Open letter: to Christians who oppose LGBTQ rights

First off, let me just admit LGBTQ rights aren’t things which affect me directly, so you might think it’s strange for me to have a strong opinion on it. You might be wondering why I should care at all whether gays can marry, whether people can decide their own pronouns, or whether folks can wear non conforming clothes.

It might seem like I’m overstepping my bounds to even have an opinion.

But my opinion comes from my faith. Perhaps this concept is familiar to you?

Do you know people who have strong, vocal, takes on the permissibility of gay stuff, even though they have no hat in the ring?

I have to admit, on a civil level, the public decisions around the validity of LGBTQ rights really should fall to the people who’d actually be affected by legal restrictions. It seems ridiculous for those of us who are straight to even weigh in on policies which will never impact us directly.

That said— I do think free and open discourse is a good thing. While I don’t believe it’s my right to dictate any of these policies, it is absolutely my right to speak plainly on the opinions I hold— and it’s my ethical obligation to do so responsibly in a way that hopes to harm no one.

So, what do I think about LGBTQ rights? I think they must be proudly protected, as should the rights of all people . And I say this from a standpoint of Christian theology!

If you’re a Christian, and you’re anti LGBTQ, I really think you missed the message.

Here are my reasons:

1. I believe observing the natural order is one way we can learn about the laws of creation, that is to say: God’s law. God makes no mistakes! And where did gayness etc, come from? Undeniably it came from nature, and according to my view that means it came from God the Creator.

Homosexuality is not a manmade thing— it exists in the broader animal kingdom…

You don’t have to take my word for it, this is a well documented reality:

There are even some theories as to why homosexuality could benefit social animals as well as humans in the natural world. Evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that non-reproducing members of a kin group strengthen the survivability odds for their siblings children, but helping secure resources and the safety of numbers for their community, without having to focus substantial energy and resource on their own offspring. In our modern world, adoption by same sex couples would be an example of this social benefit— children who are without parental care might find loving and supportive caregivers in nonbiological parents.

Also, aside from attraction and sexual behavior, it’s also worth mentioning that while animals lack a concept of gender or the idea of being “trans”, there are examples of animals that change their sex or expressions of their sex characteristics during their lifetimes.

And let’s be honest, lots of straight, cis people are unhappy with their bodies— many of us would change things if we could. I for one would love to not have balls. I mean, I know for my hormonal health I have to keep them. But I’m done having kids, and really they just get in the way and hurt all the time. I was assigned male at birth, and I identify as a straight man, but damn it— if I could safely, painlessly remove my balls with no negative side effects I would in a heart beat! I can only imagine how much greater my frustration and stress would be if I also had an element of gender dysphoria, rather than simple body frustration to grapple with. So if I’m allowed to dream of changing my own body for something as insignificant as my bodily comfort, why would we fault anybody who desires to change their body for a deeper psychological reason? Or for any reason at all?

Doesn’t the Christian concept of free will extend to bodily autonomy? Taken to its extreme, telling people what to do or not do with their bodies is an affront to God, who wants us to be happy and healthy— happiness and health look different for each of us.

Telling people they can’t identify as the gender they feel is silly, it would be kind of like telling cis men they’re not allowed to shave their faces because God and nature gave them beards and to cut one’s facial hair would be a sin or something. Or it would be like telling a cis woman she shouldn’t be allowed to dye her hair because it changes the color she was assigned at birth.

Taking to its extreme restricting somebody’s gender freedom is not too different from telling somebody what brands of clothing they are allowed to wear.

Anyway, when it comes to the existence of LGBTQ humans, i know not all of us are the same, I don’t want to make any unfair assumptions about your beliefs. But personally, I don’t credit the devil with the power to create. I think, from the stand point of a believer it can be logical to say that if God created the natural world and humanity, then God is the one who created all these gay and even trans animals, and God is also the one who created LGBTQ humans. To claim that being attracted to one’s own sex or feeling a disconnect with your assigned sex is wrong, when God gave people such attraction and impulse through nature— is basically the same thing as saying God is wrong.

2. Now, anyone who believes sexual identity is a choice, I’d ask you to really evaluate that statement with inward pointing magnifying glass. If homosexuality is a choice, then by logical extension, so is heterosexuality.

I call BS.

As a straight man, I can personally attest to the fact that I did not choose to be straight, and I could not possibly choose to be gay. I’m just attracted to who I’m attracted to. It happened that way, through no power or effort on my part. My attraction to women isn’t something I can control or modify, it just is, and my lack of attraction to men is bound to stay consistent.

If you insist that sexuality is a choice, I’d ask you to look at your own sexuality and determine whether you really could choose to want differently than you already do. And I have some news for you, if you still insist that you personally have the power to choose, then you are really just admitting sexual impulses that do not fit your stated sexuality.

People can change how they present themselves to the world, but they can’t authentically “switch sides” internally, and people who insist gays chose to be gay are by extension admitting that they “chose” to be straight, which is not psychologically possible. These folks are certainly experiencing dissonance between their private sexual preferences and their stated sexual preferences, and that’s not healthy.

3. I anticipate some fellow Christians may object to my first point, citing free will and the human propensity for sin— some might say murder also exists in the world of human nature, and God issued commands against that. I suppose the very first thing I’d say in response is: where did God issue a command against being gay? And since God never did any such thing, then let’s please define sin:

I want you to articulate, to yourself what exactly is a sin— I hope you don’t just say sin is anything in violation of the 10 commandments. Of course we all know that God made no explicit prohibition against gay stuff in the Ten Commandments.

In fact the only mention of anything to do with sexual behavior in the Commandments is “though shalt not commit adultery” which only means: if your married down cheat on your spouse.

But the Ten Commandments are not all encompassing— there are sins besides and beyond those listed.

We can look to Christ’s own words for insight into what else might constitute sin…. Matthew 7:12 “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I don’t think Jesus was saying anything about homosexuality here— unless it was “don’t have gay sex with your neighbor unless you want him to have gay sex with you.”

Ultimately it sounds like Christ was saying: treat others the way you want to be treated. Don’t harm people…. Don’t violate people’s freedom or their consent…

Using Christ’s words as the foundation, I think it’s ethical to say: if you don’t want to gay stuff or change your pronouns, then don’t, no big deal. But also, don’t make it your business or police what other people do in their bedrooms or how they present themselves to the world— that would be violating the golden rule. Give respectful privacy and distance, since that’s what you expect others to provide for your own sex life.

Now, the 10 commandments gave us a short list of things not to do. And Jesus gave us a general guide to evaluate our positive actions.

But again, what is a sin? Sin is an immoral act that transgresses against the Divine law. In other words, sin is something that would harm your relationship with God. Admittedly, it’s hard to know for certain what God intends for us, as far as Divine law is concerned and there’s room for personal interpretation….

Some people approach the writings in the Bible as God’s infallible word, but unless these people are fluent in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and actively reading the originals within the historical context inwhich they were written, biblical fundamentalists are essentially playing a game of telephone with their Holy Scriptures. These works have been translated many times— and no translation can perfectly convey author intent— the challenge is all the greater when the translation loses historical and cultural context over thousands of years.

So I think it’s helpful to try to understand sin in broader, human terms. I think it’s accurate to think of sin as anything which harm’s one’s relationship with the divine, or with the better part of human nature.

We can simplify sin, as a concept, by simplifying our understanding of the divine. If we approach the idea of God as Love (this idea is well established and supported through the Christian New Testament), we might also approach the better part of human nature as our capacity and our impulse to love.

Then, any action— and maybe any thought— that makes it harder for us to give and receive love can be understood as sinful (in both theological and natural-humanist contexts)

With this conceptualization of sin as anything that harms one’s relationship with God, who is love… then it becomes apparent there are several broad ways to harm one’s relationship with God.

A) one can harm their relationship with God directly, with blasphemy or such. People who identify as LGBTQ are not inherently sinning in this way.

B) one can harm their relationship with God by mistreating God’s children. Some sexual behaviors fall under this category of sin— sexual assault, rape, pedophilia and other predatory sexual behaviors. But Again, when things are consensual between adults, LGBTQ individuals are not inherently engaging in this sin— not any more so than heteros who are sexually active in healthy ways.

C) one can harm their relationship with God by mistreating God’s creation— by being abusers rather than good stewards of the earth. If you wanna get mad at the biggest sinners in this regard, point your ire towards the billionaire class and corporations. Not LGBTQ people.

D) one can harm their relationship with God by mistreating themselves. Some sexual behaviors fall into this category of sin— even consenting sex can be dangerous and harmful. But sex, whether gay or straight, can be made safe and responsible. LGBTQ individuals are not inherently engaging in this sin either.

I will never understand why any Christian would think that people who have consensual gay sex— or homosexual preferences— are sinning.

Personally, I find the physical concept of gay sex quite unappealing— same way I’d imagine gay guys find my fantasies and histories with women totally repulsive… But I cannot possibly imagine a God who could be fragile or weird enough to be offended if two (or more I guess) of the humans God created decided to show their admiration and affection for eachother through physical intimacy and pleasure.

Why would God take offense? If God created homosexuality, God can’t be offended by its existence. And if God gave us free will in the hope we’d choose to love and care for one another, then God can’t be offended by two guys making eachother feel good any more than he’d be offended by a guy and a woman making eachother feel good.

4. I know a prevailing Christian objection to point 3 lies in the idea that sex must be procreative. This comes from one of the earliest one liners in the Bible: “be fruitful and multiply”… psychologically it also comes from the human biological/ evolutionary drive to reproduce.

We like to moralize baby making because it gives us a sense of nobility and purpose in what would otherwise be seen as a plainly animalistic behavior.

But God could never have intended sex to be strictly reproductive. How do I know?

Biology and the existence of pleasure. Take for example, the clitoris: that incredible organ does aid in reproduction, as stimulation helps prepare a woman’s internal organs for potential fertilization.

But it’s also, basically, a (very) fun button. God didn’t have to make sex feel as fun, as good, or as wholesome as it does— and the fact that it’s almost universally considered one of the best, most enjoyable things in life is proof that it serves more purpose than perpetuating the miracle of life.

If the simple fact that sex is wildly pleasurable isn’t enough to convince you that God never intended sex to be strictly procreative, consider the following thought experiment:

If you are a heterosexual, imagine for a moment that you are in a healthy marriage, and that you and your partner are trying to conceive.

You’re both having lots of fun with each attempt, but nothing seems to take. You go to your doctor and they run tests— turns out there’s a deformity or an illness or a genetic abnormality that makes you 100% infertile. Maybe it’s your sperm, or your egg, maybe it’s something structural. Doesn’t matter what precisely is failing. All that matters is it’s not your fault, but you will never have biological children— it is a biological impossibility, and you are the way God made you.

You’re already married in the eyes of God. Should you continue having sex with your husband or wife, knowing that your sexual interactions will never be procreative?

It’s not selfish or sinful to say yes. It’s natural to say yes. Infertility is natural. So are sex drives. Infertile heterosexual people can, do, and should have healthy sex lives with their partners.

Does anyone honestly believe that an infertile man who has sex with his wife is sinning for engaging in non-procreative pleasure?

Does anyone who claims to believe that God is love really believe that straights who can’t have kids should be consigned to the drawn out misery of a dead bedroom?

And depriving an intimate partner of physical intimacy is proven to have terrible health outcomes in terms of longevity, mental wellness, and physical fitness. Sex isn’t just fun, it’s healthy. It helps sustain an emotional connection between partners, it helps us cope with stress, I literally helps us improve our heart and lung health.

Its obvious but perhaps it bears saying: if straight people don’t deserve the agony of a sexless life, neither do gays. In other words, if the straights should enjoy the myriad benefits of sex regardless of the potential for pregnancy and birth, then so should LGBTQs. That is to say, no, God doesn’t view non procreative sex as a sin.

If you remain unconvinced by this hypothetical/ thought experiment because you’re lucky enough for it not to apply to you, then I’ll ask you a rhetorical (emphasis on no need to answer):

How many times have you engaged in non procreative sex?

Anyone who’s had sex alone (masturbated) has engaged in non procreative sexual activity. Let’s be real, that’s almost every man on earth and even the majority of women. Are we all going to hell for a lack of sexual purity, because we used the organs God gave us for fun rather than being fruitful and multiplying?

Same question again, but this time for oral sex. If a hetero woman gives her hetero husband a blowjob are they both going to hell? What if he eats her out?

Again, let’s be real most of humanity has given or received oral. Hell, even non human animals do that stuff.

If you are one of the rare men or women who has never masturbated, or engaged in oral sex: what about pulling out, wearing a condom, or even using natural family planning?

If your goal was ever to bust a nut and you made even the barest effort to reduce the risk of pregnancy, then you have quite literally contradicted the concept of strictly procreative sex by your own deeds.

If you’ve never tried to avoid a pregnancy, then I suppose you can stake the high ground, claiming that you’ll only ever use your body for procreation, “as God intended”. Still, you shouldn’t cast stones. Because one day you might have a wet dream! Because, yeah, that would be beyond your control but it would also be non-procreative action of your genitals.

Points being: procreation is a pretty mind blowing miracle of creation and biology, but sex has value even if it’s not procreative— and a big chunk of that value is feeling good and pursuing better health.

Anyway, the flimsy idea that God demands sex (and by extension marriage) be procreative has unfortunately been used to demonize LGBTQ people, despite the reality that God places no such demand on any of us. Also it’s especially hypocritical of any believer to restrict the rights of others on the basis of their sexual preference unless that believer is 100% celibate except for instances of deliberate reproduction.

5. I have loved ones— friends as well as family— who are all different representations of LGBTQ. As much as I love these folks— God, who is Love, loves them more and more perfectly.

I don’t remember the exact stats but something like 1 in 10 people are somewhere on the LGBTQ demographic.

If you know 50 people, chances are around 5 of them are either lesbian, gay, bi, or trans.

Some may be very close to you, perhaps in your nuclear family and potentially still in the closet.

Remember, Christ, throughout his life, reached out to the marginalized in society.

And remember, Jesus had 12 apostles. So statistically speaking one of them was gay, as I’m sure many of the people we revere as saints were.

Also remember, Christ himself was fully human— and homosexuality is a naturally occurring thing. It is entirely possible that when God became man, He might have ended up a gay man. The fact is we don’t know— there aren’t any records of Christ’s sexual preferences.

But, being that he was fully human we can safely assume he had a sexual identity, if he didn’t then God was copping out of the typical human experience.

So Jesus had to have had sexual desires. Does it matter if those desires were for men or women?

Let’s be perfectly clear, if Christ turned out to be flaming gay, that wouldn’t have made him any less holy.

Same way your own loved ones possibly being LGBTQ doesn’t make them any more or less worthy of love and freedom.

God loves them, totally, without condition. And so should you.

And God’s not fixating on their sexuality so… it’s honestly just weird if you do.

If humanity was made in the image of God, that means we are all the image of God, straight, cisgender, LGBTQ, all of us.

***

***

***

Authors note:

Full transparency, I was raised Christian, but have become more agnostic in my adulthood. I still value the teaching and life of Christ, but my frustration with the church comes from many Christian groups forgetting the main point of Christianity, in favor of an exclusive brand of faith which I believe God— if God exists— would abhor. Ultimately I do not believe that the existence of God or heaven are relevant, we should do the right thing, for eachother. And the right thing is to love the rest of creation, and to strive to no harm. If God exists, this will honor God. If God doesn’t exist, this will honor our neighbors.

That’s good enough.

Also, I’m a cisgender man, while I have loved ones who are LGBTQ I am not fully in the know on things like terminology and etiquette.

I hope this critique of some aspect of the Christian stance on LGBTQ issues does not make use of any problematic verbiage, apologies if it does. I admit im speaking from a very limited perspective and with very limited personal knowledge.