One of the more surprising and far-reaching changes in American life over the past fifty years has been the rapid and widespread approval of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. In the 1970s, public support for same-sex relationships was minimal—only 12% of Americans in 1973 said they believed homosexuality was morally acceptable, according to Gallup polling. Fast forward to the 2020s, and that number has risen to over 70%, with a similar majority now supporting same-sex marriage.
This shift hasn’t just occurred among the progressive left. Many cultural conservatives have changed their views as well. Notably, the Republican Party removed all references to homosexuality from its party platform leading up to the 2024 presidential election—a symbolic but significant departure from past decades of moral opposition.
At the popular level, it’s now common to hear of celebrities, musicians, and even Christian authors who have adopted more affirming positions on homosexuality. Within academic theology, some formerly traditional voices have changed course. One of the most striking examples is Richard B. Hays, a New Testament scholar whose earlier writings strongly defended a historic Christian sexual ethic but who has since taken a more open stance.
My purpose in this article is not necessarily to shape broader cultural thinking on this issue. Rather, it is to reinforce the historic Christian sexual ethic for thoughtful Christians who are trying to remain faithful amid increasing cultural and ecclesial confusion.
To that end, what follows is a review of five of the most common arguments made by affirming Christians—those who believe same-sex relationships are morally permissible—and a response to each rooted in Scripture, theology, and moral reasoning.
Argument 1: “Leviticus Is Just About Old Ritual Laws”
Affirming Christians often argue that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are part of a larger set of ritual purity laws no longer binding under the New Covenant. Since we don’t obey laws about dietary restrictions, mixed fabrics, or mildew, they argue, we shouldn’t apply the prohibition against same-sex acts either.
It’s true that Christians are no longer bound by the ceremonial and civil laws of ancient Israel (see Acts 10:9–16; Col. 2:16–17; Heb. 10:1–14). These laws served a unique function in Israel’s redemptive history and were fulfilled in Christ. But this argument assumes something it must prove—that the prohibition of same-sex acts belongs to that category.
In reality, Leviticus 18 and 20 place the prohibition of homosexual acts squarely within a list of enduring moral offenses, including incest, adultery, and bestiality. Nearly all Christians, including affirming ones, continue to affirm those other prohibitions. Are we to assume that these sexual sins are also now morally acceptable?
The language of Leviticus 18:24–25 reinforces that these sins defile not just the individual but the land, prompting God's judgment on nations. These are not merely ceremonial offenses. They reflect God's moral order and are reaffirmed in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:10).
Argument 2: “The Holiness Code No Longer Applies”
Some affirming Christians argue that Leviticus 18 and 20 belong to the “Holiness Code” (Leviticus 17–26)—a collection of laws meant to preserve Israel’s ritual distinctiveness. But this is merely a reworded version of the first argument.
Being part of the Holiness Code doesn’t automatically mean a command is temporary or ceremonial. The same section contains clear moral laws, including the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18), which Jesus calls the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39).
The question is not whether a law is found in the Holiness Code but whether it expresses a moral standard that is reaffirmed elsewhere in Scripture. In the case of same-sex behavior, it is (Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, et al.).
Argument 3: “Leviticus Only Condemns Exploitation or Idolatry”
Another common argument is that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 only prohibit specific forms of homosexual behavior—such as temple prostitution, pederasty, or exploitative relationships. But this argument, too, reads something into the text that simply isn’t there.
There is no indication in Leviticus that the prohibition is limited to cultic or coercive settings. Instead, Leviticus 18 presents a broad list of prohibited sexual behaviors that are wrong by their nature:
- Incest (vv. 6–18)
- Adultery (v. 20)
- Same-sex behavior (v. 22)
- Bestiality (v. 23)
Is incest only wrong if it’s exploitative? Is adultery only wrong if one partner is coerced? Is bestiality only wrong if it’s abusive? The absurdity of these questions shows that Leviticus condemns these acts categorically—not based on their motive or context, but because they violate God’s design.
Leviticus 20:13 reinforces this:
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…”
The comparison “as with a woman” underscores the violation of the male–female design for sex and marriage revealed in Genesis 1–2. The offense lies in reversing that pattern—not in the power dynamic.
Likewise, the text makes clear that “both of them” have done something abominable. Which raises the question: if the law were only against exploitative sex, would the text not say, “You shall not exploit a man sexually. He who does so has committed an abomination.” But it doesn’t. It says, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”
The act itself is prohibited, because it violates the order and purpose of creation.
Argument 4: “Abomination Just Means a Ritual Taboo”
Some affirming Christians argue that since Leviticus calls same-sex acts an “abomination” (toʿevah), and since that word is sometimes used for dietary restrictions or ritual violations, the term doesn’t carry moral weight.
It’s true that toʿevah can describe ritual impurity in certain contexts (e.g., Deut. 14:3). But in Leviticus 18 and 20, the real issue is not the label “abomination”—it is the clear moral prohibition: “You shall not.” When God says “you shall not,” to disobey is sin, whether or not the term toʿevah is used.
More importantly, toʿevah in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is applied to all the sexual sins listed in that section. Leviticus 18:24 says,
“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things…for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean.”
If calling something an abomination means it's only a temporary ritual concern, then that would apply to incest and bestiality as well. Unless one is willing to accept those acts as morally permissible, this argument undermines itself.
Argument 5: “Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality”
Perhaps the most widely repeated argument is that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. If it were such a serious sin, why wouldn’t he have addressed it?
But this argument fails on several counts.
First, Jesus didn’t mention many serious sins by name, including kidnapping, extortion, and wife-beating. Silence does not imply approval. No serious reader of Scripture would suggest that Jesus was indifferent to kidnapping simply because he never discussed it in the Gospels.
Second, this argument assumes that Jesus’ words in the Gospels carry more weight than the rest of Scripture. But Christians believe that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), and that the teaching of the apostles carries the authority of Christ himself (John 14:26; 16:13). The New Testament explicitly condemns same-sex behavior in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10.
Finally, while Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality directly, he affirmed the positive design for human sexuality. In Matthew 19:4–6, he cites Genesis 1 and 2:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female… Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
Jesus doesn’t need to list every prohibited behavior—he defines what sexuality and marriage are for. By affirming marriage as a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, he excludes all sexual relationships outside of that design.
Conclusion: Faithfulness in a Shifting Culture
In our cultural moment, Christians are under increasing pressure to revise or abandon biblical teaching on sexuality. But Scripture has not changed. The moral prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are part of God’s enduring design for human flourishing. They are not temporary rules, ritual taboos, or relics of a bygone culture. They are reaffirmed by the apostles, grounded in creation, and fulfilled in Christ.
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:11, after listing sins including homosexual behavior,
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The gospel offers forgiveness and transformation—not affirmation of sin. In love and truth, the church must continue to proclaim the goodness of God's design for sexuality and call all people to the joy of repentance and new life in Christ.
