As Gandhi says, “I like your Christ, but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” I don’t care if people accept my faith or not, I became a Christian as a personal choice, but I do care how people view me and other Christians. We’re not all full of hate, and we’re not all bigots. So please know, when you see the comments that will come from other confused and misled Christians and discussion that they will engage in, please understand that isn’t how all of us feel. I’m not trying to convert people, or make an atheist believe in God, I’m just trying to show people that not all Christians are full of hate.
I was a lot like the Christians who are very anti-gay growing up. I hated what I didn’t understand, and I was taught intolerance in the church from a young age, because it was a different time. Times have changed. I was taught the same “clobber verses” that Christians use to clobber homosexuals and the people who support them. I’ve learned that you can be a Christian and be pro-gay rights and marriage equality. Ignorance to something you don’t understand is excusable as long as you take the time to do your homework and make an attempt to grow and love. I learned and accepted that homosexuality is normal, gay people are not “evil”, and there is no reason to judge or condemn them.
Now, to go ahead and bring up every issue that most people talk about when it comes to God's view on homosexuality and provide them a proper alternative opinion and answer to their confused logic.
In the Bible, there are 41,522 “red letter words”, which are the words Christ actually spoke. There are 783,137 words in the Bible. Not one of the words Jesus spoke is “homosexual” or “gay”. It is amazing that Christians focus so much on the other 94.7% of the Bible but ignore the 5.3% of the Bible that matters most - what Jesus actually said. If we are to call ourselves CHRISTians, we are to be imitators of Christ - to walk in His spirit, His truth, His light and His love. The namesake of our faith is our example and His words our guiding principles.
"Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!"
This phrase comes up most often when it comes to homosexuality and the Bible. To people who use this, I like to ask, "Were you there?" And, "How do you know there wasn’t a “Steve”?" For example, when Cain went into the land of Nod to find a wife, where did she come from? Obviously there were other people living on the Earth, and perhaps Steve lived there.
So, let’s discuss the “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” argument further.
First, let’s look at the original translation:
Zeh sefer tol'dot adam.
The word “adam” can actually mean “human beings” as a plural word in Hebrew.
The more natural reading of the traditional Genesis account going from the original Hebrew implies that God created “plural” humanity in the beginning. So, we don’t know for sure that there was simply Adam (male) and Eve (female), because none of us were there. God very well could have made multiple people in which there was an Adam and Steve.
This would also make more sense, in that Cain found a wife in the land of Nod, but the Bible did not account for where she came from. Using the translation for the plural of “adam” fits the Biblical creation story much better.
"People aren't born gay, it's a choice!"
Usually, when someone says this, my response to them is, "When did you choose to be straight?" to which they respond, "I was born this way!" Homosexuality is the same way. Thankfully, through advances in science and genetics, we've finally been able to see otherwise. Through brain scans we've found that the brain symmetry of a homosexual resembles that of the opposite sex. We've also observed that a difference in hormonal balance in the womb can lead to homosexuality. Some studies have found it to be genetically influenced, that it's in the DNA. Some evidence have shown that it is also influenced by the hypothalamus in the brain. There are numerous explanations, but they all come to the same conclusion - that homosexuality is instilled from birth, and genetics have further been able to reinforce this. Also, studies have found genetic regions common to homosexuality (Xq28 and 8q12) in hundreds of gay males studied. They have also found three new SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that are common of gay males that have been studied - proving that homosexuality is indeed genetic. If this is a trait from conception, and we, as Christians, believe that God created man - who are we to question his creation?
References and further study material:
"It isn't natural!"
It's interesting to note that it is, indeed, natural. Homosexuality has been observed in nature numerous times in numerous species. Rams, albatross, dolphins, bonobos, cock of the rock (songbirds), lions, waterfowl, penguins, gulls, giraffes and dragonflies are a few of the dozens more species of animal it has been observed in. There are numerous studies that further back this up, so it can be concluded that in God's creation, humans are not the only creatures that exhibit homosexuality. He also created animals with homosexual inclinations.
References and further study material:
"Gay marriage will just lead to divorce!"
It's interesting to note that gay divorce rate is much lower than the straight divorce rate. Most reports show that around 1%-2% of gay marriage will end in divorce. The traditional marriage divorce probability rate is around 33%. So it shows that people who are homosexual and enter into marriage do so with much more sincerity than heterosexual couples. And rightfully so, homosexual couples are denied that right in most areas and have to fight for marriage, whereas heterosexual couples are given that right from birth.
References and further study material:
"The Bible says "Be Fruitful and Multiply!" Gay people can't have children, so they can't get married!"
People will argue, especially anti marriage equality people, that the main purpose of marriage is procreation. Genesis 1:28 says, “Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply.” But what about people who are born infertile? Or the elderly? Does this mean they cannot be married? No, it doesn’t. The same applies to same sex couples. Through adoption, surrogacy or in vitro fertilization, anyone can have children and become a parent, there are many ways to “be fruitful and multiply”.
If you look at the Old Testement, the marriages of Abraham/Sarah and Elanah/Hannah were valid years and years before they brought forth children. Jesus himself stated that divorce was acceptable for infidelity, but not for couples who can’t have children. The ability to bear children is not a necessity of marriage, nor is it a requirement. Paul himself encourages couples who are married (1 Corinthians 7:5) to have sex so that “Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control”. Paul never once stated that sex was only for the purpose of procreation, nor was it a requirement of marriage.
While Jesus didn't preach on homosexuality, he did have words about people who condemn or judge homosexuals.
Let's take a look at what Jesus said about people who condemn or judge people based on their homosexuality. First, let’s look at Matthew 5:22, and the original translation.
Bible Text: Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Translation: Mat 5:22 . . lego . . . pas ho . orgizo . . adelphos eike . eike . . . enochos . . krisis . hos an . epo . . adelphos rhaka . . . enochos . . sunedrion . hos an . epo . moros . . . enochos . geenna pur Mat 5:23 oun . . prosphero . doron . . thusiasterion . ekei mnaomai . . adelphos echo tis kata .
The words I want to focus on are raca, rhaka and moros. The word rhaka in Hebrew has a connotation of “weakness” or “effeminacy”, speaking specifically about homosexuals. The word raca is an accusation of someone being a “sissy”. Rhakha/raca were used in the connotation of someone being a homosexual. The word moros is used as a connotation of homosexual aggressor, or someone who is judgmental towards gays. In these words, Jesus is condemning people who are judgmental towards homosexuals.
Furthermore, Jesus actually showed love and acceptance of the centurion and his gay lover.
Next, let’s discuss Matthew 19:10-12. Jesus actually affirmed a gay couple. You can also reference Luke 7:1-10.
A centurion came to Jesus to ask for healing of his servant. Jesus said he would come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said Jesus didn’t have to. He believed that if Jesus spoke, the servant would be healed. Jesus was impressed with the man’s faith, and the servant was healed by his word.
It’s important for us to look at the original translation of this, as well. In the original translation, the word for servant was “pais”. The original translation implied that the “servant” wasn’t actually a servant, but his master’s male lover. In those times, it was very common for masters to have young male lovers. If you look to Luke, there were other words used to describe the servant who is sick. He said the “pais” was the centurion’s “entimos doulos” - which means he was the “honored male slave”, his master’s male lover. If we look further to verse 9 of Matthew’s version of the story, the centurion transitions from the word “pais” to the word “duolos”, to differentiate between other servants. A further showing that the slave is the male lover of the centurion, and not an ordinary servant. Jesus didn’t reject him, or judge him. He stated that he would come heal him. Jesus showed extreme tolerance, love and acceptance of a man in a gay relationship.
"Marriage is between one man and one woman!"
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Because Genesis 2:24 doesn’t mention gay marriage or gay couples or even marriage in general, nor does it say gay marriage is “wrong”. In fact, there were no grandparents in the beginning or mentioned in Genesis 2, but God isn’t against grandparents. Genesis 2 doesn’t say anything about wedding gifts, wedding rings or getting married in a church - but that doesn’t mean God is against those things.
If you read Matthew 19:4-5, and 11-12, Christ says “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.” We know it is not a sin to marry. In fact, Genesis 2:24 mentions “one flesh”, not marriage. If anything, Genesis 2:24 is an etiological story in basis, telling how the institution of marriage came into being, but not of actual marriage. This is further mentioned in Matthew 19:4-6. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause' shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
As I mentioned before, also in this passage, Jesus says that there are exceptions for traditional marriage. God made an exception for eunuchs who were born sexless because it was natural. We’ve found that homosexuality is also natural, and through genetics learned that people are born gay, and as it is natural, the same exception exists for gay marriage as exists for eunuchs. Jesus encourages a traditional path, but he does NOT discourage alternatives.
To read further into the "eunuch" passage, Jesus actually confirmed that some people are born gay. Let’s look further into Matthew 19:10-12. If we look at Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus said “Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefor what God has joined together let no man separate.’” This may make you believe that heterosexuality is the norm, and the only accepted marriage.
However, Jesus went on to state in 11-12, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” Jesus is identifying three types of people here (men) who should not marry women. 1.) Men who give up marriage to serve God. 2.) Castrated males. 3.) Eunuchs who were born that way. In that day, eunuchs were not people who were believed to be missing testicles. In that time, the word eunuch was an effeminate term. Jesus states that God created gay people, that gay people are born that way.
You see, Jesus teaches that some people are better suited for heterosexual marriage, and some are not. Jesus states that this is not the only acceptable and honorable marriage, and that some people have been born gay by God and are set out to follow that path.
Let's examine the word "eunuch" further.
The word eunuch has numerous translations - one of which includes people who were incapable of sexual activity. The word “eunouchizo” is a word meaning “to castrate” (a man). This word is typically used in that fashion. However, the Hebrew word “saris” is “to castrate”, but when Jesus speaks, he teaches that not all “eunuchs” are castrated and he doesn't use such words. When Jesus speaks of eunuchs, he doesn't use those words, rather the word translation of eunuch that he uses comes from the Aramaic word “m’haym-ne” which meant “trusted ones”. The connotation of that word in the original Hebrew was actually homosexual men who were trusted to be around women because they weren’t a threat to these women to lead them to adultery. Scripture never states that all eunuchs are people who were born castrated or without sexual desire. Furthermore, Jesus mentions people who were “born eunuchs”. When Christ uses this word, he’s mentioning people who were born into the world without the desire to marry a woman. He’s not mentioning men who were castrated. A “born eunuch”, from the Hebrew, is a man born without the traditional desire to marry a woman.
“But isn’t traditional marriage the one true way to live, and marriage is only between one man and one woman?”
The term “traditional marriage according to the Bible” gets thrown around a lot. It’s important to look at how the Bible viewed and defined marriage. When it comes to marriage, the Bible doesn’t simply define marriage as one man one woman. To look at this topic honestly and historically, monogamy wasn’t adopted by the Jewish and Christian faith until around the 7th to the 10th century. The “one man one woman” belief when it comes to marriage didn’t even appear until the 19th and 20th centuries. Let’s look at the definition of marriage according to the Bible.
Man & Woman - Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Man & Wives/Concubines - 1 Kings 11:3
Man & Woman & Woman’s Property - Genesis 16
Man & Many Women (Polygamy) - Genesis 29:15-30
Rapist & Victim - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Male Solider & Prisoner of War - Numbers 31:1-18
Male Soldier & Captive Virgin - Numbers 31:18
Male Slave & Female Slave - Exodus 21:4
Celibacy - Matthew 19:12
The definition of marriage has changed pretty drastically since those days, and now should be embraced as the union between two people who love each other.
"Leviticus, Leviticus, Leviticus!"
Of all the anti gay "clobber verses", this is one that I see come up the most. First of all, I like to ask them, "Did you know the things that Leviticus bans that Christians shouldn’t be doing?"
Eating fat (3:17), eating blood (3:17), touching an unclean animal (5:2), letting your hair get messy (10:6), eating pork (11:4-7), eating seafood (11:10-12), touching insects (11:20-22), eating any animal which walks on all fours (including cows) (11:27), going to church within 33 days of having a baby boy (12:4), going to church within 66 days of having a baby girl (12:5), lying (19:11), wearing mixed fabrics (19:18), eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting (19:23), trimming your beard (19:27), tattoos (19:28), working on Sundays (23:3), and more.
Now, most Christians are going to shudder at that, and disregard it, or throw it out. But their favorite anti-homosexuality verse comes from Leviticus. It’s important to understand that Moses wrote Leviticus as a major source of Jewish law. Actually, most Christians will disregard in entirely and say, “Oh, he didn’t write that book about me, or modern day Christians.” It’s also important to note mistranslations in these verses.
Leviticus 18:22
Modern translation: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.”
Correct translation from the original Hebrew: “And with a male, thou shalt not lie down ina woman's bed; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13
Modern translation: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death.”
Correct translation from the original Hebrew: “And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an
abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them.”
The word “shakab” was the word used to mean “to lie with”. However, this word did not mean sex. There are ZERO usages of the word “shakab” in the Bible to mean sex. The word means literally to lie down, to sleep, to relax, to die, to bury.
I know most people love these verses. But if one is to say the other things that can't be done were written to a “different crowd”, you can’t exactly disregard that statement when it applies to homosexuality, either. But you have to remember, the target audience of these writings were the people of Israel, and these passages are no longer relevant in an age of grace under Christ.
It is referenced in the Old Testement, however today Christians no longer cleave to those rules of the OT. Clinging to those passages is simply not keeping with God’s directive or teachings from the time Christ sacrificed himself on the cross, and these are not intelligent practices of modern Christians.
Also, the word “abomination” is a gross mistranslation of the original term, “toevah”. This word is more of a cultural term - something that is acceptable to some groups and not acceptable to others. It basically means “taboo”. It’s interesting to note this term occurs 103 times in the Bible, but the connotation most always refers to a non-Israelite cultural practice. In the Old Testament, the main use of the word toevah is “avodah zara”, which is foreign forms of worship. “Toevah” refers to a behavior that is wrongly practiced by Israelites and Israelite kings - it does not say the behavior is wrong or unacceptable. Other uses of the term “toevah” can refer to ritualist imperfection. But most times this term is used it refers to something foreign, not something unacceptable or wrong. The concept of homosexuality was a foreign concept, or “toevah” to Moses, not something unacceptable or wrong. It also has been used to describe a cultural prohibition - something one culture doesn’t do but something one culture does, which makes sense - because heterosexuals do not enjoy homosexuality, but homosexuals do.
Also, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, is one that comes up a lot - so for that we have to look at the original Hebrew. The word whore is, in Hebrew, actually qede-shah (female prostitute), the word sodomite is actually qa-desh (male prostitute). The Aramaic text actually says “and neither shall there be a man who prostitutes the sons of Israel”. It isn't actually speaking about homosexuality.
Are Christians under Levitical Law anymore?
It is very important to note that Christians are no longer under Levitical Law. We are in the age of grace under Christ. Prior to the law coming to Moses, sin was in the world, but God did not judge based on that sin because there was no formal law. Romans 5:13-14 says “For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” The law in those days wasn’t just the Ten Commandments - in total there were 613 laws covering everything from haircuts to clothing styles.
However we are now no longer under that law due to grace, as stated in Romans 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 7:6 says, “Christians are delivered from the law.” Also, II Corinthians 2:14, “For Christians, the law is that which is abolished.” There are tons of other NT verses that say this, but you catch my drift.
The Bible is very clear about Levitical Law - that it is for the children of Israel and not for the modern Christian. The majority of verses in Leviticus begin with something to the effect of “speak to” or “say to” the children of Israel. The Law of Moses was no longer in effect after Jesus died on the Cross. In Hebrews 9:16 it says, “Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant was put into action at Jesus’ death”.
"Gays are why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah!"
If you look at the translation, when the Bible mentions “sexual immorality”, it specifies lack of hospitality, pride, idolatry, greed and gluttony. Primarily lack of hospitality and greed. In none of these is there a single word about homosexuality. In fact, the closest the Bible comes is Jude 1:7.
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after STRANGE flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The Greek word translated in the KJV as ‘strange’ was heteros, which actually implies the immorality was HETEROsexual.
The Biblical story of Sodom in Genesis 19 never mentions a homosexual act, a same sex relationship nor does it say the inhabitants of Sodom were homosexuals. Scripture also never says the city was destroyed over homosexuality. There is nothing in the passage that relates to consensual homosexual sexual relations. The oppression of the stranger is the main point of the sodom story. The traditional word “sodomy” in Genesis originally translated to “oppression of the weak and helpless”.
"But, Jude 7! That condemns homosexuality!"
Let's take a look at Jude 7, verses 5-7, as this one comes up a lot.
5 - "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 - And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." - Jude 6-7, KJV
Actually, the sin mentioned and condemned in Jude 7 is humans having sex or attempting to have sexual relations with angels. Also, for that word “different”, the original translation is from the greek “heteras” meaning different, not the greek work “homoios”, meaning same - which is where the English word “homosexual” comes from. The issue with this is not homosexuality, the issue here is sex with angels.
"But, The New Testament condemns homosexuality!"
There are six references that come up a lot when speaking about the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Romans 1:26-27, Romans 1:31, 2 Timothy 3:3 and Galatians 5:19.
You have to look at when the New Testement was written, and the audience these verses were written for. In this day and age, the Roman higher ups of the region engaged in homosexuality between themselves and boys. Also, they were common between the Roman conquerers and their slaves. They were “non consensual”, but accepted in that day and age. However to the apostles of that time, they were morally repulsive. The definition of homosexuality in this time was “the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”
THIS is the true context that these homosexual acts were written about. It is true, the apostles condemned homosexual acts around him, because it was coercive, unrestrained, and between older men and boys. He was not writing about acts between a committed gay couple, because this concept was not common in that day and age. They were not writing to modern gay people anymore than he wrote about iPads, smartphones, or MacBooks. Christians have no Bible based moral justification to condemn these acts.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
When it comes to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, it’s an error in translation. The King James Version says “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.” First, when it comes to effiminate, the Greek translation is “malakoi”, which literally means “soft”. This word commonly used in the Greek was associated with laziness or lack of courage. It was not connected to homosexuality in any way. Also, the word “malakoi” has been used to describe male prostitutes who were “woman-like” during sex, but not mentioned as homosexual.
The next phrase is the one to focus on, “abusers of themselves with mankind.” Modern translations have changed it to “men who have sex with men”, but that is simply inaccurate when we look at the original text. That phrase also appears in 1 Timothy 1:10, and is derived from the Greek word “arsenokoitai”. Other uses of this word were linked to people who masturbate, hookers, pimps, child sex slaves (male) and male prostitutes. Some early translators also used this in the effeminate nature, to imply that this activity of defiling with mankind could have been done by women, as well. But it was never linked to homosexuality.
Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3
When it comes to Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3, as those come up quite often, let’s look at the original Greek. The word used in the Bible is not homosexual, it’s astorgos, which means “without natural affection”. This word is used in the context of Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3.
Looking further into Romans 1, Paul is only denouncing certain types of homosexual activity. He’s condemning the acts that occur in conjunction with idol worship, acts that occur with children, or “unnatural” homosexuality”. Remember, Paul wrote Romans 1 to Corinth. This is a city that was very well known for living in sin. Paul is not condemning natural and loving homosexual relationships, only unnatural ones. When Paul writes, he is reflecting the culture of the time. For example he also says women should be silent in church, should not wear gold, and should not braid their hair. He is speaking to the people of THAT time.
Paul was primarily speaking against pedantry. Which is same sex encounters between men and boys. The sin of Romans 1, also, is not homosexuality, but idolatry. Unatural (para physin) is better meaning that it is out of the ordinary, or beyond the ordinary, rather than perversion. In the ancient world, there was no understanding of homosexual or heterosexual orientation. Unnatural relations, also, in that time, could mean sexual relations with a woman who was infertile. In this day and age, we know there are tons of women who are infertile, but do they not have the right to be married, or have sex? No.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
When it comes to 1 Timothy 1:9-10, let’s look at what it says. "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
When you look at the phrase, “for them that defile themselves with mankind”, the word used in the original Greek was arsenokoitai. Other uses of this word were linked to people who masturbate, hookers, pimps, child sex slaves (male) and male prostitutes. Some early translators also used this in the effeminate nature, to imply that this activity of defiling with mankind could have been done by women, as well. But it was never linked to homosexuality.
Galatians 5:19
Galatians 5:19 comes up quite often, but it is speaking about adultery, fornication, uncleanness and lasciviousness. It is not speaking about homosexuality. To break down all of those - let’s explain what each of them mean. Adultery, in the original Greek is “moicheia”, which means sexual relations with someone you are not married to. Fornication in the original Greek is “porneia”, which refers to sins of prostitution, sexual intercourse of single people who aren’t married, and spiritual fornication (worshipping false gods). Uncleanness, from the Greek word “akatharsia” refers to the sexual worship of false gods. Sometimes it refers to idolatry. And lasciviousness comes from the Greek word “assegai”, which means sexual excess, shameless lust and noisy partying.
You may be asking, are there any pro-gay relationships in the Bible?
Ruth and Naomi is one example of a pro-gay Bible relationship.
Consider Ruth 1:14. “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)
There the Scriptures say that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth’s feelings are celebrated and rejoiced. The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used when speaking about Ruth and Naomi.
David and Jonathan is another great example.
David and Jonathan is another example of a same sex relationship in the Bible. The Bible actually devotes more chapters to their love story than any other in the Scriptures. We have to examine the story, and the Hebrew words to describe their relationship.
The Bible speaks very highly of their intimacy - exchanging clothes, hugging, crying, and kissing each other. They would often make time to be along together and to affirm their love for each other. And every time they would do that, justification was given. They had a deep, emotional, romantic, sexual connection that lasted about 15 years until Jonathan passed away.
The same Hebrew words used to describe heterosexual love were used to describe Jonathan and David’s love. The Hebrew word “ahab” or “ahabah” were used. The Hebrew word “ahab”, used to describe how Jonathan loved David actually appears 208 times in the Hebrew text of the OT. It is translated as “love” 169 times in the KJV and is used frequently in the 1 Samuel story. The word “ahab” was also used to describe Jacob’s love for Rachel, and the love of the Shunamite girl for Solomon. it is also used as the love Princess Michal had for David in Samuel.
The fact that God used the Hebrew words “ahab” and “qashar” shows that God condoned the homosexual relationship, as well as blessed and sanctified it.
More, about the word “qashar”, which is translated in English to “knit”. The Bible says “the soul of Jonathan was “qashar” with the soul of David”. Qashar-knit refers to romantic love.
In closing, I want to remind people that Christ’s teaching while on this Earth was love. It was the overriding message of his teaching and time on this Earth, and something more Christians need to practice. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians, “And now these three remain, faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Christ commanded it! John 13:34-35, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
References:
"Gay AND Christian? Yes It IS Possible!" ChristianGays.com. Web. <https://christiangays.com/>.
"Gay Christian 101." GayChristian101.com. Web. <http://www.gaychristian101.com/>.
"IS THE BIBLE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?" HomosexualEunuchsAndTheBible.com. Web. <http://www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com/>.
Malik, Faris. "Thesis: Eunuchs Are Gay Men." Web. <http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm>.
Miller, Dave. "Homosexuality and “Strange Flesh"" Apologetics Press. Web. <https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1428>.
"The NALT Christians Project." NotAllLikeThat.org. Web. <http://notalllikethat.org/>.
"Thou Shalt Not Lie with a Man?" Writings of a Christian Lesbian. Web. <http://moanti.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/thou-shalt-not-lie-with-a-man-exploring-the-sexual-use-of-the-hebrew-word-shakab-to-lie-with-in-scripture/>.
Vines, Matthew. "The Bible Backs Same-sex Couples." Salon.com. Web. <http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/>.
"Would Jesus Discriminate?" WouldJesusDiscriminate.org. Web. <http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/>.
"Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like If We Actually Followed the Bible." Alternet. Web. <http://www.alternet.org/story/154721/captive_virgins,_polygamy,_sex_slaves%3A_what_marriage_would_look_like_if_we_actually_followed_the_bible>
"What Does the Bible REALLY Say About Marriage? - Josh Notes Blog." Josh Notes Blog. 22 Oct. 2012. Web. <http://blog.joshnotes.com/what-does-the-bible-really-say-about-marriage/>
"Biblical Marriage: Not a Pretty Picture." Galileo Unchained. 5 Mar. 2012. Web. <http://galileounchained.com/2012/03/05/biblical-marriage-not-a-pretty-picture/>
"Biblical Scholars: Actually, ‘Traditional Marriage’ Isn’t Just One Man and One Woman." Friendly Atheist. Web. <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/05/biblical-scholars-actually-traditional-marriage-isnt-just-one-man-and-one-woman/>
"Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an "Abomination"?" Religion Dispatches. Web. <http://religiondispatches.org/does-the-bible-really-call-homosexuality-an-abomination/>.
