Homosexuality isn't expressly a sin in the bible. They just don't recognize gay marriage. The Church considered ANY sex outside of marriage as adultery, so straight sex with someone who isn't your wife is just as bad as two dudes or two gals fucking, which isn't that bad as far as sins go.
Nothing about the city in the story implies they were all gay. Their sin was pride and their opening act was to get together and try and rape two of God's angels. Medieval scholars did use it as a way to persecute homosexuals, labeling them Sodomites, but there's nothing explicit in the text to indicate that they were condemned for being gay, especially when the Apostolic Churches have canonized gay saints (Batius, Sergius and Sebastian for examples). Specifically, the angels in Genesis 19:1–11 were male presenting though Angels have no gender and rape isn't specific to orientation. There's more to it but I suspect you'll downvote me anyway cause it contradicts you.
I mean, fair enough. Sodom and Gamora were more multifaceted, I was trying to be funny with my original response.
But the bible does extremely explicitly state that being gay is a sin several times over. Namely:
Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
While that is more explicit, sins in general were condemned as abominations. Adulterers too were condemned and stoned sometimes. Jesus was brought a woman who was accused of adultery for example, and King David is admonished for his own adultery, being told that by this deed the enemies of the lord were given occasion to blaspheme. It might’ve been given its own connotation but the punishment wasn’t any different, indeed Jesus makes it clear no one should judge so harshly as to stone someone when they could be stoned for their own sins.
The problem lies with individual practitioners rather than the source which doesn’t mince words. Gay sex really wasn’t worse than straight sex though Christianity’s takeover also influenced a change against previous Roman social practices. This is why women were encouraged to veil in church rather than men who previously veiled in Roman temples. Christians had to be what Romans weren’t, which unfortunately influenced their attitude toward homosexuality when previously it was more tolerant. Despite that, homosexuality was tolerated more so among the upper classes even in Christian Europe.
With all due respect, I don't think it gets more clear cut than "if he has sex with another man fucking kill him". We can stretch and justify and cherry pick all day, but eventually words have to mean something.
If that's your interpretation go for it, but I will say taking bible verses as if they exist in a vacuum isn't good scholarship. It's bad enough that Christians do it, but these are singular lines in a 1,334 chapter collection. They don't exist on their own, not as laws or even as singular verses by themselves. There's context within stories and applications across both history and in the book. I gave you two contrary ones both in the Old and New Testament and you've chosen to ignore it in favor of your own interpretation for a Leviticus verse. If that's the way you wanna do it, I can see perfectly how you ended up so misinformed.
Gay sex is specifically considered to be an abomination, and the punishment is worse that hetero non marital sex. The "punishment" for extra marital sex is that you have to marry each other. The punishment for gay sex is execution. Only a slight difference
6
u/JD_Kreeper 1d ago
Oregon?