The “Unnatural” Myth

“But the puzzle pieces don’t fit”

It’s a phrase echoed by many, an inner struggle of those trying to understand something that doesn’t match the familiar “birds-and-bees” stories they were raised on.

Tradition, half-truths, and long silences have left deep confusion about what sex is, what it can be, and what God calls right or wrong.

So let’s talk about it,
about sex;
openly, thoughtfully, and with respect.

I recently watched the movie Fiddler on the Roof. It follows Tevye the milkman as he struggles to honor traditions while his loving daughters choose unexpected paths. Each marriage forces him to ask whether his loyalty lies with custom or with the heart of God.

His journey mirrors our own when we wrestle with questions of sexuality and faith: which traditions guard true holiness, and which simply protect our comfort or fears? Is same-sex intimacy a part of God’s design for our bodies?

History shows that same-sex intimacy has always been part of human life, biology reveals it is woven into our very design, and the Bible affirms that every form of sex, when shaped by faithfulness and love, is a gift from God.

Part 1: The History of Sex

Sex in the Ancient World

Attitudes toward sex varied widely. Ancient Egypt tied sexuality to fertility and the afterlife. Indigenous American nations honored same-sex unions. Taoist China celebrated erotic union as cosmic balance, while Confucian ideals urged restraint. India treated pleasure as a human aim, and parts of Africa and the Pacific wove sexual rites into the sacred.

Hebrew Scripture viewed sexuality as a divine gift for covenant and family. Pleasure was affirmed but bounded by laws protecting inheritance and communal holiness; apart from prohibitions on adultery, prostitution, incest, and idolatry, it never addresses consensual same-sex intimacy.

In the Greco-Roman world, sex followed status and power: freeborn men could take partners of either sex or enslaved people so long as they remained dominant. Philosophers like Plato and the Stoics recast desire as something to master, and Augustine of Hippo fused those ideals with Christian theology, shaping Western sexual ethics for centuries.

Sex in the Middle Ages

Medieval Europe inherited Augustine’s suspicion of desire. Sex was framed as procreative duty and heavily regulated: it was forbidden during Lent, Advent, feast days, and days of abstinence (Wednesdays, Fridays, Sundays, before communion, during menstruation, pregnancy, after childbirth).

Pleasure was suspect, passion dangerous. Couples were warned to avoid noise or visible enjoyment, and the Church ranked positions by “holiness,” with missionary deemed most godly and anything else branded perverse. Laypeople were permitted sex only under a cloud of caution and shame.

From Restriction to Reformation

The 16th-century Reformation began loosening the medieval link between sex and sin. Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected mandatory celibacy and affirmed marital sex as God’s gift for love as well as procreation. Renaissance humanists likewise celebrated the body and revived classical art with positive images of erotic love.

While the 18th-century Enlightenment championed reason and individual rights, Jesuit missionaries carried strict Western sexual codes across Asia, Africa, and the Americas, displacing more tolerant indigenous practices and criminalizing same-sex unions. In places where such relationships were once honored, people now faced public shame and even execution.

In the 19th century, urbanization and early sex researchers began documenting homosexuality and female sexuality. By the 20th, Freud and other psychologists highlighted sexuality as central to human identity, setting the stage for the 1960s–70s sexual revolution, when new social freedoms overturned long-standing norms.

The Diversity of the 21st Century

The digital age has made sexual diversity visible on a global scale. Instant communication, scientific research, and personal storytelling allow people who once felt alone to discover a broader community and to see their own experiences reflected. Yet acceptance remains uneven. Large parts of the world are profoundly shaped by centuries of European colonial rule, with laws that criminalize or strictly regulate relationships.

Within Christianity, the debate is equally complex. Denominations split, new fellowships form, and questions of marriage, gender, and ordination remain contested.

The conversation about sex, though, is no longer cloaked in silence or shame. It now engages science, theology, and lived experience, calling believers to discern which traditions preserve the heart of the gospel and which merely protect inherited fears.

Part 2: A Biology Lesson

Is heterosexual sex the only “natural” way? Did God design our bodies for just one kind of intimacy? If we want the truth, we have to look beyond assumptions and pay attention to how our bodies actually work. Judging what is “natural” can’t rest on personal comfort or inherited custom. We need to listen, learn, and observe. For centuries sex was measured almost solely by penetration and procreation in our western world. Pleasure itself was treated as suspect or even unnatural.

Modern science and careful observation tell a richer story, one that reveals the body’s design for intimacy and delight in more than a single act.

Human Experience

Any study of God’s creation begins with observing it. And when we observe, we can see how God designed it.

Same-sex couples have relationships that simply work. Their bodies, minds, and hearts are not forced. They respond naturally to one another, just as heterosexual couples do. Each pair expresses love in unique and private ways that bring them pleasure, intimacy, and companionship. This is not a practice that fails to fit human nature. It endures because it fits. If it didn’t fit, it wouldn’t endure.

Same-sex intimacy has been recorded for thousands of years. It is evident in both human world and across the animal kingdom, where more than 1,500 species display homosexual behavior, courtship, and even lifelong pair bonding.

Just as heterosexual couples, same-sex couples build lifelong partnerships marked by sacrifice, protection, joy, and mutual care. Their love, expressed through our design for connection, hope and purpose, demonstrates that what is natural is what allows love to flourish.

Natural vs Unnatural

For a heterosexual person, same sex sex activity would be unnatural. For a gay person, heterosexual sex would be unnatural. Just like a straight person would struggle being forced to have sex with a person of the same gender, the same happens to a gay person. We cannot assume that what is good or natural for one, is the same for all.

“A monkey cannot put a fish in the tree to save it from drowning. We must realize that what is natural for one, might not be natural for everyone.” anon

Sex is not one specific act. It is a consensual meeting of bodies and minds in erotic connection and mutual trust, and it can involve many forms of touch and stimulation, with or without penetration. It invites arousal, pleasure, vulnerability, and the choice to be fully present with one another.

No two people experience sexual pleasure the same way. Intimacy and connection do not require one particular sexual act. Science confirms this. Human experience confirms it.

Many practices that feel unnatural to us are entirely normal in other cultures. What seems strange or unfamiliar in one place can be ordinary elsewhere. Something that is unfamiliar or uncommon to us, does not make it automatically wrong. The first step is a willingness to learn and understand.

The Purpose of Genitals

Male and female genitals are biologically designed for many things, one of which is to enable procreation. They are also designed for urination, elimination, hormone regulation, health, and protection functions.

So while procreation is one function, it is not mandatory. A person can live their whole life and not use their genitals for procreation, and they are not sinning.

Our bodies include many organs and features that serve multiple purposes, and sometimes aren’t used at all. A person born mute may use their hands to speak. Someone without hands may use their feet to eat. Using parts of the body in creative or non-reproductive ways is not inherently sinful.

Let us take a closer look at female-female sex and male male sex. Before we do, we want to clarify that when we refer to these, we are describing interactions involving two people with the same genitals. As human experience and science has shown, not all women are born with or have vaginas, and not all men are born with penises. Our choice of language here is simply a functional one, used to describe certain kinds of bodies and how they may engage sexually.

Female-Female Sex

Across cultures and throughout history, female–female intimacy has long been treated differently from male–male relationships. Male same-sex acts were debated and policed, while relationships between women were rarely mentioned or legislated. What happened behind closed doors was largely ignored.

This disparity reflects enduring biases. Lesbian intimacy was often dismissed as “not real sex,” a view rooted in male dominance: without penetration, men felt neither threatened nor concerned. When noticed, it was frequently eroticized, fetishized as a spectacle for male desire or reduced to sentimental “romantic friendship.” Women were stereotyped as less sexual and less assertive, so their relationships posed little challenge to patriarchal authority. Yet the female body itself contradicts the idea that such intimacy is trivial or incomplete.

Modern research underscores what ancient midwives and medical texts already hinted: women’s bodies are richly designed for pleasure in ways that don’t depend on penetration. The clitoris alone contains thousands of nerve endings and serves no reproductive function other than sexual enjoyment. Ancient medical writers from Greece to India documented this, even if male-centered cultures ignored its implications. Recognizing this makes clear that female–female intimacy is not “less sexual,” but fully capable of mutual erotic connection independent of male involvement.

Male-Male Sex

Male–male intimacy, unlike female–female relationships, openly defied gender hierarchies and notions of masculine control. Two men meeting as equals subverted the expected binary of dominance and submission, provoking social anxiety and leading to criminalization and fear.

Across the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, male same-sex activity was acknowledged but often framed by power (an older man with a younger male, or a master with a slave). Condemnation arose when two adult men of equal status formed a mutual partnership, because that defied strict gender hierarchies.

Our lingering discomfort today stems less from the Bible and more from cultural inheritance: the belief that sex is about control, dominance vs. passivity., ownership, the fear that affection between men threatens one’s own masculinity, and the shadow of HIV/AIDS stigma that still colors public perception.

Yet the male body itself bears witness to the naturalness of mutual pleasure. The prostate is rich in nerve endings that provide arousal and sexual delight. It is often called the “male G-spot” (John Corvino talks about this here). When people label certain acts “unnatural,” it is worth asking: if God created this source of pleasure, why assume it was never meant to be experienced?

Born that way

Starting in the 1980s and accelerating into the 2000s, researchers began to uncover biological differences between gay and straight people, confirming what people they felt already: they hadn’t chosen their orientation and they couldn’t change it.

Simon LeVay (neuroscientist, 1991) – Discovered structural differences in the hypothalamus of the brain of gay and straight men.

Dean Hamer (geneticist, 1993) – Reported linkage of male homosexuality to a region on the X chromosome (Xq28).

Michael Bailey & Richard Pillard (psychologists, 1991) – led studies showing higher concordance of homosexuality in identical than fraternal twins.

Sandra Witelson (neuroscientist, late 1980s–1990s) – Brain anatomy studies showing sex-typical patterns in gay men.

Ivanka Savic & Per Lindström (neuroscientists, 1990s–2000s) – Brain imaging and pheromone studies demonstrating sex-atypical responses in gay men and lesbians.

Dennis McFadden (auditory neuroscientist, 1998) – Inner-ear (cochlear) differences between lesbian and heterosexual women.

Dick Swaab & Michel Hofman (neuroanatomists, 1990s) – Hypothalamic differences developing prenatally.

Qazi Rahman (neuroscientist/psychologist, 2000s) – Concluded biological basis for sexual orientation.

Tuck Ngun & Eric Vilain (geneticists, 2015) – Identified epigenetic markers influencing male sexual orientation. These Epigenes are chemical tags that “travel” on the genes and influence how DNA is expressed.

Andrea Ganna & Brendan Zietsch (geneticists, 2019) – Largest genome-wide association study showing multiple genetic variants contribute to same-sex behavior, no single “gay gene.”

Melissa Hines (psychologist and neuroscientist, 2011), found that hormone exposure in the womb affect sexual differentiation when a child is born. High testosterone in females is linked to lesbian orientation. Lower or altered testosterone in males contributed to gay orientation.

Dr. Anthony F. Bogaert (psychologist and sex researcher, 2018) found that each male pregnancy increased a maternal immune response to a male-specific protein (NLGN4Y), potentially causing same sex attraction in later sons. This “fraternal birth order effect“ increases likelihood of being gay by 3–4% per older brother (Bogaert et al., 2018).

These scientists, along with professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organization, have consistently affirmed that homosexuality is not a not a choice, cannot be changed, but a natural variation of human sexuality grounded in genetics, prenatal development, and brain biology. For more information see more information here.

What the Body tells us

Biology, history and experience show us that human anatomy is not narrowly engineered for one pattern of intimacy, and same-sex affection is not a modern mistake but is a natural part of creation observed across species and cultures. Biology points us away from rigid formulas toward a deeper question: does our love honor God through faithfulness, mutual care, and delight? When those qualities are present, the label “unnatural” simply does not fit.

Part 3: The Bible & Same-Sex Sex

Whatever history, science, or human experience may show, the central question for Christians remains: what does Scripture say about same-sex intimacy?

The Bible warns us to avoid sexual immorality, but what falls into that category and what doesn’t? Across the centuries, many practices once branded “immoral” were later recognized as cultural anxieties or tools of social control rather than inherent sin (interracial marriage, marital sex for pleasure, sex during menstruation, women entering worship while menstruating, even widow remarriage). These examples remind us to ask: does loving same-sex intimacy belong on that list, or has it been treated the same way as those once-misjudged practices?

If the consistent biblical ethic is that sexual intimacy is to be marked by faithfulness, covenantal love, and mutual honor, then we must evaluate same-sex relationships by that same standard. The question is not about casual encounters, one-night stands, prostitution, or adultery, but about two people pledging their lives to one another in a committed, loving covenant.

Verses on Same-Sex Sex

Same-sex sex is mentioned seven times in the Bible:

Genesis 19 (Sodom & Gomorrah) & Judges 19:22 (Gibeah of Benjamin) are both stories of cities, where all the men of the town (all to the last one), want to warfare gang rape unwanted visitors in their town. Ezekiel 16:49–50 references a list of the sins of Sodom, but same sex sex isn’t one of them.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: rules that tell us a man and a boy shouldn’t have sex (the verses don’t say man-man). The cultural-historical context points to adult males using young male slaves for sex in idolatrous temple practices.
Romans 1:26–27: an illustration Paul gives of the worst sin his audience would be thinking about (a lust-driven same-sex orgies by husbands and wives in the context of idolatry), in order to teach his audience something.
1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10: two Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai, neither of which mean homosexual, do not speak of homosexual people, nor do they speak of same sex acts in a loving and committed relationship.

Each mention of same-sex sex appears in a context where heterosexual sex would also be considered sinful (violence, idolatry, exploitation, and lust without covenant).

None of these give us a clear answer as to whether same sex sex within a loving committed relationship should be on the list of sexual immorality or not.

How can a gay person know God’s will for their life? Do these verses offer a final verdict?

If these verses are silent on the concept of same sex loving relationships, we must go back to the principles of sex in the Bible.

Biblical Sexual Principles

Jesus and the apostles repeatedly urge believers to “flee sexual immorality”, but don’t spell out a definitive list. Instead, the emphasis is on the character of the relationship and the holiness of the body: “Honor God with your body” (1 Corinthians 6:20), “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4).

So what is God’s design for sex? While we don’t find a lot of details, we do find principles outlined for us throughout scripture. We find that sexual intimacy should be:

Mutual. Both partners say yes freely and without pressure (Philippians 2:3)
Faithful. Exclusive and loyal within the covenant of marriage (Malachi 2:15, Hebrews 13:4)
Joyful. A source of delight (Proverbs 5:18-19)
Truthful. Free from manipulation or hidden motives (1 Corinthians 13:6)
Shameless. Marked by vulnerability, not fear or embarrassment (Genesis 2:25)
Loving. Above all, sex reflects covenant love: self-giving, patient, honoring the other as an image-bearer of God (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

So what is the biblical design for sex?

Beyond the foundational values of love, mutual respect, and faithfulness, the Bible gives remarkably little detail about the specific mechanics of sex. In fact, the most vivid depictions of sexual intimacy appear in Song of Songs, and they focus on kissing, touching, longing, and delighting in one another’s bodies, not on a specific act. Nowhere does the Bible lay out rules for how to enjoy sexual intimacy within a committed relationship, nor does it state that penetration is required for a marriage to be valid.

The biblical design cares far more about the quality of the relationship than the specific acts themselves.

Paul’s use of “Unnatural”

Paul does use the word unnatural in Romans 1:26–27, describing men and women who “exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature.” But in the Greco-Roman world, especially in Stoic philosophy, natural (kata phusin) and unnatural (para phusin) did not refer to biology, but rather to things that aligned with the culture, with what was the ordered way of life in their culture. Stoic writers could label greed, arrogance, or defiance of social hierarchy as “unnatural,” even though those acts had nothing to do with anatomy. Men’s long hair in that culture was “unnatural”, but Paul accepted Samson’s long hair. It wasn’t about sin, but about culture. Paul’s Roman audience would have heard his words through that lens. Unnatural could also be heterosexual people leaving their spouses for same sex idolatry rituals.

Part 4: Beyond the Bedroom

Marriage is more than sex

Ask an elderly widower what he misses most about his wife and he is unlikely to say, “the sex.” I imagine he will speak of morning coffee shared in quiet companionship, evening walks, private jokes, and the simple comfort of being fully known and deeply loved.

The heart of marriage is enduring friendship, the daily presence that makes life feel whole, the joy of growing old side by side and lifting each other up. It is romance and intimacy, yes, but intimacy of spirit as much as body. This is the companionship Adam longed for in the garden of Eden.

When God saw Adam’s loneliness, He first brought animals to him. The problem was not sexual frustration but solitude. Only when no creature could meet the need for mutual companionship did God create another human being. The need God addressed was not horniness but the ache to be known and accompanied.

Because marriage is fundamentally about covenantal companionship, a lack of sexual activity does not nullify it. Illness, disability, or simply personal choice may limit or even preclude sexual expression, yet the marriage remains whole. Some couples commit to a life together without ever having intercourse, and their union is no less intimate or holy. Scripture never states that a wedding is incomplete until a particular sexual act occurs. Whether passion is frequent, occasional, or absent, a marriage rooted in love, fidelity, and mutual care embodies the fullness of God’s design.

The Cost of Forced Celibacy

When we recognize that sexual orientation is not chosen, the question naturally arises: should gay Christians be forced into lifelong celibacy?

There is a world of difference between singleness with hope and celibacy with none. Many single people wait with patience because they believe love may still come. That possibility sustains them. But when someone is told a relationship is forever off-limits (no matter how faithfully they live), the weight is entirely different. What could have been a season of waiting becomes a lifetime of enforced loneliness. The pain is not just the absence of companionship but the loss of any hope that it will ever be possible.

Research into forced celibacy (when someone desires sexual intimacy but cannot obtain it) sheds light on the emotional and mental challenges that accompany forced celibacy. Studies of “incels” (involuntary celibates) report higher rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and lower levels of social support compared with men who are not involuntarily celibate. One study found that unwanted male celibacy was correlated with hostile attitudes toward women, greater acceptance of sexual objectification, and belief in rape myths, suggesting that deprivation without choice can fuel resentment and distorted thinking. Even more broadly, research comparing voluntary versus involuntary singlehood indicates that lack of intimate connection (when undesired) is tied to insomnia, somatic symptoms, and more severe depressive symptoms. Studies confirm that when celibacy is experienced as enforced deprivation rather than chosen discipline, it often leads to emotional harm, isolation, and internal conflict. In other words, the harm is not in celibacy itself but in coercively denying a person’s relational and physicial needs without their consent or with insufficient support.

Paul consistently frames celibacy as a calling and vocation, not a command. In 1 Corinthians 7 he speaks from his own experience of singleness that celibacy is a spiritual gift granted to some, but not to all. He urges that “if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (v. 9), underscoring that sexual desire is not sinful. His teaching affirms that celibacy is good only when freely chosen and graced by God, never when imposed by others. Jesus’ teaching confirms it as he speaks about “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19), reflects a teaching that celibacy is a chosen way of life and not for all. Forced celibacy is not the same as the voluntary celibacy Jesus and Paul commend.

Scripture gives no such mandate. Paul calls celibacy a gift, not a rule, and Jesus speaks of those who embrace it freely, never as a burden imposed by others.

Letting God have the final word

Conversations about sex have often been shaped more by fear and cultural taboo than by God’s design, faithful companionship and delight.

Across cultures and centuries, same-sex relationships have endured because they meet the same deep human needs for companionship that God declared “good” in creation.

Discomfort with such love reflects cultural inheritance, not divine command.

The moment comes when the old explanations falter. The puzzle pieces of tradition are the ones that don’t fit, and we begin to wonder if something more faithful and loving has been there all along.

May we approach this subject with

Love – Whatever we say or do, let it be in love (Romans 13:8).
Respect – Every person deserves dignity and privacy (Romans 12:10).
Understanding – May we be willing to listen to stories of real lives (Philippians 2:3–4).
No Judgment – Honest questions are welcome; condemnation is not (Romans 14).
No Shame – Sex is God’s gift for delight and connection, not shame (Genesis 2:25).
Faithfulness – Seeking God’s good design for our lives (Psalm 119:105).

For information on the science of sexual attraction see here.