What the Abrahamic Religions Say Regarding LGBT Issues

For quite a few years, there has been much controversy within the Abrahamic religions regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. The controversy consists of both spiritual disagreements and disagreements about how those issues should handled politically, especially when it comes to allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to legally marry people of their own gender, and transgender people to use spaces that match their gender identity. For this post, I will try to examine what seem to be the most relevant verses in each of the holy books, and determine whether it is reasonable to definitively conclude that they condemn people for being LGBT. However, it must be noted that if I determine that none of the holy books definitively condemn people for being LGBT, that does not necessarily prove that the Abrahamic religions approve of people being LGBT. It only would mean that being LGBT is more of a morally grey area in Abrahamic religions, and that for determining the permissibility of it, Abrahamic religions should instead look at whether it violates other peoples' basic rights and well-being, and, to some extent, scientific consensus. Below is a list of the Abrahamic religions and several of the verses that most closely relate to LGBT topics that are most commonly used to condemn LGBT people, and whether or not any of them are indeed condemnations of anything having to the with LGBT issues. For Judaism and Christianity, I am relying mainly on their original Hebrew and Greek texts and what they most closely mean in English. I have already previously went over what Christianity says regarding gay and lesbian relationships, so I am paraphrasing what I already said about that in part of this post. Additionally, I have used Wikipedia as a source for some parts of this, but only because the information there on this subject is overall well-sourced and can be generally be confirmed in the links to the relevant Wikipedia articles on here.

Judaism

The relevant holy book for Judaism is The Torah. The Tanakh and Talmud are used as well by many Jewish people, but the Torah is the main one and is the one with the most relevant verses to the topic of LGBT.

One relevant verse in the Torah is Leviticus 18:22. The Hebrew text reads "V'et-zachar lo tishkav mishkvei ishah to'evah hu:". What that basically means in English is "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination." It is not completely clear what the verse is referring to, but with the little information I have here, it seems to be saying that it is unclean for someone to engage in intimate activity with a man or male child while in a bed that belongs to a woman or that a woman has used. It does not seem to be a condemnation of men engaging in intimate activity with men or women engaging in intimate activity with women, at least not in a general sense. There is also no mention of anything having to do with being transgender here. So it is not a good verse for Jewish people to use for condemning people for being LGBT.

Leviticus 20:13 is also relevant. In Hebrew, it says "V’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam." What that means in English is "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have done an abomination; dying they will be put to death, their blood is on them." As you can probably tell, that is rather similar to the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. However, it seems to be more specifically referring to men engaging in intimate activity with male children while in the bedding of woman. Since it uses "man" and "male", rather than "man" and "man", or "male" and "male", it appears that the verse is likely referring to men and and male children engaged in pederasty in beds that belong to or have been used by a women. Again, this verse seems to not condemn LGBT rights in a broad sense.

There are also multiple verses from The Torah, such as Leviticus 20:10, that speak against adultery, which some people may use to condemn gay and lesbian intimacy on the grounds that it is extramarital. The problem though with that is that adultery is specifically intimacy between people in which at least one person involved is already married to someone else. Also, adultery has nothing at all to do with being transgender. It is therefore safe to say that the verses that just condemn adultery cannot be used as a blanket condemnation of LGBT rights or to make a conclusion on the morality of being LGBT.

Christianity

The holy book relevant to Christianity is The Bible. It consists of both the Old Testament and the New Testaments. Since the relevant verses of The Torah are also the relevant verses of the Old Testament, refer back to all that I said above about The Torah to get my perspective on what the Old Testament says about being LGBT. Accordingly, I have addressed the relevant verses from the New Testament only.

Probably the most relevant and most commonly-used verse from the New Testament against LGBT people is 1 Corinthians 6:9. The Greek text reads "Í ouk oídate óti ádikoi theoú vasileían ou klironomísousin? mí planásthe: oúte pórnoi oúte eidololátrai oúte moichoí oúte malakoí oúte arsenokoítai ..." The most literal translation of that in English is "Or do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the Kingdom of God; do not be deceived: neither man prostitutes, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft ones, nor liars with males." However, some of the wording and phrasing there is a bit vague or somewhat more complicated than is necessary, so it might be best to make them a bit more specific when translating them. For example, "pórnoi" is a reference to prostitutes, but the last coup letters of it make it a masculine noun. There are not too many gender-specific words in English for prostitutes. The closest I can come up with is "gigolos". The word "malakoí", which happens to be a word relevant to gay and transgender issues, means "soft ones", but when referring to people, it can refer to being cowardly, sybaritic (fond of luxury; self-indulgent), effeminate men, etc. One could possibly see it as referring to cross-dressing men, gay men, male-to-female transgender women, and so on, but there are too many other possible meanings to definitively interpret it that way. Other verses of the New Testament that use the word as an adjective, like Luke 7:25, use it to describe soft, fine, or fancy clothing. The New Jerusalem Bible, which is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church, translates it as "self-indulgent. So "sybaritic" is probably a good translation to go with. The last relevant word from the verse is arsenokoítai, which means "liars with males". It seems from the wording of it that it is referring to what is condemned in the Leviticus verses I previously mentioned, which is engaging in intimate activity with male children in the bedding of a woman. Hence "pederasts" is probably the best way to interpret that word. It is not a common enough Greek word to know for sure what it is referring to, but as it appears to be based on whatever is being referred to in those Leviticus verses, it is logical to conclude that it is talking about pederasty, a common form of same-gender relationships in Ancient Greece among pagans. So the clearest and most exact translation of the verse I can come up with would be "Or do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the Kingdom of God; do not be *deceived: neither the gigolos, nor the idolaters, nor the adulterers, nor sybaritic, nor the pederasts ...". Given all this, it is unlikely that the verse is meant to be a blanket prohibition of LGBT rights or anything of the sort.

The verse 1 Timothy 1:10 is relevant, but it uses the adjective form of the word "arsenokoítai", so all that is needed to address that verse and whether it is a blanket condemnation of LGBT rights is to refer back to the what I said about 1 Corinthians 6:9.

One more verse from the New Testament that is relevant to lesbian and gay relationships is Romans 1:26-27. Most Bible translations translate the verse fairly accurately, so there is no need here to go over the original Greek text of it. One common translation of it goes something like "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (KJV)." The verse seems to condemn some form of same-gender lust, which is not quite the same as committed same-gender relationships, and it most certainly says nothing about transgender people. Also worth noting is that the verse right before it says "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen (KJV)." Given that context, there is a possibility that the verse is referring to men and women lusting after images of men and women, rather than actual men and women. Plus, the first verse of the very next chapter says "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (KJV)." That indicates that believers themselves are not supposed to pass judgement upon the people mentioned in the previous chapter. So this verse most likely is not a verse that is meant to to be used in condemnation gay or lesbian relationships, and certainly not transgender people.

Islam

The book in Islam is The Quran. The Quran in Islam is considered to be the unchanged, completed, and perfect Word of God, which The Quran assures believers is true in multiple verses, such as Sura 6 Verse 115. It is an Arabic book, but for the relevant verses, the English and Arabic translations are similar enough in meaning that going over the Arabic text is not needed here, other than certain individual words that I feel need further examination. Most people who follow Islam also use Hadith, which is supposed to be a collection of sayings from Muhammad, the main prophet of Islam. Not all Hadith are considered equally-reliable, even among the collections that are seen as being most trustworthy, and a minority of people within the religion rely only on the Quran . Nonetheless, I am addressing LGBT issues using both The Quran and some of the Hadith.

One verse in the Quran that does indeed seem to be talking about something related to same-gender intimacy is Sura 7 Verses 80-84. The verse reads "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty (Translation by Shakir)" It should first be noted that while this verse could be interpreted as condemning same-gender intimacy, it definitely does not prescribe a worldly punishment for it. So if someone is using this verse to justify laws against same gender relationships, this is not a good one to use for that. Secondly, "lust" (translated from the Arabic word bashahu) refers an obsessive and objectifying physical obsession with someone. It is synonymous with the word "lasciviousness". Lust is not the same as being in a committed emotional and/or physical relationship with someone. Most importantly though, while some translations of the verse say "instead of" rather than "besides", the Arabic word in question, dūna, typically means "behind", "below", "other than", or "less than", when used as a preposition. With those meanings in mind, it seems that "besides" is an relatively accurate way to translate it in English. Therefore, the verse may be talking about the people of Lot lusting after both men and women, thereby making it a condemnation of lust in general rather than just lusting after one's own gender. The verse makes no mention of anything having to do with being transgender. Therefore, this verse should not be used to definitively condemn LGBT people or give a definitive answer regard the ethics of being LGBT.

There is another verse, Sura 4 Verse 16, that could possibly be talking about men engaging in intimacy with each other, but the evidence that it is referring to that is fairly low. In some translations, the verse says something to the effect of "If two men among you commit lewdness, punish them both. But if they repent and reform, leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Full of Mercy." Others translate it more as something like "Should two among you commit it, chastise them both; but if they repent and reform, let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-clement, all-merciful." While the verse could technically be talking about two men engaged in a same-gender relationship with each other, the verse seems to be referring to the "lewdness" that is mentioned in the verse right before it. It is not entirely clear what "lewdness" is referring to there, but it is probably referring to the acts of intimacy that are forbidden by other parts of The Quran, such as those mentioned ins Sura 4 Verses 22 through 23, as well as adultery, which is clearly forbidden in other parts of The Quran. Those verses list various people that men are forbidden from having intimate relationships with, neither of which list other men or women (for lesbians). It is true that same-gender marriages and relationships are not really discussed in those verses or anywhere else in The Quran, but it is important to note that they are not forbidden in that list. That list has nothing whatsoever to do with being transgender either. So from this verse alone, the permissibility of same-gender relationships, marriages, and the existence of transgender people are grey topics. Hence, Sura 4 Verse 16 is likely not referring to two men, or two women in a committed relationship, and is definitely not referring to anything related transgender people, so it should not be used against LGBT people.

One other defense for the the view that being LGBT is wrong in Islam is the fact that in multiple verses, The Quran forbids what is referred to in Arabic as "zina", which comes from the the Arabic word for adultery, which is "alzna". It could just be referring to adultery, but it is generally thought by believers to be referring to fornication as well, in the context of The Quran. For the record, adultery specifically refers to a person being intimate with someone who is already married to someone else, and fornication typically refers to unmarried people being intimate with each other. Indeed, multiple Islamic countries criminalize all forms of premarital intimacy. Hence, those countries also criminalize same-gender intimacy. However, the dictionary definition of fornication has a section that shows that it originally just referred to prostitution, which has nothing to do with LGBT people or relationships. Accordingly, the notion that "zina" applies to committed same-gender relationships is questionable.

As for the Hadith, there is a Hadith in which Muhammad is quoted as saying "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both adulteresses, if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers.” However, that is in Shuab ul Iman, which is not among the six Hadith that believers find to be most reliable. Also, adultery implies that at least one person involved is married to someone else. Plus, adultery is a serious offense in The Quran, so if what is mentioned in this Hadith counted as adultery, it is highly unlikely that The Quran, which assures believers that it is complete, would leave that out. To me, this Hadith is very questionable and is not a good one to use against LGBT rights, especially regarding transgender people.

There is another relevant Hadith that says that Muhammad said "If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done." That is in Sunan Abu Dawood, which is one of the six major Hadith collections that are considered to be reliable, but it is only the fourth most authentic of the six most reliable Hadith. The other issue is that, as was previously mentioned, the issue regarding the people of Lot had to do with lust and not necessarily committed same-gender relationships. For those reasons, this does not strike me as being a Hadith that can be used definitively to condemn LGBT individuals.

There is also a Hadith that could be considered as applying to transgender people in Sahih al-Bukhari, which is considered by most believers to be the first and most reliable of the six major Hadith collections. It says "The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses.' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman." However, many have acknowledged that there are some contradictions in Bukhari that cast doubt on the notion that everything in it is accurate. Furthermore, since what counts as feminine or masculine is too subjective to social constructs. It is ultimately too vague to justify applying it to transgender people. There is also a possibility that it is referring to men and women crossdressing in order to trick others rather than because of being transgender or anything like that, but that is just a guess on my part. Ultimately, it is possible that this could be applied to transgender people, but not likely, given how subjective it is, other things that it could be referring to, and the fact that even Bukhari has some things in it that are questionable.

In Conclusion

So what do the Abrahamic religions say about the LGBT community? Interestingly enough, not as much as one might think. Their holy books all make vague references to things that may be applicable but could be applicable to too many things to come to a solid conclusion about the subject. As a general rule, believers may prefer to err on the side of permissibility, unless something is explicitly forbidden by their holy book, but that is ultimately up to each individual believer. Personally, I believe one could air on that side, given the evidence above.