Part I of “Is Homosexuality a Sin according to the Bible?” focused solely on what the Bible said about homosexuality (click here to see Part I). This article will continue the topic by responding to the arguments put forward by Christians who believe homosexuality is not a sin. To do this, I will interact with and respond to the argument put forward by the Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) in favour of homosexual marriage (what they call “same-gender marriage”), homosexual clergy, and inclusion of LGBTIQ people as full members of the UCA.
I have chosen to respond to the UCA position for a number of reasons:
- The UCA is one of the largest Protestant denominations in Australia, which is where I live. As such, it is representative of a large body of Christians who affirm homosexual marriage as ethically good and right in the sight of God.
- The UCA has published a well-researched and well-written document outlining its position by the denomination’s top leaders and academics. The UCA published its position in the 15th Assembly Reports and Working Papers in the report entitled “B23 Assembly Standing Committee Report on Marriage and Same-Gender Relationships” (pgs 171–233). The “B23 Assembly Standing Committee Report on Marriage and Same-Gender Relationships” (referred to as the B23 Report from this point onward) was written by the UCA’s Working Group on Doctrine (WGD).[1]
- The B23 Reports has a four-pillar argument that addresses most of the arguments I have encountered by Christians in support of homosexuality and, specifically, homosexual marriage.
- For those interested in reading the entire B23 Report for themselves (which I recommend you do), it can be found HERE or you may search for it at ucaassembly.recollect.net.au.
The B23 Report’s argument in favour of homosexual marriage rests on four key pillars:
- “The Witness of Same-Gender Couples . . . in the Uniting Church” (§1.7)
- “Interpreting and Appealing to Scripture” (§3.2)
- “Contact with Contemporary Thought: Science” (§3.3)
- “Contact with Contemporary Thought: Human Rights and Justice” (§3.4)
Pillar 1: “The Witness of Same-Gender Couples . . . in the Uniting Church” (§1.7)
The B23 Report argues that homosexual couples in the UCA contribute to the mission of the church and worship God just like non-homosexual Christians. As such, homosexual couples should shape the church’s response to the discussion of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Here is what the B23 Report says:
“Through same-gender couples who are either members or ministers of the Uniting Church, the Church has seen lives which are indistinguishable from others in terms of faith and discipleship. They are people who love God, pray and worship, and contribute to the building up of the church and its mission. This particular witness invites a response from the rest of the church and it is legitimate for it to shape our response to the present discussion . . . . Because this witness is borne by particular men and women who worship, witness and serve as members of the Uniting Church, we know that there is no single thing which can be called or dismissed as ‘the homosexual lifestyle’. Our reflections and judgements must reckon honestly with this witness of Christian disciples who love God, serve their neighbours and love their enemies, and who also happen to identify as LGBTIQ.”
B23 Report §1.7, pg 20, emphasis added
There are two primary errors in the section just quoted. First, homosexual couples are distinguishable from other Christians in terms of faith and discipleship because they are intentionally and wilfully committing sin and living a sinful lifestyle. Most Christians are doing their best to avoid sin and fight sinful temptations. Those who are willingly engaging in same-sex sexual conduct are willingly diving headfirst into sinful behaviour.
Further, homosexual couples are not faithful disciples, but unfaithful disciples. Jesus says that a disciple is someone who is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and who observes all that Jesus taught the apostles (Matt 28:19–20). Thus, because the apostle Paul taught that all homosexual conduct is sinful and is evidence of the wrath of God (see Part I of this article), those who engage in homosexual conduct are clearly unfaithful disciples and are distinguishable from faithful disciples.
Second, just because a homosexual is a member of the UCA, loves God, prays, worships, and contributes to the building up of the church and its missions does not necessitate that homosexual conduct and ‘marriage’ is approved by God and not sinful, or that it is “legitimate for it to shape our response to the present discussion.” By this argument, anyone who is a member of the UCA, claims to love God, prays, worships, and contributes to the building up of the church and its missions is sinless because they have checked certain boxes.
Let me ask you, the reader, if someone is a member of the UCA, claims to love God, prays, worships, and contributes to the building up of the church and its missions, and who also happens to be a serial killer or a paedophile, does that mean we should approve of their conduct and lifestyle or that it is “legitimate for it to shape our response to the present discussion”? I don’t think so.
Yes, Christian people sin. That is a fact. However, how good a Christian worships or prays or contributes to the mission of the church should not be a deciding factor in whether or not certain conduct is sinful or not. In other words, just because a person does something good, doesn’t necessitate that everything that person does is good.
Pillar 2: “Interpreting and Appealing to Scripture” (§3.2)
What is most interesting in the B23 report is that it affirms that the apostle Paul views homosexual conduct in all its various forms as sinful, just like Part I of this article argued. Note what the B23 Report says:
“Paul does not envisage that some people might be naturally attracted to their own gender, but sees all such attraction, including among women, and including when it is between consenting adults, as sinful.”
B23 Report §3.2.5, pg 30 emphasis added
So, how does the UCA in the B23 Report come to the conclusion that homosexual marriage is good and right in the eyes of God when Paul the apostle condemns all forms of homosexuality as sinful in the eyes of God? It does it in two ways.
First, the B23 Report claims that Paul’s comments regarding homosexuality are tied to the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures and are, thus, irrelevant for the modern Christian church:
“In evaluating what Paul wrote in Romans 1, the starting point must be to hear what he was saying and understand it in his context. That context included the heritage he shared with his fellow Jews who approached same-gender sexual relations on the basis of the prohibitions in Leviticus and the statement about creation of male and female in Gen 1:27. It also included critiques within the Graeco-Roman world, some of which saw same-gender sexual relations as the product of excess, as unnatural, and as a departure from the ideals of masculinity . . . . As a Jew, Paul is not in favour of same-gender sexual relations, yet they are referred to as part of a critique of human relations that includes us all and our participation in gossip, heartlessness and boastfulness (Rom 1:29-32).”
B23 Report §3.2.5, pg 30, emphasis added
The B23 Report wrongly concludes that Paul is speaking as a Jew or against the Greco-Roman world and, thus, what is said about homosexuality is irrelevant for 21st century Christians. Rather, Paul is speaking as a Christian to Christians in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy (the three letters where he explicitly mentions homosexuality). Paul is not speaking as a Jew! Thus, Paul’s comments are not tied to the Jewish culture, the Greco-Roman culture, or the first-century culture. Rather, Paul’s comments are tied to the Christian culture.
Paul’s comments on homosexuality are for those who are disciples of Jesus, under the New Covenant, members of the church, and citizens of the kingdom of God, which is what Christians are today in 2025! As mentioned earlier in this article, Jesus says that to be a disciple of Him, one must adhere to and obey His teachings as taught to the apostles (Matt 28:19–20), which includes Paul the apostle.
Second, and most shocking, the B23 Report claims that Scripture, including the New Testament, has no authority over how modern Christians or the modern Church live and organize their lives.
“When we ask ourselves how to order the life of the church today, the fundamental question for us is therefore not, ‘What did the New Testament writers think about this?’ nor ‘How did the New Testament Church order its life?’ although of course there is much to be learned from that. The fundamental question us today, and for every period of history is rather, ‘What is the gospel of Jesus Christ?’ This is then followed by ‘What does the gospel imply for the ordering of the church?’”
B23 Report §4.2, pg 44, emphasis added
As is made clear, the UCA does not believe the Bible or New Testament has authority over how modern Christians live and order their lives. Rather, the UCA’s guiding principle for how Christians should live their lives is “What does the gospel imply?” This sounds good at first glance, but as the UCA has proven throughout its B23 Report one can imply almost anything one wants from one’s own understanding of the gospel.
The UCA’s belief that the New Testament has no authority over how modern Christians live and order their lives is contrary to how the church and most Christians have viewed the Bible throughout history. Jesus taught his apostles about the gospel, His death and resurrection, and its implications for His disciples of every generation (Matt 28:19–20; John 16:12–15). And in turn, the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to remember and accurately write down Jesus’ teachings and its implications for His disciples, which has become the New Testament. The Bible, including the New Testament, is authoritative over the lives of every Christian and every church.
Thus, the key way that the UCA is able to approve of homosexual marriage and LGBTIQ beliefs and lifestyles is by eliminating any authority the Bible has over these matters.
Pillar 3: “Contact with Contemporary Thought: Science” (§3.3)
The B23 Report makes the ‘scientific’ claim that some homosexuals are homosexual from birth and that it is not a choice. Thus, the one’s sexual orientation is a-moral (i.e., homosexuality is like one’s skin colour; it is not morally right nor morally wrong). Note the following:
“No ‘gay gene’ has yet been found, although scientists continue to explore the effect of, for example, hormones in utero . . . . What is now accepted by the majority of scientists is that scientific evidence supports the view that a small percentage of people are homosexual for so-far-unspecified reasons of nature rather than simply social nurture.”
B23 Report §3.3, pg 36, emphasis added
Did you notice the clear contradiction in the above quote? The B23 report clearly claims that the “scientific evidence supports the view that a small percentage of people are homosexual for . . . reasons of nature” and then it cites as the evidence “so-far-unspecified reasons,” which means there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is related to nature, one’s genes, etc. The B23 Report even admits that no “gay gene” has been found. The term “gay gene” is common vernacular or shorthand for some genetic reason that a person is homosexual or heterosexual.
Thus, the B23 report does the exact opposite of its claim. Instead of providing scientific evidence that homosexuality is a result of one’s genes or some natural phenomena, it admits that there is zero evidence and it cites a 2016 article from the Psychological Science in the Public Interest journal that admits there is no data or scientific evidence to support the conclusion that some people “are homosexual for . . . reasons of nature,” even though the article makes that baseless conclusion.[2] Since there is no evidence that people are homosexual for reasons of nature, one must conclude that it is a conscious and willing choice, a choice the Bible claims is sinful.
Pillar 4: “Contact with Contemporary Thought: Human Rights and Justice” (§3.4)
Based on the erroneous conclusions above that homosexuality is something people are born as and is thus a-moral, §3.4 of the B23 Report explicitly likens one’s sexual orientation to one’s skin colour:
“Withholding the celebration of marriage for people in same-gender relationships can be seen as the deprivation of an important good. (An analogy is the refusal to admit people of colour to university). To treat their relationships as suitable only for legal recognition or for a service of blessing, not for marriage, does not validate or honour their life-long monogamous commitment. This can be viewed as no less problematic than the description of racially segregated education as ‘separate but equal.’”
B23 Report §3.4.1, pg 37, emphasis added
Because homosexuality is seen as a-moral like one’s skin colour, §3.4 argues that there is no reason to withhold marriage from homosexuals. §3.4 turns homosexual marriage into a civil rights issue (or ‘social justice’ issue), rather than a moral issue.
However, homosexuality is not a-moral. It is designated an abomination and a sin throughout the Bible (see Part I of this article). Further, one’s sexual orientation is nothing like one’s skin colour, which has scientific data to explain why a person is lighter or darker. Homosexuality and one’s sexual orientation are choices. A person can choose to sin and enter a homosexual relationship or they can choose not to sin and avoid a homosexual relationship. Temptation is certainly real and all people are born with sin and a propensity for sinning, but that does not mean Christians and the church should endorse sinful behaviour as good and acceptable in the eyes of God.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) has approved of homosexual marriage and deemed it good and right in the eyes of God. It has based its conclusion on four pillars that are common amongst many denominations, churches, and Christians who approve of homosexual marriage. The following is a table summarising the pillars, the argument associated with each pillar, and my response/rebuttal.
| Pillar on which Homosexual Marriage Rests | Argument in Favour of Homosexual Marriage | Response and Rebuttal to Argument |
| Pillar 1: The Witness of Same-Gender Couples in the Church | Homosexuals are members of a church and contribute to the building up of the church and its missions. Thus, homosexuality is right in the sight of God and is not a sin. | This argument wrongly assumes that anyone who is a member of a church and contributes in some way is sinless. This argument takes the authority away from God and the Bible and puts it in the hands of the sinner who is sinning. |
| Pillar 2: Interpreting and Appealing to Scripture | (1) Paul was a Jew speaking of Jewish beliefs. Thus, what he says about homosexuality is not relevant to Christians. (2) The Bible holds no authority over how a Christian orders his/her life. Thus, anything the Bible says about homosexuality has not authority over Christians. | (1) Paul was a Christian writing to Christians when he wrote his NT letters. Thus, what Paul says is relevant to modern Christians because we are Christians. (2) The New Testament passages that condemn homosexuality as sinful do have authority over the lives of modern Christians because they are telling Christians how to live as disciples of Jesus. |
| Pillar 3: Contact with Contemporary Thought: Science | The “majority of scientists” believe that some people are homosexual for reasons of nature, not by choice or social nurture. | There is no scientific evidence that some people are homosexual for reasons of nature, which was admitted in the B23 Report. |
| Pillar 4: Contact with Contemporary Thought: Human Rights and Justice | Homosexual marriage is a social justice issue equivalent to race and racism. | Homosexual marriage is not a social justice issue because one’s sexual orientation is not equivalent to race, but is a moral choice. |
What I find most common in those who endorse homosexuality and homosexual marriage as morally good and right in the eyes of God is that they have taken away the authority of the Bible to govern their lives. Yes, it is not always clear whether modern Christians should obey this or that command found in Scripture (see my article on how to apply the Bible). However, all of Scripture is clear that homosexual conduct of any sort is sinful and those who willingly engage in such behaviour will not enter the kingdom of God. The New Testament is especially clear that Christians should never engage in homosexual conduct. Thus, the key question when it comes to whether or not homosexuality is a sin is ‘how much authority does the Bible have over your life?’
[1] It should be noted that not every church or pastor within the UCA affirms homosexual marriage. Further, the UCA has given each individual church within the denomination the choice whether to marry homosexual couples or not.
[2]The article referenced in the B23 Report is J. Michael Bailey, Paul L. Vasey, Lisa M. Diamond, S. Marc Breedlove, Eric Vilain and Marc Epprecht, “Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science” in Psychological Science in the Public Interest (2016) Vol. 17(2), 45–101.