one of the statements that i have made that has been the most controversial since i’ve started this account has been my belief that homosexuality isn’t a sin. shocker, right? well, today, i’m going to share this handy project debunking all of the verses that people usually bring out to justify their hatred, because i’m tired of having this conversation individually. so, stick around if you’re a fellow Christian lgbtq+ supporter, or if you don’t agree with me right now but are willing to challenge your views and learn! this is the first part in a series of projects that i’m making, each one focusing on debunking ‘Christian’ homophobia. you can find the others here: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/629657799/ Romans 1:18-27 - https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/629659560/ I Corinthians 6:9-10 - https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/629660842/
Genesis 19:1-14 and 24-26 a well-known story, and one often told to justify Christian homophobia. however, ultimately, this story has less to do with the sexualities of the aggressors than it does about the idea of abuse of power and the obligation to help people. it is unlikely that every man in sodom would be homosexual - the attempted r of the angels has more to do with power than it does with any sort of pleasure. during the ancient times, soldiers commonly used r (especially homosexual r of their defeated enemies) as a weapon of humiliation, rather than pleasure; it would have been particularly humiliating for men, as they would be being treated like women often were during those times. the deplorable practice was not driven by desire, but out of brutality, hatred, and a need to exert their own power over already defeated enemies. sodom’s sin was the cruelty of abuse and power, not homosexuality. it’s also notable - and disgusting - that lot offers his daughters to the men. the story assumes that lot is expected by societal norms to keep the visitors safe and that they have priority over his own daughters. lot’s offer makes clear the value of women, relative to men, in that culture; women are not protected, they are the protection. i find this part particularly interesting as, if the issue had been one of homosexuality, lot would likely have been compelled to offer his sons-in-law, who were also in the city, or himself, to the men, knowing that they would have no interest in his daughters. he does not, however, indicating that the issue here is not with the sexualities of these men, but with the abuse and the cruelty of their attempted r. it is also stated that the men of sodom regularly practiced evil, making this attempted r simply the latest in a long list of atrocities. though sodom is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, its sins are never mentioned as being ones of homosexual activity, rather, injustice, oppression, abuse and power. even Jesus mentions it, making reference to the problem being one of inhospitality and refusal to listen to the prospect of holy word: “if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. truly i tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of sodom and gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” if the main conclusion to be drawn from the story is that homosexuality is bad, would Jesus not have mentioned that as his main point? since he didn’t, the conclusion to be drawn here is that the story has nothing to do with consensual homosexual relationships.
