be possible for homosexuals to live a fulfilling, mentally and emotionally healthy life.

If you are not yet convinced that opposing homosexuality bears evil fruit, try going to places like Uganda to spread a message which results in the execution or imprisonment of people who are being condemned for desires they cannot help but have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014        

This teaching burdens children, whose puberty is already confusing enough, with the belief that there is something intrinsically wrong or twisted about them, that their sexuality is something to be ashamed of, and that it is something they need to suppress or fight to change. Many children end up in "pray the gay away" camps, which do not work. We know they dont work due both to studies, testimonies, and the admission of ex-gay leaders themselves, many of whom resigned from the largest such group, Exodus International, apologizing and saying that they NEVER successfully rid someone of homosexuality, and that many people died trying to rid themselves of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

Those children who are not taught to become straight (impossible) are instead taught to suppress it and pursue a life of celibacy, which many of them were not designed for and in violation of one of the first Biblical principles given by God, that it is not good for man to be alone. God sought through the entire animal kingdom seeking a suitable companion for Adam, and created Eve for that purpose, but forcing a gay man to attach himself to a woman is as perverse as forcing Adam to go with an ostrich - it is not good for man to be alone, and they should find a companion suitable for THEM.

This is not me knocking celibacy - many of Christianity's great leaders were called to celibacy. Jesus, of course. Paul. More recently, guys like Kierkegaard, who felt called to terminate his engagement so he could be safe to assault the corruption of the Church of his day. But the concept that God would deliver that calling through something so impersonal as an unchangable orientation to a child, giving them a scarlet letter to bear for the entirety of their lives, seems out of character for God, and ultimately, it feels wrong.

What is the fruit of my teaching?

More love, less children in adoption agencies and more in loving households, people having companions to pursue God together with and to create more love in the world with. God is love, and the idea that we should reject love, or that love is a bad fruit, is absurd. There IS NO bad fruit for my stance, plenty of good fruit, and the stance that opposes homosexuality is VERY CLEARLY one which bears exclusively bad fruit.

By the Biblical litmus test, homosexuality cannot be wrong, and it is not explicitly condemned, and there is something monstrous about condemning children to suicidal depression and often death because of your personal feeling about a bunch of vague Bible quotes that might mean something completely differently than what youre arguing.

p.s. Some argue against male homosexuality on the basis of it having more STDs, but every legitimate study on the subject attributes this increase to a “larger mean number of sexual contacts”

Its almost as though something is stopping them from getting married and engaging in healthy, marital monogamy.

Oh wait.

Some will argue that homosexual sex is more likely to  argument, that is only true of male/male homosexual couples (female/female couples are less likely to get AIDS, which kind of hurts your argument all by itself), here is a list of STDs that straight couples are more at risk of than gay couples:

-NGU

-herpes genitalis

-venereal warts

-pediculosis pubis

So there goes that argument.