The Sword of Holiness: Leviticus, Hermeneutics, and the Modern Construction of Sexual Orthodoxy
Introduction
The intersection of ancient Near Eastern legal codes and contemporary sexual politics represents one of the most volatile and enduring flashpoints in modern cultural discourse. At the center of this conflict lie two verses from the Holiness Code of the Hebrew Bible: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. To the casual observer, these texts appear as straightforward prohibitions from a distant antiquity, relics of a theocratic legal system long since superseded by secular governance and modern ethics. However, their deployment in modern religious, legal, and political spheres reveals a complex architecture of theological argumentation, sociological boundary maintenance, and philological debate that continues to shape the lives of millions. These verses are not merely historical artifacts; they are active agents in the construction of sexual orthodoxy, functioning as the textual bedrock for arguments against same-sex marriage, civil rights protections, and ecclesial inclusion.1
This report provides an exhaustive analysis of how the book of Leviticus is utilized to articulate divine disapproval of homosexual behavior. It moves beyond a surface-level reading to explore the deep structural mechanisms of the argument, tracing how a specific reading of ancient Hebrew text is transmuted into a universal moral absolute in the twenty-first century. We examine the philological disputes regarding the Hebrew phrase mishkavei ishah, the anthropological theories of "abomination" (to'evah) as a boundary marker, and the historical transformation of ritual purity laws into binding ethical mandates. Furthermore, the report traces the weaponization of these texts in American jurisprudence—from the explicit citations in colonial sodomy laws to the "secularized" moral arguments in Bowers v. Hardwick and the Equality Act debates—and their role in precipitating schisms within major Protestant denominations like the United Methodist Church.3
The persistence of Leviticus in modern discourse is a testament to the enduring power of sacred text to define social reality. For traditionalists, these verses represent the "creation order" protected by divine law; for progressives and revisionists, they represent a "text of terror" or a misunderstood ritual code. By dissecting the "traditionalist" hermeneutic, we expose the underlying logic that allows ancient ritual texts to function as binding moral law today, while simultaneously engaging with the "revisionist" or "progressive" scholarship that challenges these applications through historical-critical and linguistic analysis. This analysis reveals that the use of Leviticus is rarely about the text in isolation; rather, it is about the authority of scripture, the definition of human nature, and the boundaries of the community.1
I. The Textual Foundation: Philology and the Architecture of Prohibition
To understand how Leviticus is used to condemn gay people today, one must first understand the raw materials of the argument: the text itself. The traditional argument rests on the assertion of plain meaning—that the text is perspicuous, universal, and unambiguous. However, a rigorous examination reveals that the "plain meaning" is a product of specific translational choices and interpretive traditions that have hardened over centuries. The debate is not merely about what the text says, but about what the text does—how its grammar and syntax function to categorize human behavior.1
The "Clobber Passages": Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
The two verses in question reside within the "Holiness Code" (Leviticus 17–26), a distinct section of the Priestly source (P) generally dated by critical scholars to the exilic or post-exilic period, though traditionalists maintain Mosaic authorship. These texts form the nucleus of what are colloquially known as the "clobber passages"—biblical texts used to weaponize theology against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Leviticus 18:22: W'et-zachar lo tishkav mishkavei ishah to'evah hi.
Standard Translation: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination." 1
Leviticus 20:13: V'ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkavei ishah to'evah asu shneihem...
Standard Translation: "And a man who lies with a male the lyings of a woman, they have both done an abomination..." 8
The argument for divine condemnation begins here: the text explicitly forbids male-male sexual intercourse and labels it to'evah (abomination), punishable by death in the context of the theocratic state of Israel. For the traditionalist, this is the "smoking gun." The prohibition is absolute, unqualified by age or status, and carries the supreme penalty, indicating the severity of the offense in the eyes of God.1 The rhetoric employed by organizations such as the Family Research Council and traditionalist theologians relies heavily on the "unqualified" nature of this ban. Unlike other ancient Near Eastern laws that might only prohibit raping a superior or a peer, Leviticus 18:22 appears to forbid the act itself, regardless of consent.10
The Battle over Mishkavei Ishah: Anatomy of a Prohibition
The primary mechanism by which these texts are used to condemn gay people relies on interpreting the Hebrew idiom mishkavei ishah ("lyings of a woman") as a comprehensive category for all same-sex eroticism, or at least all anal intercourse. The traditional interpretation posits that the phrase establishes a functional equivalence: the prohibition is against using a man "as one uses a woman."
The Traditionalist Logic: Gender Complementarity
Traditional scholars like Robert Gagnon, Richard Davidson, and others argue that mishkavei ishah implies that the sexual act is "conditioned by gender," not status. This is a critical distinction. In many ancient Near Eastern cultures, such as Assyria or Egypt, same-sex acts were often regulated based on social hierarchy—it was shameful to be the penetrated partner (feminized), but acceptable to be the penetrator (masculine dominance). Traditionalists argue that Leviticus is unique because it condemns both partners (Lev 20:13), thereby rejecting the active/passive distinction and condemning the act itself as a violation of the created order.1
The logic here is that God designed the male for the female; to place a male in the "bed of a woman" (functionally) is a violation of the ontological structure of humanity. As Gagnon argues, the prohibition is an "abomination" because it blurs the divinely ordained distinction between male and female established in Genesis 1:27.1 By this reading, Leviticus 18:22 is a defense of gender complementarity. This theological construct allows the text to be wielded against modern same-sex marriage, which is framed not just as a behavioral sin but as an ontological error—an attempt to erase the distinctiveness of the sexes.1
The Revisionist Challenge: Incest and Bed-Ownership
However, the "anti-gay" utility of this verse is challenged by scholars like K. Renato Lings, Jacob Milgrom, and others who question the "plain meaning" translation. Lings, in particular, has argued that mishkavei is a plural construct state often referring to "beds" rather than the abstract act of "lying." He suggests the verse might be better translated as a prohibition against incestuous male rape or specific boundary violations regarding "lying in the beds of a woman" (i.e., with her husband), effectively an extension of adultery laws rather than a ban on homosexuality per se.11
Lings points out that the phrase mishkavei ishah appears only in these two verses and in Genesis 49:4, where Reuben is condemned for sleeping with his father's concubine ("you went up onto my couch"). In that context, the "beds" clearly refer to illicit incestuous appropriation of a father's sexual property. Revisionists argue that if the idiom retains this meaning in Leviticus, the prohibition is not against two men having sex, but against a man having sex with a male relative in a woman's bed—specifically, a bed belonging to a female relative (incest).7 This interpretation would severely limit the text's applicability to consensual, non-incestuous gay relationships today.
The Honor/Shame Dynamic
Furthermore, scholars like Saul Olyan argue that the phrase "lyings of a woman" specifically targets anal penetration because it reduces the passive partner to the status of a female. In the patriarchal context of ancient Israel, this "feminization" of a male was a status degradation—an issue of honor and shame rather than sexual orientation.1 Olyan suggests that the prohibition was originally concerned with the maintenance of masculine honor. A man who allows himself to be penetrated "like a woman" shames himself and his family. The death penalty in Lev 20:13, which applies to both parties, might then be seen as a radical attempt by the Priestly writers to stamp out this "shameful" behavior entirely by holding both the active and passive partners liable—a departure from other ANE codes that often only punished the passive partner.1
Despite these nuances, the use of the text in modern religious rhetoric overwhelmingly ignores the honor/shame dynamic. Instead, it universalizes the prohibition: "God forbids men lying with men." This simplification is the first step in weaponizing the text. By stripping away the specific philological context (incest, honor, status), the text becomes a blunt instrument against all same-sex intimacy.11
The Rhetoric of "Abomination" (To'evah)
The second pillar of the argument is the word to'evah. In modern English, "abomination" connotes something morally repugnant, inherently evil, and utterly detestable to God. When a preacher or politician says, "Homosexuality is an abomination," they are invoking a sense of visceral, metaphysical disgust. This word serves as a linguistic intensifier, designed to end debate by placing the act beyond the pale of civilized behavior.15
The Linguistic Reality: Ritual vs. Moral
The Hebrew to'evah, however, functions differently. It appears over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible, often referring to ritual errors, dietary infractions, or idolatrous practices of foreign nations.9 It is not strictly a moral term in the Western sense of "evil," but a category marker for things that are "taboo" or "out of place."
Proverbs 11:1: A false balance in commerce is an "abomination."
Deuteronomy 25:13-16: Cheating in business is an "abomination."
Genesis 43:32: Egyptians considered eating with Hebrews an "abomination" (to'evah). This is the "smoking gun" for the cultural relativity of the term. Obviously, eating lunch with a Hebrew is not "sinful" in a universal moral sense; it was merely a violation of Egyptian cultural taboos.15
Deuteronomy 14:3: The consumption of non-kosher foods is labeled to'evah.16
This broader usage suggests that to'evah often denotes a boundary violation or a foreign practice that threatens Israel's distinct identity, rather than an act of inherent evil like murder.
The Strategic Deployment
The modern argument relies on a selective definition of to'evah. When used against gay people, it is treated as a moral super-category, equivalent to "mortal sin" or "intrinsic evil." The argument glosses over the fact that eating shellfish or remarrying a divorced wife (Deut 24:4) are also termed to'evah or similar impurity terms.16
By isolating the word "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22 from its usage elsewhere, anti-gay rhetoric elevates homosexuality to a unique status of evil. This rhetorical move allows the speaker to bypass the "ceremonial law" objection (discussed in Section III) by claiming that the label "abomination" marks the act as intrinsically disordered, regardless of covenant context.6 The term becomes a linguistic weapon that shuts down nuance; if God calls it an abomination, how can the church call it a marriage? This simplistic equation is the bedrock of the "plain reading" defense.
II. The Historical Context: Purity, Boundaries, and the "Other"
To fully comprehend how Leviticus is used today, we must explore the world from which it emerged. The "anti-gay" argument relies on transplanting ancient Near Eastern purity regulations into modern individualistic morality. However, scholars have long noted that Leviticus operates on a system of "purity" that is alien to modern ethics.
The Mary Douglas Framework: Purity as System
Anthropologist Mary Douglas, in her seminal work Purity and Danger (1966), provides the critical lens for understanding Leviticus. She argues that "dirt is matter out of place." In the Levitical worldview, holiness (qadosh) means "set apart," "whole," or "complete." The prohibitions in Leviticus are not random health codes but a systematic attempt to create a perfect, ordered world where things do not mix.18
Mixtures are Abominations: Fabric must not be mixed (wool and linen). Seeds must not be mixed in a field. Animals that do not fit standard categories (e.g., lobsters, which live in water but have no scales) are unclean.
Sexual Mixing: In this worldview, male-male sex is a "mixture" or a confusion of boundaries. It treats a male like a female, violating the "class" of maleness. It is a confusion of the created categories.
Modern Usage of Douglas's Insight:
Conservative theologians often adapt this by arguing that God established a "Creation Order" (Genesis 1–2) of male and female complementarity. Leviticus protects this order. Therefore, the argument goes, homosexuality is not just a rule violation; it is a cosmic "confusion," an attack on the binary structure of reality itself.6 This allows the argument to shift from "it's a rule in a book" to "it's a violation of nature." The "abomination" is the mixing of categories that God intended to be distinct.
The "Canaanite Practice" Argument and the Myth of Sacred Prostitution
A persistent theme in the deployment of Leviticus is the claim that these laws were given to distinguish Israel from the "wicked nations" surrounding them (Egypt and Canaan).1 Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition: "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt... and the land of Canaan" (Lev 18:3). This framing is used to argue that the prohibited sexual acts were characteristic of pagan idolatry.
The Argument: Homosexuality as Idolatry
Traditionalists often link Leviticus 18:22 to the concept of qadeshim (temple prostitutes). The argument asserts that same-sex acts in the ancient world were inextricably linked to the worship of foreign gods (like Molech, mentioned in Lev 18:21). Therefore, to engage in such acts is to participate in idolatry. This rhetorical move is powerful because it casts gay people not just as "sinners," but as carriers of a foreign, pagan contagion that threatens the purity of the church and nation.21 It allows the speaker to invoke the "spiritual warfare" motif, framing the "gay agenda" as a resurgence of paganism in the West.
The Historical Complication
However, the historical evidence for "cult prostitution" is thin and heavily debated. Scholars like Stephanie Budin, in The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity, argue that the concept of "sacred prostitution" is largely a literary invention of Greek historians (like Herodotus) used to slander "oriental" others, rather than a historical reality in the Ancient Near East.22 If "sacred prostitution" did not exist as a widespread institution, then the link between homosexuality and idolatry in Leviticus is severed.
Ironically, this lack of evidence for ritual prostitution is seized upon by traditionalist scholars like Robert Gagnon to strengthen their case. If the acts were not ritual, Gagnon argues, then Leviticus 18:22 must be a prohibition of the act itself, regardless of context.10 This allows groups like the Family Research Council to counter the "Progressive" argument that Leviticus only bans exploitative or ritual sex. By insisting that the ban covers all same-sex acts, even consensual ones, they maintain the text's utility as a comprehensive condemnation of modern gay relationships.
III. The Theological Construct: From Ceremonial Code to Moral Law
The most significant hurdle for using Leviticus against gay people in a Christian context is the "Ceremonial Law" problem. Christians routinely ignore Levitical bans on eating pork, wearing mixed fabrics, sowing mixed seeds, and menstruation rituals. How, then, is the ban on homosexuality maintained as binding while the ban on shrimp is discarded? This is achieved through a theological partition known as the Tripartite Division of the Law.
The Tripartite Distinction
Theologians, particularly in the Reformed tradition, historically divide Old Testament law into three categories:
Civil Law: Governing the political state of ancient Israel (expired with the fall of the theocracy).
Ceremonial Law: Sacrifices, dietary codes, and purity rituals (fulfilled in Christ's atonement).
Moral Law: Universal ethical absolutes based on God's character (eternal and binding on all people).6
The Argument Mechanism:
To use Leviticus against gay people, the prohibition must be successfully categorized as Moral Law. Since the text of Leviticus does not explicitly label laws as "moral" or "ceremonial" (they are all mixed together), this categorization is achieved through several rhetorical and theological moves:
Reiteration in the New Testament: Traditionalists argue that because Paul condemns arsenokoitai (men bedders) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27, the Levitical ban is "ratified" in the New Covenant. In contrast, dietary laws were explicitly repealed in Acts 10 (Peter's vision) and Mark 7:19. This "New Testament Ratification" is the primary filter used to save Lev 18:22 while discarding Lev 11 (dietary laws).6
The "Creation Order" Appeal: By linking Leviticus 18:22 back to Genesis 1:27 ("Male and female He created them"), the prohibition is grounded in the "design" of humanity, making it moral rather than ritual. The argument is that while pork is only unclean for Jews, gender complementarity is a universal truth for all humanity.1
Severity of Punishment: The death penalty attached to Lev 20:13 is often cited as evidence of the sin's gravity, distinguishing it from minor ritual infractions. However, this argument is vulnerable, as adultery, working on the Sabbath, and cursing parents also carried the death penalty.1
The Counter-Argument: The "Holiness Code" Unity
Progressive scholars and theologians (e.g., in the UMC debate) argue that Leviticus 18 is a coherent unit of the "Holiness Code" intended to separate Israel from Gentiles. They point out that the list of "abominations" in Leviticus 18 includes sex during menstruation (v. 19), which most Christians do not consider a "moral" sin comparable to incest or adultery.7
By selectively extracting verse 22 as "Moral" while relegating verse 19 to "Ceremonial," the user of the text engages in what critics call "interpretive cherry-picking." However, from the traditionalist perspective, this is not cherry-picking but "canonical synthesis"—reading the Old Testament through the lens of the New. This theological filter is the essential tool that allows a Christian to eat a ham sandwich while condemning same-sex marriage, citing the same book of the Bible for both actions.
IV. The Political Weaponization: From Pulpit to Policy
The theological interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 does not stay in the seminary; it migrates to the statehouse. In the United States, Leviticus has been explicitly cited to justify the criminalization of homosexuality and to oppose civil rights protections. The text serves as a "shadow constitution" for social conservatives, providing a divine mandate that supersedes secular trends.
The Era of Sodomy Laws: Bowers to Lawrence
For most of American history, "sodomy" was a crime, and the justification was explicitly biblical.
Colonial Foundations: The Massachusetts Body of Laws and Liberties (1641) codified the death penalty for sodomy by quoting Leviticus 20:13 verbatim: "If any man lyeth with man-kinde as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death".27 This established a legal precedent where biblical law was civil law.
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): In upholding Georgia's sodomy ban, Chief Justice Warren Burger explicitly invoked "Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards." His concurring opinion noted that prohibitions against sodomy have "ancient roots," a veiled but unmistakable reference to the Levitical code which was cited in the state's briefs.4 Burger essentially ruled that the "abomination" status in religious history provided a "rational basis" for state law. The Court accepted the state's argument that the moral disapproval of the majority—rooted in these texts—was sufficient to justify criminalization.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003): When the Supreme Court eventually overturned Bowers, Justice Kennedy famously noted that "men and women in every generation" have condemned homosexual conduct. However, the dissent by Justice Scalia (and earlier arguments by the state of Texas) continued to rely on the notion that public morality—derived from these ancient codes—was a legitimate state interest.4
Table 1 illustrates the evolution of how Leviticus has been cited in American legal history, moving from direct quotation to "moral tradition."
Era
Legal Document/Case
Usage of Leviticus
Purpose
Colonial
Massachusetts Body of Laws (1641)
Direct Quotation of Lev 20:13
Establish Capital Punishment
19th Century
State Sodomy Statutes
Implicit ("Crime against Nature")
Criminalize non-procreative sex
1986
Bowers v. Hardwick
Cited as "Ancient Roots" of morality
Uphold criminalization
2003
Lawrence v. Texas
Cited in Dissent/Amicus Briefs
Argue for "Rational Basis" of state morality
2020s
Equality Act Debates
Cited as "Religious Freedom" basis
Oppose civil rights protections
The Equality Act and Religious Freedom
In recent debates over the Equality Act (H.R. 15), Leviticus plays a central role in the opposition's argument regarding "Religious Freedom." The argument has shifted from "criminalize the act" to "protect the conscience."
The Argument: If Leviticus 18:22 defines homosexuality as a sin (and thus a "behavior" rather than an "identity"), then forcing a Christian baker, florist, or adoption agency to serve a same-sex couple is forcing them to participate in a "sinful act" or an "abomination."
The Political Implication: Opponents argue that the Equality Act would "cancel religious freedom" by equating a moral conviction (based on Leviticus) with invidious discrimination (like racism). They argue that their objection is not bigotry, but obedience to a divine command found in the Holiness Code.29
The Counter-Move: Proponents of the Act (and progressive religious groups) argue that religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate in the public square, comparing the use of Leviticus against gays to the use of Genesis to justify slavery or segregation.31
The "Death Penalty" Rhetoric
A fringe but vocal minority of politicians and activists have used Leviticus 20:13 ("they shall surely be put to death") to advocate for the actual criminalization of homosexuality with capital punishment.
Roy Moore (Alabama): The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court frequently cited biblical law as the basis for his judicial philosophy. In a 2002 custody case (Ex parte H.H.), Moore wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the state's power to punish crime is derived from God, and God defines sodomy as an evil punishable by death. He explicitly cited Leviticus 20:13 to argue that the state should not grant custody to a lesbian mother.33
Michele Bachmann: The former Congresswoman has a history of viewing homosexuality through a Levitical lens, describing it as "personal enslavement" and aligning with views that see it as a disorder to be cured, reflecting the "abomination" rhetoric.34
The "Kill the Gays" Bill (Uganda): While outside the US, American evangelicals (notably Scott Lively) exported the Levitical argument to Uganda, influencing legislation that sought the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality." This created a direct line from US culture war rhetoric to international human rights abuses, showing that the "death penalty" clause of Lev 20:13 is not a dead letter in the global imagination.34
V. The Ecclesial Fracture: The UMC and the Nashville Statement
The fight over Leviticus is perhaps most visceral within the church itself. The text is not just a policy guide but a boundary marker for "Orthodoxy."
The United Methodist Church (UMC) Schism
The UMC, the second-largest Protestant denomination in the US, has been torn apart by these verses.
The "Traditional Plan" (2019): This plan reaffirmed the ban on "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" in the clergy. The rationale was explicitly biblical, citing the "incompatibility" of homosexual practice with Christian teaching, a stance grounded in the Levitical prohibitions.3
The Argument: For Traditionalists (e.g., the Good News movement, Wesleyan Covenant Association), surrendering the Levitical prohibition is seen as a surrender of Scriptural Authority (Sola Scriptura). If Leviticus 18:22 is "culturally relative," then what about the Resurrection? The text serves as a "domino" in the theological system.3
The Consequence: The passage of the Traditional Plan led to the disaffiliation of thousands of churches and the formation of the "Global Methodist Church," fracturing a global institution purely on the basis of how two verses in Leviticus are interpreted.35
The Nashville Statement (2017)
The "Nashville Statement," drafted by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, serves as the modern creed for the Levitical worldview.
Article VII: "We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes." 20
The Citations: The statement explicitly footnotes Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. It codifies the "Creation Order" hermeneutic, linking Leviticus to Genesis and defining "homosexual immorality" as a deviation from God's design.
The Function: This document uses Leviticus to draw a hard line: affirming homosexuality is not just a difference of opinion, but a departure from the Christian faith (heresy). It is a tool for ecclesiastical discipline and boundary maintenance.36
Conclusion: The Enduring Power of the Text
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are more than ancient laws; they are modern cultural weapons. They are used to:
Define Morality: By categorizing homosexuality as an "abomination" (moral law) rather than a ritual taboo (ceremonial law).
Maintain Purity: By functioning as a boundary marker that separates "faithful" Christians from "compromising" culture.
Legislate Values: By providing a "rational basis" for laws restricting marriage and civil rights under the guise of "longstanding tradition."
The power of these texts lies in their ambiguity. For the traditionalist, they are the crystal-clear voice of God protecting human flourishing. For the revisionist, they are context-specific ritual codes weaponized by bad translation. As long as this hermeneutical divide exists, Leviticus will remain the sword by which the modern church—and increasingly the modern state—divides itself. The "plain meaning" is never just plain; it is a constructed reality that shapes the lives of millions.
Works cited
The Meaning and Continuing Relevance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/context/sor_fac_pubs/article/1180/viewcontent/Meaning_and_Relevance_of_Leviticus.pdf
The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
Rage Against the UMC: The Traditionalist Plan | Hacking Christianity, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://hackingchristianity.net/2018/07/rage-against-the-umc-the-traditionalist-plan.html
Bowers v. Hardwick et al., 106 S. Ct. 2841, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), accessed on December 16, 2025, https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/privacy/bowers.htm
2019 General Conference passes Traditional Plan | UMNews.org, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.umnews.org/news/2019-general-conference-passes-traditional-plan
Homosexuality Revisited: Responding to Common Affirming ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/essays/homosexuality-revisited-responding-to-common-affirming-arguments
A NEW INTERPRETATION OF LEVITICUS 18:22 (PAR. 20:13) AND ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://blog.aractus.com/Joosten-2020.pdf
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 | Roger Farnworth, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://rogerfarnworth.com/2023/07/26/leviticus-1822-and-leviticus-2013/
Terms of Taboo: What Is the Moral Basis for the Sexual Prohibitions?, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.thetorah.com/article/terms-of-taboo-what-is-the-moral-basis-for-the-sexual-prohibitions
The Bible, the Church, & Homosexuality - Family Research Council, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF05K11.pdf
Leviticus 18:22 – Queer Bible Hermeneutics - Blog.SMU, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/
Acharei Mot - 2021 - Vayikra 18 | Sefaria, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/314985
(PDF) "Don't Do What to Whom? A Survey of Historical-Critical ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361182281_Don't_Do_What_to_Whom_A_Survey_of_Historical-Critical_Scholarship_on_Leviticus_1822_and_2013_Currents_in_Biblical_Research_203_2022_203-233_UNCORRECTED_PRE-PRINT
Was homosexuality taboo in the rest of the ancient near east or was ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1lork4x/was_homosexuality_taboo_in_the_rest_of_the/
abomination is hate speech » - Shma.com, accessed on December 16, 2025, http://shma.com/abomination-is-hate-speech/
An Abomination in Leviticus 18:22 - Gay Marriage and the Bible, accessed on December 16, 2025, http://www.gaymarriageandthebible.com/an-abomination-in-leviticus-18
toevah - Morning Meditations, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://mymorningmeditations.com/tag/toevah/
Purity and Danger | An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203361832/purity-danger-mary-douglas
Purity and Danger - Wikipedia, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_and_Danger
Nashville Statement - Creeds and Confessions, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://creedsandconfessions.org/nashville-statement.html
The Book of Leviticus and Pride Month - Capitol Ministries, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://capmin.org/the-book-of-leviticus-and-gay-pride-month/
Stephanie Budin, The Myth of Sacred Prostitution, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pi/index.php/pi/article/download/6643/5487/0
The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009.04.28/
A Brief Study into Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity - ResearchGate, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283422341_A_Brief_Study_into_Sacred_Prostitution_in_Antiquity
The prohibitions in Leviticus don't apply to Christians, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/case/levitical-prohibitions/
Biblical sexual ethics, the gospel and the Southern Baptist ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://erlc.com/research/biblical-sexual-ethics-the-gospel-and-the-southern-baptist-conventions-response-to-erring-churches/
statement of the issue ............................... 1 - DigitalOcean, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://glad-org-wpom.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2002/02/glad-et-al-v-attorney-general-thomas-reilly-et-al-brief.pdf
Bowers v. Hardwick | 478 U.S. 186 (1986), accessed on December 16, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/
Equality Act Would Cancel Religious Freedom, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/equality-act-would-cancel-religious-freedom
Why and How Every Christian Should Oppose the Equality Act, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://paulchappell.com/2021/03/29/why-and-how-every-christian-should-oppose-the-equality-act/
POV: Religion Cannot Excuse Discrimination | BU Today, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.bu.edu/articles/2014/pov-religion-cannot-excuse-discrimination/
The Role of Judiciary in Promoting Equality and Non-Discrimination ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2015/shalyganova_anna.pdf
USES OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE IN THE ANTI ..., accessed on December 16, 2025, https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7568/1/MazzaMJ2009.pdf
Michele Bachmann in 2004: Homosexuality is "personal enslavement", accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michele-bachmann-in-2004-homosexuality-is-personal-enslavement/
What did the Judicial Council decide about the Traditional Plan?, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-what-did-the-judicial-council-decide-about-the-traditional-plan
The Nashville Statement: A Critical Review - CBE International, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/nashville-statement-critical-review/
What is the Nashville Statement - Reformed Arsenal, accessed on December 16, 2025, https://reformedarsenal.com/nashville-statement-unnecessary/
