I'm certain all LGBT people have heard the "clobber verses" condemning their existence a few hundred times. Depending on who you ask, they either tell us that homosexuality by itself is an instant ticket to hell or just being a "practicing homosexual" is. Don't ask me what a "practicing homosexual" is supposed to be - nobody ever talks of practicing heterosexuals, so it's probably something only gays and lesbians do.

There is one teeny-tiny problem with both, though. The Bible doesn't say so.

If you wish to debate this with me, please do your homework. I'm tired of replying to the same unsupported claims over and over again. I'm seriously starting to feel that conservative Christians don't know their own holy book.

Genesis 2

Fundamentalists love to claim that Genesis 2 clearly states that God's plan is that a man and a woman are meant to be together. I don't think they've actually read Genesis 2. I will be quoting from NIV here, but all versions say pretty much the same. Personally, I prefer the Hebrew Bible, but I don't think most people are familiar with that.

In Genesis 2:18, God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Then, in Genesis 2:21-23, God creates the woman, brings her to man, and he likes her. Simple, clear-cut narrative, right? God's plan as intended, right?

Not quite. This reading requires skipping Genesis 2:19-20 completely.

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

Because it is not good for the man to be alone, God creates all the animals and brings them to him. Adam names them, but he doesn't want any of them to be his helper. Only after this, God tries a different approach and creates the woman. What if the man hadn't liked her either? Then I'm sure that God would have tried something else.

There is no one-size-fits-all plan on God's part here, other than letting the man choose who is the best partner in life for him. Adam loved Eve. One specific man loved one specific woman. For another man this "helper" may be a man, for another woman a woman - or for anyone a non-binary person.

God's message in Genesis 2 is, "It is not good for a human being to be alone."

Leviticus

This shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, since Levitical laws do not apply to Christians. But since fundamentalists insist on picking which laws they want to keep and which to discard, I'll bite. Leviticus does not say what they think it does either.

The usual error with using Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to condemn all homosexual relationships is forgetting that the Old Testament was not written for people living in 20th or 21st century. Those laws were made for Israelites several millennia ago.

I will be quoting from NKJV here, because NIV flat-out mistranslates and KJV has a strange way of saying things. (Seriously, nobody lies with "mankind".)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Lev 20:13, NKJV)

First of all, even the most conservative Jewish rabbis don't honestly say that this applies to all homosexual relations. They have other (rabbinical) writings that add more rules, but they all admit that it's not in Leviticus. That is a misinterpretation on the part of Christians.

At most this passage condemns male-with-male anal sex. Nothing more.

As for why it would be forbidden, I am almost certain that it relates to the command not to waste male seed. It was widely believed that everything that makes a baby is found in semen - the woman's womb is only the fertile ground where the seed is planted. Spilling semen anywhere else than a fertile womb meant intentionally killing that baby.

To understand where my claim comes from, we need to look at some principles in Judaism. In general, protecting life overrides all biblically and rabbinically mandated religious laws. But there are three exceptions, known as "Yehareg ve'al ya'avor" ("Let him be killed rather than trangress"): idolatry, sexual misconduct outlined in Leviticus 18 and idolatry.

Yes, I am aware that at this point fundamentalists are pointing fingers that gays and lesbians are breaking these commands. Like I just said, the consensus is that it only applies to penile-anal penetration between men.

However, my point is that Leviticus 18 contains also the prohibition to have sex with a woman during her menstruation. Now why would that be? Perhaps because women can't get pregnant during their periods? I think we can all agree that God isn't that interested in every couple on Earth breeding like rabbits anymore. We have already fulfilled the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and then some.

Now there's another thing in that passage that I only became aware of very recently. Why does it say "If a man (ish) lies with a male (zakar) as he lies with a woman (ishah)"? Why is it not man with man like with woman? "Zakar" is a male of any age and any species, but I have not been able to find it used as a noun when talking about an adult male human (although it is used as an adjective when talking about Adam). Ish and ishah always refer to adults - mostly humans, although they can refer to mated animals, since they also mean "husband" and "wife".

So, who are these "males who do not qualify as men" a man is not supposed to lie with? It would make sense that it is about men having sex with boys - which is also how Martin Luther's original German Bible and the Latin lexicon he used translated it. Another class of people who were male, but not "men", would have been male temple prostitutes. Possibly also male slaves.

Most likely, we will never know how the ancient Israelites understood this command. But unless someone who knows Hebrew can point me to an instance in the Bible where "zakar" is used to refer to an adult man, I'm not buying the explanation that this has anything to do with consensual, loving relationships between two grown men.

Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seriously says nothing about homosexuality. The first instances where this link is established are in the writings of Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish philosopher) and Josephus (who was commissioned by Roman authorities to write the history of Jews) sometime in the first century CE. Sounds like some people who were personally repulsed by the idea of gay sex added their own views, doesn't it?

The Bible itself, some non-canonical books and early rabbinic writings all condemn these cities for very different sins than homosexuality. E.g. Ecclesiasticus 16:8 sees it as excessive pride.

Isaiah tells the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to defend the oppressed.

10 Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11 "The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?" says the Lord. ... 16 Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. 17 Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:10-17, NIV)

For Ezekiel, it's about not helping the poor and needy.

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49, NIV)

Jesus also makes a reference to hospitality in Luke 10:1-12 - those towns that don't welcome his disciples would face a fate worse than Sodom.

I understand that it's easier to focus on the scene where the men of Sodom gather outside Lot's house and demand that the visitors be sent out for them to have sex with. But this scene is simply an example of the complete lack of hospitality and the hatred of the stranger. The crowd wasn't offering to show the angels a good time - they were going to gang rape them. This is wrong no matter what gender the victim is.

Neither is that scene any indication of sexuality. Raping enemy soldiers (or civilians) to humiliate them is one of the oldest tactics of war in human history. In Sodom, it was the ultimate way to show the foreigners that they are not welcome.

Using this story to condemn gay and lesbian relationships is twisting the scripture to fit anti-LGBT agenda. What it should warn about is the oppression of the "stranger". It should apply to immigrants, to how rich countries abuse poor countries and, yes, also to how Christians treat minorities that are different from them.

Sidenote: Jude 7

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7, NIV)

The strangest argument that the sin of Sodom just had to be homosexuality I've heard comes from this passage. Because the cities gave themselves up to "perversion" and Leviticus calls men lying with males an "abomination", they're talking about the same thing. I can't even wrap my head around how much ignorance both about the Bible and linguistics that statement requires.

First, let's look at a more accurate translation.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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 7, KJV)

The original text speaks of going after "strange flesh" - or literally "other flesh" (sarkos heteras). On itself, this statement doesn't make much sense. But if you have ever read the Book of Enoch, like I have, the connection between that and Jude is obvious. He even quotes directly from it.

Instead of condemning homosexuality, Jude draws a parallel between the rebellious angels who left Heaven to take human wives and and the people of the corrupted cities who won't keep to their own domain. The easy literal interpretation would be that this refers to men trying to have sex with angels - even though they didn't know Lot's visitors were angels, Jude knows -, but it may be a larger cultural issue. If the author was Jewish, staying separate from the pagan population was very important to him.

Then again, the next verse brings us back to the angel reference.

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Jude 8, KJV)

"Dignities" in this verse means "glorious ones". In other words, celestial beings. Angels.

Sources

To be added later. I'm insanely busy with work (and will continue to be at least until September or so), but I wanted to get this out for Pride Month. I can dig out the specific sources where I got my information from my bookmarks if requested. But trust me, I have excellent factual memory. Everything can be backed up with data (lots of it).