Five biblical myths about homosexuality. Why have they become a weapon against queer people?
What exactly does the Bible say about queer people? A simple question at first glance, but in practice it turns into a deep cultural dispute. One only has to open social media or listen to some public debates to find that a few ancient phrases are still used today as a quick argument against contemporary relationships, identities and lifestyles. And while few really know the broader context of the biblical texts, their "supposed" message is taken for granted.
But the reality is much more varied. Theologians, historians, and queer believers themselves have pointed out for years that most of these oft-quoted passages are not talking about same-sex love as we see it today. They focus on very different phenomena of the time: violence, inequality, or ritual rules. Rather, what makes them "evidence against homosexuality" today is the way modern society has learned to read them.
And so it's worth going back to the texts themselves and looking at them with less prejudice and more curiosity. For if we go through them honestly, it turns out that the image of the Bible as a book against queer people is just one of many myths. Here's an overview of the five passages that appear most often in homophobic arguments - and an explanation of why it pays to look at them differently.
1) Sodom and Gomorrah - alleged proof of the "sin of homosexuality"
Myth:
Sodom was destroyed because of homosexual relations. Therefore, "sodomy" became synonymous with sex between men.
Reality:
The story of Sodom is not about sexuality, but about violence and the extreme violation of hospitality, which was one of the gravest offenses in the society of the time. The men of the city wanted to rape two guests, which was an act of power, not sexual orientation.
Moreover, other biblical texts explicitly describe the "sin of Sodom" as arrogance, indifference to the poor, and abuse of power (Ezekiel 16:49).
The claim that Sodom is about homosexuality did not appear until much later in the history of Christianity. The original text does not support such a conclusion.
2) Leviticus 18:22 - an ancient ritual rule, not a universal moral law
Myth:
"Thou shalt not have intercourse with a man as with a woman" means that the Bible forbids homosexuality always and everywhere.
Reality:
Leviticus is part of a comprehensive code of law for the ancient Israelites. It contains dozens of rules that Christians today have long since abandoned as binding: prohibitions on mixed fabrics, rules about food, sacrifices, ritual purity, and what hairstyles are allowed.
Ripping out a single verse about men is, from today's perspective, a purely selective approach.
Moreover, the world of the time was unfamiliar with the concept of an equal partnership between two men or women - same-sex relationships were viewed solely through the prism of power, hierarchy or cult practices. The text therefore does not deal with modern love relationships, but with an entirely different social reality.
3) Romans 1:26-27 - Paul's text on power, inequality, and cult practices
Myth:
The apostle Paul clearly condemns homosexual relationships here.
Reality:
Paul is describing behavior that ran under very different rules in ancient Rome than we know today. He speaks of practices where inequality played a major role: temple prostitution, pederasty, sexual abuse of slaves.
He was critical of these phenomena - not of the existence of people who today fall under the LGBTQ+ label.
Crucially, there was no concept of sexual orientation in Paul's time. It was inconceivable to the ancient writers to distinguish between people based on attraction. When the text speaks of people acting "against their nature," it means against what fits their own character and personality, not against their biological orientation.
To read this passage as a prohibition on queer relationships is an interpretation carried over from our own time into a text that was completely unaware of it.
4) 1 Corinthians 6:9 - two Greek words that do not mean "homosexual"
Myth:
Paul names "homosexuals" among those who will not "enter the kingdom of God."
Reality:
The words malakoi and arsenokoitai appear in the original text. Neither means "homosexual" in the modern sense.
-
Malakoi - literally "soft" - referred to someone who lived capriciously, undisciplined, or was morally weak.
-
arsenokoitai was very rarely used and most often referred to those who used or abused someone, or perpetrators of sexual violence.
The translation "homosexuals" did not first appear until 1946 in the English RSV Bible - and has since become one of the most common examples of mistranslation that has influenced generations of believers.
Paul is not criticizing queer orientation. He is taking aim at violence and exploitation.
5) "God created man and woman" - a poetic image, not a biological instruction
Myth:
Biblical creation proves that there is only male and female, and anything outside of that binary is "unnatural."
Reality:
The Genesis text is not a biological textbook, but a theological story of how the world order came to be. Just as it speaks of light and darkness, heaven and earth, or day and night, the male-female pairing represents the structure of the world, not a definitive list of all forms of human existence.
Moreover, the Bible itself works with a broader reality - eunuchs, for example, who do not fit the binary division. And Jesus mentions them without condemnation.
Today's application of this text as an argument against transgender people or non-heterosexual relationships is a modern construction, not a conclusion that follows from the text itself.
The more carefully the Bible is read, the less it lends itself as a weapon against queer people
The five most frequently cited biblical passages show that the "condemnation of homosexuality" comes not from the original texts, but from what we project into them. Modern translations, cultural shifts, and historical ignorance often create meanings that were never in the Bible.
Many contemporary theologians therefore agree that the Bible speaks of relationships based on violence, inequality and abuse. It says nothing about same-sex partnered love, and certainly does not condemn it.
