Biblical scholars note that the Scriptures, taken in historical and cultural context, simply do not address homosexuality as we understand it today. The religious right uses mistranslation, misinterpretation, and emotionalism to read their prejudices and preconceptions into the Bible and then delights in quoting a few verses out of context to "prove" that they are right and you are wrong. Theologians call this self-righteous approach "proof-texting."
We offer several articles by respected Bible scholars:
And here's a brief introduction to what some of the religious right's favorite anti-gay proof-texting passages really mean:
Genesis 1:27 celebrates the radical idea that men and women were created equal—in the image of God. There's simply no heterosexism here; the religious right reads in their preconceived agenda. In the ancient world, marriages were arranged by fathers, and dating and romance were unknown. The Old Testament records dozens of different types of family structures; the "Leave It to Beaver" nuclear family is a new-fangled invention of the 1950s replacing traditional extended families. Furthermore, the Old Testament condones things that no civilized human would accept today, such as polygamy, selling your children into slavery, and the requirement that if a man dies without leaving a male heir, it is his brother's responsibility to impregnate the widow. The religious right is hypocritically selective in their reading of Old Testament family values.
This sin is mentioned dozens of times in the Bible, and nowhere is it specified as homosexuality, nor did the early Jewish rabbinical commentaries on this text so interpret it; rather, the sins of Sodom included pride and inhospitality to strangers (Ezekiel 16:49). Ironically, the religious right commits the sin of Sodom by refusing to welcome the homosexual strangers in their midst. Actually, the visitors to Sodom were angels in disguise, and Jude 7 condemns having sex with angels—but celestial sex just isn't a big problem in Oregon public schools.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But so is eating oysters and sixty-some other impure acts. "Abomination" means "ritually unclean." These laws were concerned with Jewish ritual purity, not morality. The ancient Jews associated homosexuality with prostitution in the pagan temples, and there just aren't many idol-worshipping Canaanite temple prostitutes in Oregon schools today. But there are hypocrites who love to quote 2/10 of 1 percent of Leviticus out of context while ignoring the fact that both Jesus and Saint Paul rejected the purity laws. Furthermore, of the 613 commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures, there are only seven—the Noachide laws—to which Jews believe that non-Jews should be held accountable. Sexual orientation is not a concern of the Noachide laws.
Even the most conservative theologians admit that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. The frequency with which a subject is mentioned indicates the amount of concern one has with it—note Lon Mabon's obsession with homosexuality—and clearly sexual orientation was not an issue for Jesus.
When a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his beloved slave boy—likely his young male lover, according to recent biblical scholarship—Jesus considered going to the centurion's home to see the deathly ill young man, but the centurion responded that it would be enough for Jesus to say the word. The beloved slave boy was healed at a distance, and rather than condemn the relationship, Jesus commended the centurion for his faith. (Matthew 8:5–13 and Luke 7:1–10)
Yet Jesus did condemn adultery. Now, adultery—whether heterosexual or homosexual—is not a sin of sex but a sin of deceit and deception. Most of us can agree that deceit and deception are wrong, and it's not hard to see how the betrayal of trust can damage a relationship. And though adultery is more rampant in modern culture than homosexuality, the religious right has not seen fit to make a hate campaign of it—perhaps because adultery happens too often in their own ranks.
Most scholars recognize that the Greek malakoi and arsenokoitai have been mistranslated in I Corinthians 6:9. Additionally, the religious right quotes this out of context of verses 1–8, where the apostle Paul criticizes Christians who sue each other in the secular courts and then simply compares them with idolaters and those who are "weak" and "soft."
Later, in I Corinthians 7:8–9, Paul says it's his opinion that Christians should not marry—unless they're too weak-willed to abstain from sex. Hmmm. Why doesn't the religious right file ballot measures to legislate this one?
But in Romans 14:14, Paul says, "I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself." Many theologians believe that this includes our God-given heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual orientation and that the Golden Rule is the ethic which should govern our relationships. But the religious right would rather quote Scripture out of context to condemn people than "Do unto others…"
In Romans 1:26, "against nature" is a mistranslation of para physin, for in 11:24, Paul applies these same words to God, and surely God's work is not "against nature." Paul is actually condemning idolatry and pagan prostitution, not gay love, as 1:23 makes clear. In 1:28, Paul changes subjects and gives us the laundry list of human failings. He makes no mention of homosexuality, but he does include the religious right's "debate, deceit" and "without understanding" before totally exposing their hypocrisy in 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."
This is clear enough even in the antiquated English of the King James Version, but judgmental hypocrisy so pervades the religious right that this scripture bears repeating. Here's how the New English Bible renders it: "You therefore have no defence—you who sit in judgement, whoever you may be—for in judging your fellow-man you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, are equally guilty."