Question
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is being gay a sin?
Analysis
The two main readings
| The historic reading | The revisionist reading | |
|---|---|---|
| Holds | The texts prohibit same-sex sexual activity as such; the consistent pattern of Scripture presents marriage as between a man and a woman | The texts prohibit exploitative or idolatrous practices known in that world, and do not address a covenanted, equal same-sex partnership, a category the ancient world did not have in view |
| Leans on | The prohibitions are unqualified (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13); Paul describes both male and female (Romans 1:26; Romans 1:27), which does not fit pederasty; the creation pattern is cited by Jesus (Matthew 19:4; Matthew 19:5) | The practices named in that culture were pederasty, temple prostitution and the use of slaves; Romans 1 describes people exchanging what was natural to them, which is read as about people acting against their own nature; Sodom's sin is named elsewhere as pride and neglect of the poor (Ezekiel 16:49; Ezekiel 16:50) |
| Held by | Roman Catholic; Eastern Orthodox; most evangelical bodies; the majority position across Christian history | Several mainline Protestant denominations; a growing minority of scholars and churches |
The two contested Greek words
1 Corinthians 6:9 uses malakoi and arsenokoitai, and the translation of both is genuinely debated. Our six hosted versions render them differently, which is itself worth seeing.
malakosliterally means soft. It carried a range of meanings in Greek, from luxurious to effeminate, and is used elsewhere in the New Testament of clothing (Matthew 11:8). Whether it names a sexual role or a broader moral softness is disputed.arsenokoitēsis a rare word, and Paul may have coined it. It joins the two words arsēn (male) and koitē (bed) that stand next to each other in the Greek Old Testament of Leviticus 18:22. The historic reading takes this as decisive: Paul built a word straight out of the Leviticus prohibition. The revisionist reading answers that a word's meaning is not settled by its parts, and that its rare later uses are often in contexts of economic exploitation.
Both sides make a real philological argument here. Neither is inventing its case.
On Sodom
Genesis 19:5 is often assumed to be the Bible's main statement on this subject. It is worth reading carefully: the account describes the men of the city demanding to gang-rape two visitors. Ezekiel names Sodom's sin as arrogance, excess and refusing to help the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49; Ezekiel 16:50), and Jude 1:7 refers to sexual immorality and pursuing unnatural desire. Both sides cite these. Most interpreters across positions agree that an attempted gang rape is not a useful text for evaluating consensual relationships, and the historic reading generally rests its case on Leviticus and Romans rather than on Genesis 19.
What both sides agree the Bible teaches
| Point | Where |
|---|---|
| Every person bears God's image | Genesis 1:27 |
| Sexual ethics apply to everyone, not only to some | 1 Corinthians 6:18; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:3 |
| The lists Paul writes include sins common in every congregation | 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 6:10 |
| The same passage ends by saying that is what some of them were | 1 Corinthians 6:11 |
| Contempt, mockery and violence are excluded | James 2:1; James 3:9; Luke 6:31 |
| Judging outsiders is not the church's job | 1 Corinthians 5:12 |
1 Corinthians 6:11 is worth noticing whichever reading you hold. Paul finishes his list not with condemnation but with washing, sanctification and justification, and he includes greed, drunkenness and slander in the same sentence as the sexual sins. Both sides point out that churches have often applied that list very unevenly.
On orientation and behaviour
Traditions holding the historic reading generally distinguish between attraction, which they do not treat as itself sinful, and behaviour. Catholic teaching, for instance, calls for gay people to be accepted with respect and compassion and rejects unjust discrimination, while holding that same-sex sexual acts are not permitted. Some evangelical bodies take a similar line; others do not draw the distinction as clearly. Traditions holding the revisionist reading generally see the distinction as insufficient.
What is not in dispute among these bodies is that same-sex attraction is not chosen and that reparative or conversion therapy has caused documented harm; the major bodies on both sides of the interpretive question have moved away from endorsing it.
Where this leaves an honest answer
The disagreement is real, it is between people who take Scripture seriously, and it is not resolved by quoting a verse at someone who has already read it. Bubble Bible does not take a side on it. What we can do is show you the passages, show you both readings in their strongest form, tell you where the translations differ, and let you check every word of it yourself.