LGBT+ and the Church

Chapter IV. Useless Arguments

It seems prudent to address arguments that are, in my estimation, largely unhelpful. I have a separate work devoted entirely to confronting claims such as "You are going to hell!"—those slogans waved by self-professing "Christians." Such proclamations reflect poor theology, and I see no need to devote a chapter here to refuting what has already been treated elsewhere.

Instead, I shall focus on a few shorter arguments encountered in debate circles that bear some relevance to the discussion. This chapter is intended to engage both the reader and myself with sincerity and purpose. I also hope it assists fellow Christians in understanding my disagreements with these claims. Over time, I may expand this chapter as further examples present themselves.

1. "[Insert word] is abnormal"

I have inserted a space here because this label is often applied interchangeably to "homosexuality" and "transgenderism," and related variations. Yet this argument, pointing only to abnormality, contributes nothing to the ethical discussion. Something may be abnormal without carrying moral weight.

Consider a room of people with brown or black hair, in which a single individual has red hair. That individual is abnormal in that setting. Expand the view to a broader region in which red hair is rare, and the abnormality becomes more pronounced. Children in some schools in Asia, for instance, may stare at a white visitor because they have never encountered one before.

Abnormality, in itself, is morally neutral. It tells us nothing of right or wrong and thus should not serve as a primary argument in Christian ethical debate.

2. "[Insert word] is unnatural"

Scripture does indeed describe homosexual acts as contrary to nature. St. Paul writes in Romans: "For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Rom. 1:26–27).

However, the meaning of "unnatural" within Christian theology cannot be assumed to hold in secular discourse. To the Orthodox Christian, humanity is defined by closeness to God. We are made in His image (reason, free will) and likeness (righteousness, virtue). In fulfilling both, we resemble the intention of our creation, surpassing mere animality. To be fully human is to participate in divine life, as our Lord is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

Secular perspectives, however, may define what is natural merely as that which exists in the observable world. Thus, the existence of homosexual behaviour among animals, from Japanese macaques to lions and penguins, may be cited as "proof" of naturalness. However, the presence of a behaviour in nature does not render it ethically permissible. Many animals engage in acts that would be morally abhorrent to humans: killing for sport, incest, and unprovoked aggression. Likewise, technologies may be unnatural and yet welcomed. Naturalism does not equate to morality.

Hence, both "abnormality" and "unnaturalness" are weak arguments in dialogue between Christians and non-Christians. For believers, humanity is grounded in the divine image and likeness; for secularists, humanity is understood within animality. In either case, the terms themselves advance no meaningful ethical discussion.

3. Sodom and Gomorrah

The moral error of homosexual acts in this story is, to the Christian reader, evident when one examines Scripture holistically. Homosexuality is condemned elsewhere, and thus its inclusion among Sodom and Gomorrah's sins is consistent. Non-Christians, however, may interpret these accounts differently. They might isolate the narrative, or rely upon passages such as Ezekiel 16:49: "Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." By focusing only on gluttony and pride, one might see no basis for including homosexual acts among the city's sins.

For the Christian, the story is part of a larger moral framework. Jude 1:7 refers to sexual immorality, describing the pursuit of "strange flesh," which some could understand as referring to the citizens' desire for angels, and by extension to broader sexual rebellion. Such subtleties are lost on the non-Christian reader, and the argument fails if presented without first establishing that Scripture elsewhere condemns homosexual acts.

In short, Sodom and Gomorrah are not isolated proof texts. Their value lies in context, in the moral vision of Scripture as a whole. Engaging with them effectively requires prior understanding of the broader ethical framework.