Jagannatha's Thoughts
Home page
Religious Studies
The Bible and Homosexuality

What Was the Sin of Sodom?
By Jagannatha Prakasa (© May 3, 1999; last updated April 15, 2017)

The Story

To begin with, please read Genesis chapters 18 and 19 completely to get the context. I'll be using the Authorized King James Version throughout. As translations do vary, I'd recommend using the KJV now. Later you can check the newer paraphrases if you'd like.

Setting the Stage
Genesis 13:1 tells us that Abram (he was not yet renamed Abraham) and his family, including his nephew Lot, left Egypt and went into the Ne'gev. As time passed both men became very successful. In time, Abram's servants and Lot's servants began having arguments over the ownership of their respective master's cattle (13:7). In order to resolve this growing conflict, the two men separated (13:5-13). Lot chose the Jordan Valley while Abram and his company settled in the Land of Canaan.

The description of the people of the Jordan Valley as "wicked," ra' in Hebrew, tells us nothing more than our English equivalent. The word translated as "sinners" is chatta' and more accurately translated as "criminals." In either case, these were bad people whose towns were populated by outlaws and gangsters.

Thus far nothing in the text suggests the presence of homosexuality. People who use this account as a proof-text to condemn the homosexual orientation usually refer to "the men of Sodom" as if it were the males who were evil. One must ask however, what about the females of the towns? No one ever mentions them. Please note for now that it was the 'enowsh or "mortals" of Sodom who were criminals or sinners; gender is not specified but we can correctly imagine a place of equal opportunity sin. In other words, the abominable actions of the people of the towns, not just the men but the women also, are being discussed. Enowsh includes men, women and even children. It is only logical then to try and understand what it was about these people was so sinful and how they came to be this way. This will be made clear shortly.

So it was among these wicked outlaws that Lot "pitched his tent." He did so because the land was fertile "like the Garden of Eden" before the cities of the plain were destroyed. Shortly after Lot and Abram separated, God instituted the Abrahamic Covenant (by which Jews throughout history have claimed their rightful possession of the Jewish homeland known as Palestine or Israel). After this, Abram moved his company to the Oaks of Mamre in Hebron. (13:10).

Some indefinite time later, a bitter war broke out in the plains (14:1-). This was a long and bloody series of attacks and counterattacks. When it was over, Sodom had been overthrown and Lot, among others, was taken prisoner. One of Lot's servants managed to escape however and fled to Abram seeking military aid.

Abram was outraged by the report and quickly gathered an army and went to Lot's rescue. Note what happened next!

As Abram was approaching Sodom after winning the war, Sodom's king came out to meet him. This was an act of showing respect and gratitude for the aid. It was the least he could have done. This is not surprising, but along with the king went Melchizedek, the high priest of God (El Elyon). I must resist the urge to go into a study of Melchizedek here, but suffice it to say that he is one of the most mysterious and spiritually powerful figures in the Bible (consider Ps. 110:4; Heb 5:5,6; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:23,24 etc). What is of note here, is that he came out of Sodom along with the king to greet the hero. Now please consider this: If Sodom was such an evil place at this point, its hard to understand why this great personage would have gone there from (Jeru)salem to welcome Abram and his victorious troops. It would seem obvious that Melchizedek did not consider Sodom such a horrid den of iniquity. Doesn't prove anything, but it is an interesting question. I think we can infer from this that Sodom and the other towns of the plains were not, at this point, evil places.

Indeed, the holy master Melchizedek says at Genesis 14:20 that it was God who delivered the enemies into Abram's hands.

See this? God destroyed the enemies of Sodom and even restored everything they had lost! Where in Holy Scripture do we find God defending people who are deemed an "abomination"? God not only defeated Sodom's enemies, through Abram and his armies, and restored what they had lost, but even sent High Priest Melchizedek to sanctify the event! Whatever it was that turned the folks of Sodom into people so evil that God Himself felt the need to personally intervene and destroy them is not yet clear as we make our through the text. That they were not such criminals prior to this event is however certain, and so we look to later events for the source of their evil ways.

After his victory, Abram returned home and God promised to give him children (15:1-6). In context it is clear that one of the reasons why God gave this blessing to Abram (which resulted in the birth of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), was because of his willingness to fight the enemies of Sodom. At 15:1 God specifically says "fear not... I am thy shield and thy exceedingly great reward."

Chapters 15-17 deals with the births of Isaac and Ishmael and does not directly concern our current interests, so I'll leave these important chapters for another study.

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Beginning with 18:1 the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah begins. Abram was still living in Hebron (by the great oaks of Mamre), when the "Lord" (YHVH) appeared to him. Again, I will resist the urge to delve into how it was that "the Lord" (singular) appeared and Abram saw "three men" (difficult is the work of a biblical expositor!). The important point for our current purposes is what happened next.

After welcoming the "men" and acknowledging his unworthiness for their visit, Abram gives them water to drink, offers to wash their feet and invites the mysteriously holy guests to rest under his shade tree (18:4). Abram himself then rushes off to get them a bite to eat (18:5, 6). Now, a person in Abram's position had plenty of servants, but he showed his respect to these important visitors by personally getting them some food; he even "rushed" to do so. He gave Sarah his wife detailed instructions on preparing the best possible cakes for their guests. He next "ran" into the herds and took the best calf he could find and had it killed and dressed (18:7,8). When all was ready, he took some butter and milk and served the calf to his honored guests. As a humble servant, this powerful man stood by them as they ate in case they should want something more (18:8). It was partially a result of this hospitality that they informed Abram that Sarah his wife would have a child even though she was very old and believed to be incapable of it conceiving. This promise of course led to the births of Ishmael (by Sara's maid Hagar) and Isaac (by Sara), both fathered by Abram, and gave rise to the three great religions (Judaism through Sara and later Moses, Christianity through Isaac and later Jesus, and Islam through Hagar and later Muhammad).

Later in the day, the "angels" revealed their mission of destroying the towns of the valley, including Sodom and Gomorrah, to Abram saying it would happen "because their sin is very grievous." The word translated here as "sin" is chatta'ah and simply means "offense." Chatta'ah refers to anything which is offensive. Again, no reference to homosexuality is even implied in this word. There is however the first hint of why the cities were destroyed and the events that led to their abominable ways.

At 18:19 the "Lord" says:

The word translated as "justice" is tsedaqah and it means more specifically "righteousness." This righteousness is more concerned with inner goodness than outer behavior, though of course they are two sides of the same coin, righteousness being recognized through external conduct. The "Lord" is saying that unlike the people of the towns in the valley, Abraham is a righteous person who acts from that quality. This is a trait the Holy One approves of.

Note that the word translated as "judgment" ( mishpat -- Scofield #4941 --) however does refer to outward deeds and 38 times specifically to manners and customs. What does this tell us? A lot! What did Father Abraham do that demonstrated to the "men" or "angels" that he was a righteous person who would do justice? This question is the key to understanding what happened next!

The Law of Hospitality or Good Manners

Exodus 22:

Deuteronomy 10:

There are scores of such commands. I've taken two at random. In the first quote above, note the phrase: "I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword..." Now consider the amount of sacred writ devoted to showing how Abram offered hospitality to his divine guests. God heard the cries of Sodom's victims and responded accordingly. These victims were not locals of the city however, but strangers. The sins of Sodom were not activities carried out among themselves such as homosexuality but sins done against "strangers." Which strangers? Let's continue with the story.

Entering Sodom

After Abraham's unsuccessful attempt at negotiating an amnesty for the people of the cities, two of the three "men" go on down into the city where they met Lot.

The two remaining "angels" arrived in Sodom about sunset. Scripture says that Lot "sat in the gate" as they entered. This doesn't mean he was hanging out around some literal gate, but that he had become a person of some importance in the town (compare Dt. 21:19-21). Lot's friendship with Abraham had saved the town and everyone knew that Lot was a very wealthy and powerful individual. He had become at the very least a city elder, perhaps something more.

Recall how Abraham greeted the "men" when they arrived at his home. Now consider Lot's attitude. When Lot first saw the "strangers" he also offered his respects to them by bowing low before them and welcoming them to his city. This was the proper form of showing respect and was commanded by the God of Abraham and Lot as we saw in the above cited verses (i.e. Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 10).

As an elder of the city, Lot would be responsible for offering the noble visitors an official welcome. Under normal circumstances, he would have welcomed them in the name of the city, washed their feet, fed them, introduced them to the leading citizens and politicians etc. He did not do this however. Rather, Lot immediately warned them of the peril of their situation and urged them to enter his own home, stay the night, and leave early the next morning, presumably before anyone caught wind of their presence. Why should they "...rise up early, and go on [their] ways"? Because from the instant Lot saw them, he knew there would be trouble, but if he could quickly get them indoors and then rush them out of Sodom by daybreak, maybe no one would discover their presence. Lot would thus have performed his duty as an elder of the city under the laws of God. Now we are beginning to understand the underlying sin of the cities of the plains!

The Plot Thickens!

Little does Lot know however that trouble has only just begun! He had no idea at this point of the "angel's" mission to bring judgment upon the wicked city. He does know however that because of this wickedness the two "men" will not be safe until they are far away from Sodom!

The "angels" reject his proposal, explaining that they would prefer to sleep in the streets! Now, doesn't this sound a bit odd? Not when you consider why they had come. Lot's city had broken the Hebrew laws of hospitality:

Deuteronomy 23:7:

And again,

Deuteronomy 24:17:

This "judgment" (again Mishpat, manner or custom) which was not to be perverted is the righteous welcoming and protection of strangers. The people of Sodom not only failed to offer the visitors a proper welcome as commanded by God (and as exemplified in the way Abram had honored them and Lot sought to protect them), they even threatened them with brutal torture and death! That this was the sin of Sodom and that its penalty was in harmony with what happened throughout the Jordan Valley when God's wrath was revealed is abundantly clear from Scripture. Conversely there is no biblical reference to homosexuality existing in Sodom nor to it being a factor in the city's destruction.

II Chronicles 6:

This biblically required custom, this law of hospitality, was not observed in Sodom! The inhabitants of the Jordan Valley in these days utterly violated the judgment or Mishpat of God. By so doing they slandered God's reputation. The penalty for such offenses was death and Sodom and Gomorrah paid this sin dearly (Exodus 22:21-24).

Lot insisted that the two "men" spend the night in his house. As an elder of the city and a righteous man it may be safely assumed that he knew the hospitality laws of God and feared that Sodom might be judged and punished for the way its people treated their guests with foolish secrecy and paranoid isolationism. The two strangers reluctantly agreed, and went into his house where they were fed and shown proper courtesies according to custom. But again, this honor should have been shown by the entire city, not just one of its elders in the secrecy of his own home.

Before they were ready for sleep the people of Sodom surrounded Lot's house.

Why is this important?

As there is no indication that it was only the men of the city out side the house, it seems quite likely that the mob would have included many of the town's women as well. Surely these women would not have supported their husband's sexual frenzy (if indeed that is what this was), be it homo or hetero sexual. Also, if the women of Sodom were also demanding to "know these men" sexually we would have to assume that the so-called sin of Sodom was bisexuality or perhaps sexual hedonism rather than homosexuality (an idea I am NOT suggesting!). That it was not only the men who surrounded the house is said directly in this verse, "...both old and young, all the people from every quarter." Some people argue that the offenders were from a homosexual district or ghetto and not necessarily representative of the entire populous. Were this the case, then the strangers could surely have found more than the required ten righteous persons which, they promised Abraham, would have caused them to spare the city (18:23-33). And besides, this verse says specifically that they were a broad cross section of the populous.

So then, what was this angry mob shouting? Did they yell, "You've got a couple of hot studs in there, let us join your party?" No, they cried out: "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." They were asking to interrogate the strangers that Lot had sought to hide from them.

The single phrase "that we may know them" is were the entire argument is based. The word translated "to know" is yada. Its primary meaning is "to ascertain some information," just as we use it today. There is a very rare usage of the word where it refers to "knowing someone in the Biblical sense" as the saying goes, but of the approximately 953 times this word is used in the Bible, less that a half dozen uses refers to sexual congress. In virtually every instance it simply means "to know something." As there is no evidence that it means anything else here, there is no justification for reading anything else into this account.

We discussed the war that had recently decimated Sodom above (chapter 14 of Genesis). Taken in its literal biblical context, we see here that two strangers arrived in war scarred Sodom under the cover of night. Lot, a person who was a town elder but who himself was not a native of Sodom, hurried them into his house attempting to conceal their presence from the local authorities. Given the paranoid nature of locals following such a war, the people of Sodom were understandably concerned about who these men might be. Were they spies? They didn't know. When the context is considered, it makes far more sense to take the word yada in its normal and almost universal application. They wanted to know who these two men were and whether or not the posed a threat to their town.

Someone had obviously seen Lot sneaking the strangers into his house, reported it to the authorities, and the people of the town, suspecting the worst, demanded to question the strangers: "to know them." Lot, knowing the townfolk, knew that the strangers would not receive a fair hearing and so sought to rescue them from certain death. This was a righteous thing for Lot to do, one that was in keeping with what we know about him as a person. This literal interpretation of the story makes far more contextual sense than assuming, with no scriptural support, that the entire Jordan Valley had been overrun by homosexual rapists who, men, women and children, could not bear the thought of missing the opportunity to rape these two men who had taken shelter of the town elder! It is also what the vast majority of Church authorities throughout the ages have taught.

This also makes the most sense when considering that Lot, the moment he first saw the strangers, executed a plan to save their lives. In such an air of paranoia there would be no hope of the strangers convincing the city folk of their innocence. Lot had doubtless seen other visitors to Sodom in this situation before and determined to rescue the "men." Their questioning would be comparable to a modern day Jewish pilot showing up unannounced in Mecca! Hence, due to his innate sense of justice, Lot sought to conceal their presence, thus making himself suspect.

Lot next seeks to bribe the citizens for their freedom. He offers his own daughters in exchange for the safety of the strangers. If this mob had gathered out of a 'male homosexual frenzy' this would have been stupid! Why would sexually crazed gay men want to have sex with two women they already knew when a pair of such handsome studs were there? The offer of Lot's daughters itself tells us that this story has nothing to do with homosexuality. It does, however, have interesting reflection elsewhere in scripture. See the account at Judges 19:17-30

Judges 19:17-30 describes an oddly similar account. Here a stranger arrives in need of help, but the law of hospitality is again broken. An old man invites the stranger into his home (Judges 19:20). The kindly man offers him food, fodder for his animals, washes his feet and so on. In other words, he observes the laws of hospitality.

As the two men sat speaking with one another, drinking and having a nice time, the people of the town came and began beating on the door and shouting: "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him."

As in the Sodom account, the good householder goes out to the crowd and beseeches them: "Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly." But the town folk would not accept it. So the house holder says: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing."

There is a vital point to be made here. Note that it says, "...and humble ye them ..."

This matter of "humbling" is essential to understanding both these passages. Even if one insists on translating "to know" as to have sex with, still there is no indication of homosexuality. It was common practice in ancient times, and still is in jails and prisons worldwide, to anally rape someone in order to establish dominance. It is indeed possible that this would be part or all of the punishment inflicted on someone suspected of spying. If this is the case here, and I see no indication that it is, then it is still not about sex but about power and dominance, as in the case of all rapes. But again, nothing in the context of the Genesis account even suggests what the mob proposed to do to the strangers. It is certain however that they did not intend to engage in mutually consensual sex!

Unlike the Sodom account, in this case, while the people of the town again refuse to accept the trade, they took the concubine and brutally raped her. When the householder and his guest awoke the next morning they opened the door to find the poor woman badly abused, bleeding, on her hands and knees on the porch.

The traveler took the unfortunate woman back to his home and:

Judges 19:29:

Now, to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that these attackers were homosexuals. Are we to therefore understand that God condemns heterosexuality because a group of straight men did this almost identical crime? Of course not! Nor does the Sodom account imply anything about homosexuals, even if there were some present!

How could such horrible crimes happen? In both instances it was because of the fear which the people of these cities lived with due to the brutal nature of war and the harsh realities of their daily lives. In Sodom it appears this paranoia had gotten so far out of hand that God decided to intervene. Another difference in the Sodom account is that the cities and towns of the Jordan Valley had be the recipients of divine protection and blessings. When they therefore gave in to their paranoia and began abusing those in need of their help, their crimes were all the more abhorrent. Consider Jesus' parable of the king that forgave his servant's debt (Matt 18:21-30). Sodom had been greatly blessed by God's servant Abram, but failed to bless others in need. In Sodom anyone could be a spy and so no one was trusted, especially strangers. As scripture teaches, its easy to love those who love us, but loving people we don't know, showing kindness to "angels unawares" is one of the marks of true spirituality. This quality was utterly lacking in Sodom.

Using this account to further our understanding of the sin of Sodom, it is obvious that in both cases the people in question failed to demonstrate godly compassion and to show hospitality to those in need. They wanted to harshly interrogate the "others" rather than give aid and comfort. This interrogation process, the householder in both accounts believed, would be the death or at least torture of their guests. As godly people they could not accept this.

Back to Sodom

As explained above, Genesis 19 tells us that the people of Sodom distrusted Lot's loyalty. They said: "This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

"...now we will deal worse with thee..." We now suspect you of being a spy also and will give you the same punishment, and then some! If the sin here is understood as homosexuality, what does this verse even mean? No, the clear meaning is that the sin of Sodom was their habitual violation of the hospitality laws of God.

The "angels" then pulled Lot back into the relative safety of the house and explained their mission and their willingness to spare Lot and his family. Understanding this passage to be referring to homosexuality simply makes no sense in context.

This Isn't What My Pastor Says!

Too bad, then your pastor is mistaken! It happens. We have this interpretation from no less an authority than Jesus of Nazareth himself. As Jesus was explaining to his disciples how they were to live as they preached the Gospel throughout Israel, we read the following:

Matthew 10:

According to both the context of the Torah and to Jesus himself, Sodom and Gomorrah failed to offer hospitality to strangers to an extreme degree. So great was their offense that they were used as examples of how not to treat strangers. Their hard-hearted paranoia was in clear violation of the laws of hospitality and for this they were destroyed. THIS was the sin of Sodom.

Exodus 22:

This was precisely the penalty paid by the cities of the plains of the Jordan Valley. God's wrath waxed hot and they were utterly destroyed.

The Prophet Isaiah sheds even more light on the sin of Sodom:

Isaiah 1:

And again, we read at:


Could it possibly any clearer? "This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom..." Moses says it, Isaiah says it, Jesus says it... but seemingly some people are so filled with prejudice that they don't care! If they can twist such verses to their malicious intents that's good enough for them!

AND This Has Been Done Before to Other Groups!

Genesis 4:15:

Not so many years ago this verse was widely interpreted by many Caucasian Christians as "proof" that the skin tones of Africans was the 'mark of Cain'. As a child I well remember our Missionary Baptist preacher teaching this from his pulpit. Based upon this faulty interpretation such Christians (including the Southern Baptist Convention) justified slavery and the denial of civil rights to African Americans. When this verse was interpreted in conjunction with verses like I Corinthians 7:21-24 it was firmly believed that God blessed the institution of slavery. In view of their interpretation of Genesis 4:11-15, the African race seemed like the ideal people to enslave. Indeed, among such people being a slave owner was often deemed to a righteous act, a visible symbol of God's blessings!

This misinterpretation of Scripture based on social prejudice and greed is what gave birth to the Southern Baptist Convention, the second largest religious body in the United States!

I Corinthians 7:21-24:

Is this what these verses mean? Of course not! One would be hard pressed to find any Christian who still supports slavery (at least one hopes!), but for hundreds of years this was viewed as the correct scriptural understanding by a large segment of the Christian Church. To have denied the Scriptural basis of slavery would have been considered "liberal bias." It is for this reason, though this is not the best place to go into it, that the literalistic interpretation of Scripture must be tempered by the overall flow of the Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit (compare Acts 10:9-21).

And again:

I Timothy 2:

Are modern Christian women really supposed to view themselves as subordinate to men? Is it really sinful for women to hold positions of authority over men? To be pastors and teachers? Does any Christian literally accept the Genesis 3:16 statement that the only reason childbirth is painful is because of the "Fall" and/or this verse which promises women who submit to their husband's authority will have pain free deliveries?

Friend, it just doesn't happen!

How many Christians today believe that women can not be ministers? Several still do! That one is on its way out but still has a ways to go. But wait! Notice that according to scriptures like these, women are not even allowed to speak in church, let alone preach! Before casting stones ask yourself whether your church requires women to maintain total silence in the church! I seriously doubt it does! Often women like Beverley Lahey of Concerned Women for America are among the most vocal in condemning gays and lesbians, and yet they "shamelessly" violate verses like I Timothy 2:12-15 regularly! To people like Beverley Lahey I say in love: What Jesus did condemn, and in the strongest of terms, was religious hypocrisy! Don't condemn other people for not obeying your interpretation of a handful of verses when you do not obey far clearer commands! That is called hypocrisy.

Or how about this one?

Mark 10:11:

"Well yeah, but that doesn't mean... hmm?"

According to this very clear scripture over half of all Christians are living in an adulterous relationships with their wives! Welcome to the club! How does it feel to be shown from the Bible that your so-called marriage is illegitimate and that your children are bastards!

"Yeah, but that's different...."

Of course it is... because now its your relationships under attack!

A retort: "Remarriage justified by using Matt. 5:32!"

This verse merely says that the only justifiable reason to divorce is adultery. It doesn't discuss remarriage. Where Jesus does discuss it, he says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). That's it. From a literal reading, for the cause of adultery one is allowed to divorce, but not to remarry... EVER.

Now, I'm not judging my adulterous sisters and brothers here, but talk about twisting Scripture and hypocrisy! A generation ago this was the almost universal understanding among Christians. "Divorcees" were considered "fallen" Christians and generally avoided by the more devout Christians. Now that most Christians have been divorced and remarried at least once, the biblical teachings are being re-interpreted! So why not here? Now that marriage has been legalized in the USA LGBT divorce rates are no higher than heterosexual divorce rates!

I've had Christians respond to this point by saying that they knew I was right, that the Bible does condemn remarriage, but that they and their second (third, fourth...) spouse have prayed and repented of the sin, so it's alright! By this logic, an LGBT couple can marry, repent, and stay together as a legitimate couple right?

To this blatant hypocrisy Jesus cries out loud and clear: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matthew 7:5).

"Well, yeah, but that's different...."

Of course it is, this time its you! You hypocrite!

In love I say to you:

Why beholdest thou the mote that is NOT in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that IS in thine own eye?

Its time to stop using the Bible as a weapon of hate!

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean" -- Romans 14:14.

Christian friend, when you tell lesbians and gay men that they are "an abomination to God," when you tell them that they are destined for eternal damnation due to what is an integral part of their basic human nature, as innately a part of who they are as your own heterosexuality is of who you are, you are placing a huge stumbling block in their path and pushing these precious souls farther farther away from the One who said, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Some gay and lesbian Christians know the Bible well. They know that such accusations are unscriptural lies out of the pits of a hateful and hyper-judgemental Hell, and they reject them as well. However most gays, Christian or not, just like most heterosexuals, Christians or not, do not know the Bible very well, if at all. They have never discovered the depths of its loving assurances, the profound nature of its soul refreshing teachings. All they know is that "everybody says God hates me, so forget God! If I'm going to Hell anyway I might as well enjoy my time here!"

Dear Christian sister or brother, I know this is not what you intend to do with your words. The vast majority of Christians who believe this hateful lie do so in all sincerity, not knowing the Bible, but merely taking the word of others for what it teaches. They don't know any lesbians or gay men -- or at least don't know that they do -- and their understandings come from sensationalist news clips of leather clad men dancing down San Francisco's Market street during the Gay Pride parades, or from the hype used by hate groups like Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, the American Family Association, GodHatesFags.com and other hate groups that raise millions of dollars on the backs of the oppressed. Again, there is nothing new with this! Most Christians don't know that the largest gay organization on earth is the Christian denomination the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. They don't realize that there are hundreds of mainly LGBT churches and ministries working tirelessly to reach this battered community with God's love and that your hurtful words make it ever more difficult for these people to come to Jesus. They don't know that the vast majority of lesbians and gay men hold down regular jobs where they pay, on average, considerable higher taxes than anyone else due the rejection of GLBT marriages and family units (this inequity has recently changed with the Marriage Equality ruling of the US Supreme Court!). Most don't understand that it is a contradiction to criticize gays and lesbians for being promiscuous, and then pressure them into "closets of denial" through religious and social pressure. Most people don't know that even a couple who have been together for many many years, and there are many more of these than most would suspect, when illness strikes are often told that the most important person in their life can not enter their hospital rooms as they are not "next of kin" while blood relatives who have rejected them since they "came out" walk freely in and out, making life and death medical decisions.

Most people don't seem to understand that by far the vast majority of child molesters and pedophiles are heterosexual males, not LGBT people. They don't know what its like to be stared at, ridiculed, and at times beaten severely or even to death because of a good bye kiss at an airport, or a simple holding of the hands at a theater. Most people just don't know that one can not be "converted" to homosexuality. Sure, one could be seduced into an act, if the proclivity is already there, but being gay in the straight world is hard work! Gays must constantly come out to people unless they are content to remain secreted in the closet of self denial and shame. They must always keep in mind that they are second class citizens due to who they are as individuals. At the office, when coworkers talk about their families, vacations, etc. lesbians and gays often must be careful to remain silent or speak in gender neutral terms lest they be discovered and hence fired, excluded or worse.

My Christian friend, I urge you to seek God in this matter. God does not condemn gays and lesbians and as Christians you are commanded to love your neighbor as yourselves. If you insist on maintaining your unbiblical prejudice against this community, at least have the human decency to turn down the hateful rhetoric!

Matthew 23:

1 John 4:

Peace, Love, and Light!