Much has been said—often loudly and without nuance—about how parents should treat their gay children “according to the Bible.” The conversation tends to collapse into slogans: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” “The Bible is clear.” “God made you this way.” But is it really that simple? Or have centuries of translation, cultural assumptions, and theological debates complicated what many claim is straightforward? If we are going to invoke Scripture in conversations that affect real families and real children, then we owe it to both faith and humanity to understand what scholars actually mean when interpreting the passages often cited about homosexuality.
The Passages Most Often Quoted
When Christians speak about homosexuality, they typically reference a handful of texts:
The story of Sodom in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 19)
The holiness code in the Book of Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
Paul’s writings in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27)
Vice lists in First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 6:9)
These texts are frequently presented as universally condemning all same-sex relationships in every context. However, many biblical scholars argue that the cultural and linguistic realities behind these passages are far more complex.
Context Matters: Ancient Worlds vs. Modern Identities
One major point scholars raise is this: the Bible was written in ancient contexts that did not conceptualize sexual orientation the way modern societies do. In the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world, same-sex acts were often associated with:
Power imbalances (such as master/slave dynamics)
Exploitative relationships
Temple prostitution
Acts tied to pagan ritual practices
For example, the story in Genesis 19 is increasingly understood by many scholars not as a condemnation of consensual same-sex relationships, but as a narrative about attempted gang rape, violence, and inhospitality—serious breaches of ancient moral codes. Similarly, when Paul writes in Romans 1, some scholars suggest he may be describing excessive lust, idolatrous practices, or exploitative relationships common in Roman society—not committed, loving partnerships between equals (a concept largely foreign to that era). This doesn’t mean all scholars agree. But it does mean that responsible interpretation requires wrestling with historical context rather than reading ancient texts through modern categories.
Translation and the Weight of Words
Another significant issue involves translation. The Greek term arsenokoitai, found in 1 Corinthians 6:9, has been translated in modern Bibles as “homosexuals” or “men who have sex with men.” Yet the exact meaning of the term is debated. It is a rare word, and its usage outside biblical texts is sparse. Some scholars argue it may refer specifically to exploitative sexual practices, not sexual orientation. Others maintain a broader interpretation. What is clear is that translating an ancient, ambiguous term into a modern psychological identity category is not a simple or uncontested move.
What the Bible Is Unambiguous About
While debate continues about sexual ethics, there is far less ambiguity about how parents are called to treat their children. Scripture consistently emphasizes:
Love
Compassion
Patience
Kindness
Protection of the vulnerable
In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly centers mercy over legalism. His harshest words were not directed toward marginalized individuals but toward religious leaders who weaponized law without embodying love. If Christian parenting is modeled after Christ, then rejection, humiliation, or emotional abandonment of a child stands in stark contrast to that example.
The Psychological and Spiritual Reality
Beyond theology lies lived experience. Research consistently shows that rejection by parents significantly increases risks of depression, anxiety, homelessness, and self-harm among LGBTQ youth. Affirming support, by contrast, dramatically improves outcomes. Regardless of one’s theological position on sexuality, the command to love one’s child is not conditional. The deeper question for Christian parents may not be, “How do I correct my child?” but rather, “How do I embody Christ to my child?”
Faith Without Fear
The anxiety surrounding this topic often stems from fear—fear of moral compromise, fear of cultural change, fear of disobedience to God. But faith, at its best, is not rooted in fear. It is rooted in trust. Trust that truth can withstand inquiry. Trust that love is not weakness. Trust that God is not threatened by honest questions. Biblical interpretation has evolved on many issues over centuries—slavery, women’s roles, divorce, usury. Christians have re-examined texts in light of deeper understanding and broader context before. Wrestling with Scripture is not rebellion; it is part of the tradition itself.
So What Does This Mean for Parents?
It means the conversation is more nuanced than soundbites.
It means that citing a verse is not the same as understanding it.
It means that how a parent responds may shape not only a child’s mental health—but their lifelong relationship with faith.
And perhaps most importantly, it means that whatever conclusions one arrives at theologically, love is not optional. Because if Scripture is to be taken seriously, then so is this: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” In the end, debates may continue. Scholars will keep writing. Churches will keep arguing. But in living rooms and at dinner tables, the question remains deeply personal:
Will a child experience Christianity as rejection—or as love?

