Generally. the use of the Bible by 'Christians' to justify their condemnation of homosexuality is in the form  of a syllogism:

 As a Christian I believe in what the Bible says

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin

Thus as a Christian I believe that homosexuality is a sin

This logic of prejudice begins to unravel as soon as it is noted that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say, "Homosexuality is a sin." The word 'homosexual' in any form is simply not used, nor ever is the word 'sin' applied to same gender sex.


In one book in the entire Old Testament, Leviticus (18:22 & 20:13), is there found a prohibition against same gender sex, and it does say that those who engage in such conduct should be put to death. However in two books of the Old Testament, Exodus (31:14-15) and Numbers (15:32-36), God himself commands that all those who work on the Sabbath be put to death.

Here the reliance on the syllogism to justify bigotry continues to come apart:

major premise - As a Christian I believe in the evidence of the Old Testament;

minor premise - In the Old Testament there is twice as much evidence that those working on the Sabbath should be put to death as there is that those engaging in homosexual conduct should be;

conclusion - Thus as a Christian I believe even more strongly that workers on the Sabbath should be condemned than those performing homosexual acts.?

The story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis chapter 19 is often offered as evidence that homosexuality will provoke God's punishment; however not only does the story not support this, but here syllogistic logic actually leads into acute perversion. It is claimed that God destroyed the cities because a mob wanted to rape the two men/angels God sent to Lot's house, but this simply isn't the case. As Genesis 18:20-32 makes clear, the fate of these cities was already sealed well before the arrival of these men/angels.

However the story does directly tell us that the Lot offers the rabble outside his door the opportunity to rape his virginal daughters  (Gen. 19:8). Furthermore the story ends with Lot having impregnated these same two daughters (Gen 19:31-38). What is truly fascinating here is that these actions happen without any rebuke or condemnation or punishment whatsoever from God! Apparently in God's eye these actions don't diminish Lott's righteousness in the least.

Logical but very perverted syllogism:

major premise - As a Christian I believe in the evidence of the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 19);

minor premise - Genesis chapter 19 show that it's o.k. with God for a father not only to offer up his daughters to be raped, but also to have incestuous relations with them;

conclusion - Thus as a Christian I believe it's o.k. for a father both to give his daughters to a rapacious mob and for him to have sex with them.

Well so much for the Old Testament. No good news here for the 'Christians' who want to use Biblical authority as justification for their prejudice against homosexuals. Now let's see what the New Testament might offer.

The story of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ found in the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, shows us that Jesus had absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality. So this syllogism is easy:

major premise - As a Christian I believe in the evidence of the gospels;

minor premise - The gospels show Jesus having nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality;

conclusion - Thus as a Christian I believe I should have nothing to say regarding homosexuality.

Oops! Obviously the logic of this syllogism shows that it is illogical to both claim that one is a follower of Jesus and, at the same time, to show oneself as a loud mouth bigot!


-------------------Remain stuck from here on. Last third of post is only in crude and incomplete form.



In the rest of the New Testament there are three books in which are found explicit prohibition against same  gender sexual activity.

Romans 1:26-32 contains a long list of behaviors and attitudes which are deemed worthy of death. The problem for anyone using this passage to condemn homosexuality is that the same logic dictates that such actions and attitudes as gossiping, greed, envy, arrogance, and boasting also be condemned with equal fervor.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 likewise shows that those so adamantly opposed to homosexuals be equally against the drunkards and the covetous among us.

And doesn't 1st Timothy 1:9-10 essentially give us the same, that those who speak so vehemently against homosexuals then logically should speak with the same intensity against such as the rebellious, the profane, and the liars and perjurers?