“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

—Jesus Christ (John 8:32 KJV)

Although IDK for certain, I'm pretty sure that Jesus would agree with me here when I say that while knowing the truth makes us freer, believing lies only makes us easier to oppress.

In recent years, conservative media outlets and politicians have been raising fears over so-called “woke gender ideology” and the trans rights movement, alleging that they are a threat to a number of our God-given rights, ranging from freedom of religion to women's rights, and even the physical well-being of children.

Now like most of y'all, I have plenty of transgender friends here on Paint, but I must admit that as a pro-life Christian, I can't help but be a bit concerned when I hear people claiming that doctors are “mutilating children”, and so in order to free my mind of fear and doubt regarding all of this trans rights stuff, I decided to set out and seek the truth…

Specifically, my goal was to answer the following 4 questions:

1. What forms of gender-affirming care are actually being provided to minors, and what impact does it have on them?

2. What if any impact does allowing transgender females to compete against cisgender females in sports actually have on the latter group?

3. What are the broader civil rights implications of all of these anti-trans laws being passed?

4. What would Jesus do about all of this LGBTQIA+ stuff?

Although I did spend a considerable amount of time researching them for this blog (that's an understatement), I'm not an expert on any of these subjects, and if any of my information seems off or something please let me know in the comments.

[Spoiler=1. Gender-Affirming Care for Minors]As I mentioned above, there are countless high-profile conservatives out there alleging that doctors are “mutilating” and “chemically castrating” children, but are these allegations actually true?

“The Surgical Gender Affirmation Program treats teens and young adults. We work closely with patients and families to make decisions about surgery age and timing. Patients must be 18 or older by the time of surgery for gender-affirming genital procedures.”

“Gender-affirming medical care for patients under age 18 requires consent from any parent or guardian that has medical decision-making rights for that patient, unless the patient is an emancipated minor.”

Source

“To qualify for gender affirmation at Boston Children's Hospital, you must be at least 18 years old for phalloplasty or metoidioplasty and for vaginoplasty.

You must also have the following:

• A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria" and specifying the length of hormone therapy.

• A letter from your regular therapist stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria," that any significant mental health concerns are well controlled and that you have been living full time in your identified gender for at least 12 months.

• A second letter, from a mental health professional familiar with the procedure you are seeking, stating you are ready for surgery. This should include your understanding of the surgery procedure and recovery needs, fertility implications of surgery, and risks of surgery. It should also state that you are able to consent for surgery and include an assessment of your support systems.

Patients who want to pursue chest surgery must be at least 15 years old and have the following:

• A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria" and specifying either the length of hormone therapy or why you are not taking hormone therapy.

• A letter from a mental health provider stating that you have the capacity to consent and that any significant mental health issues are being addressed.”

Source

IK that that's a lot to read through there (I read through a heck of a lot more stuff than that), but put simply, doctors are NOT “mutilating children”, and the few gender-affirming treatments that they are performing on minors (mostly hormone treatments and such) are being done on teenagers, NOT young children.
(Not exactly the “genital mutilation of 8 year olds” that some of these liars in the rightwing media are saying that they are doing.)

Aside from checking out various hospitals' websites, I also found some interesting news articles about this subject, such as this Salon article from 2022, which talks about how the World Professional Association for Transgender Health lowered the minimum age for gender transitioning treatments in their official guidelines.

“The World Professional Association for Transgender Health has declared that the minimum age for gender transition treatment can now be lowered to 14, which is two years younger than previously advised. Along with that decrease in the age requirement for hormone treatments, the association has also moved to lower the minimum age for some gender reassignment surgeries to between 15 or 17.”

“While potential risks are present when administering hormone treatments and performing reassignment surgeries on patients within these age brackets, those risks were weighed against those that could come from withholding treatment from someone in need of it.”

OK, but what exactly are these “risks” that could come from withholding gender transitioning treatments for transgender teens?

“Transgender people can experience high rates of distress and suicidality. Almost half (43%) of transgender people have a history of attempting suicide. Suicide risk is highest when experiencing transphobia and when waiting to transition. Rates of suicidality can drop markedly once transition has been completed. Some transgender individuals choose hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery. Currently, candidates for hormone therapy must demonstrate a consistent and persistent gender-variant identity that meets criteria for gender dysphoria as categorized by the DSM-5.5”

Source

“…81 percent of transgender respondents reported having contemplated suicide during their lifetime compared with 30 percent of cisgender heterosexual adults…”

Source

So almost half of all trans people (or even as high as 81%) have attempted suicide before, but the suicide rates “drop markedly” after gender transitioning is complete.

This means that the doctors performing these gender-affirming care procedures on minors are not “mutilating children for profit”, nor are they trying to push some sort of nefarious social agenda cooked up by “Marxists” (did Karl Marx ever even write about trans people?), they are simply doing their jobs, which in these particular cases means that they are saving the lives of children.
(Which is obviously something that I am strongly in favor of.)

Of course, those in the conservative media also regularly claim that many people make the decision to gender transition and then wind up regretting it afterwards, which they argue can also lead to depression and suicide, and that therefore “children” (meaning anyone under the age of 18) shouldn't be allowed to make these sorts of medical decisions, even with parental consent.
(So much for “limited government” and “parental rights”.)

While there are (unfortunately) inevitably going to be at least some people who will regret making these sorts of decisions, it doesn't seem as though the regret rate for gender transitioning is nearly as high as what those in conservative media claim it is.

“A new study has shown incredibly high levels of satisfaction with gender-affirming surgery. The study, published in ‘Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery’, the Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, says that 99.7% of trans people who had undergone such surgery experienced a degree of satisfaction with the outcome, an incredible figure in the context of any healthcare outcomes.”

“In total the Transgender Health Program examined 1989 trans patients. Only 6 patients (0.3%) requested reversal surgery or transitioned back to their sex assigned at birth. The study also concluded that an environment that normalises authentic gender expression, affirming each individual’s surgical goals without any judgement, are foundational to mitigating against regret.”

“The 0.3% regret rate of our newest study is much smaller compared to other, common yet serious surgeries. Interestingly, knee replacement surgery has a dissatisfactory rate of 6-30%. The rate is up to 100 times that of gender-affirming surgery. However, knee replacement surgery does not go through the same scrutiny as trans healthcare does.”

“The evidence is overwhelming in showing that fears around ‘transition regret’ are blown out of proportion. Conservatives cling onto this myth in order to justify their anti-trans bills banning gender-affirming healthcare. Instead we focus on the joy that gender-affirming healthcare brings, and the positivity of so many people being able to live freely as themselves, celebrating who they are.”

Source

And there you have it: the truth.

Essentially, what we are witnessing going on in conservative media RN (which is obviously also influencing Republican lawmakers as well) is an aggressive anti-trans propaganda campaign being pushed by ideological transphobes with a genocidal agenda, who seem to have no problem whatsoever with lying to the American people in order to push said agenda, by tricking well-meaning people (especially parents concerned about the well-being of their children) into supporting these anti-trans laws at the expense of the lives of the children that they are claiming that they to want to protect.
(Which is ironic given that many such individuals—like myself—oppose abortion for the sake of saving children's lives.)

For those more interested in this subject, I strongly suggest that you check out all of the links that I included throughout this segment, as well as these ones:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/04/22/transgender-child-sports-treatments/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/groundbreaking-study-shows-extremely

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People

https://teddit.net/r/asktransgender/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/trans-men-can-still-get-pregnant-even-when-recieving-testosterone-therapy/

https://eurweb.com/2020/groundbreaking-womb-transplants-allow-transgender-women-to-have-their-own-babies/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_genocide

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99s-ideology-and-practice[/Spoiler]

[Spoiler=2. Transgender Athletes]When I first submitted the sneak peek at this blog last Pride Month, it didn't take long for the issue of transgender athletes to completely dominate the comments section of it.

The debate about whether or not transgender athletes should be allowed to compete against their cisgender counterparts almost always focuses on transgender women competing in women's sports, and is driven by the idea that they have a “biological advantage” over cisgender women in sports because they are “biological males”.

Of course, the first question that obviously needs to be asked is “do biological males actually have an advantage over biological females in sports?”, and the answer to this question isn't quite as simple as some people might think it is.

I strongly encourage those interested in this subject to read this fascinating article on Sapiens, that delves deep into the actual scientific differences between “groups typically categorized as women and men”.

Here are a few highlights from it:

“Athletic performance differences can be caused by all manner of things across four broad categories: anatomical (physical features such as height), physiological (functional factors like the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to muscles), psychological, and socioeconomic (such as access to equipment and training knowledge). A number of myths and misconceptions exist within each of these categories that tend to ascribe overwhelming advantages to men.”

“I am here to dispel those myths and misconceptions.”

“THERE IS A pernicious and persistent sex-based hormone myth that says testosterone is exclusively male, estrogen exclusively female, and that testosterone is the secret ingredient for athletic success.”

“None of this is true.”

“First, women and men need both hormones in order to function properly. When women ovulate, testosterone plays a critical role, just as estradiol (a predominant form of estrogen) is crucial in men for sperm formation. Second, while it is true that women tend to have more estrogen and men more testosterone, there is a great deal of individual variation and an overlap in ranges—particularly among athletes. A study among close to 700 elite athletes found that about 5 percent of women had testosterone levels in the typical male range and about 2 percent of men had levels in the typical female range.”

“Testosterone, like all hormones, has multiple effects throughout the body. While it is true that testosterone can, in very large doses, lead to increased muscle mass, the link between natural levels of testosterone and muscle mass is not consistent across populations. Furthermore, evidence unequivocally linking natural testosterone levels to improved athletic performance remains elusive.”

“Estrogen, on the other hand, seems to play a critical role in endurance performance, potentially due to its role in glucose metabolism. One research study found that endurance-trained men had significantly more estrogen receptors on their muscles than moderately active men.”

“Despite all this, World Athletics regulations, which are followed by the International Olympic Committee, determine eligibility of certain athletes in the female classification of some athletic events based on testosterone levels. These protocols assume that testosterone always confers an advantage, and these organizations apply this rule only to a handful of sports, like middle-distance running, for which testosterone may not confer an advantage at all.”

“The result is often a travesty on many levels, with women being barred from competing (based on a questionable reading of the science) or having to undergo potentially detrimental medical treatment to lower their natural testosterone levels, which can have multiple negative effects.”

So under current regulations, some cisgender women are prohibited from participating in women's sports due to their naturally high testerone levels, and if they want to compete against other cisgender women, they have to undergo testosterone suppressing treatments, exactly like what trans women do during gender transitioning.
(Because apparently even being born a “biological female” isn't enough to make you a “woman” in the eyes of some misogynists out there.)

Bear in mind that (as the article repeatedly points out) there are a number of different physiological traits that give biological females certain advantages over biological males (such as having greater lower body muscle mass, better glucose management, more slow-twitch muscle fibers, and overall better endurance, just to name a few), but all of this is completely ignored by those in charge of making these sorts of decisions, whether it is those in charge of regulating international sporting events like the Olympics, or Republican lawmakers here in the US imposing crazy restrictions on transgender athletes.

Of course, despite the harm that all of this unscientific scaremongering about “biological males” taking over women's sports causes LGBTQIA+ people, it is also undeniable that there is a humorous side to some of the more ridiculous examples of this transphobic nonsense, such as them claiming that trans women have a “biological advantage” in Chess (obviously due to all of that extra “testosterone” and “muscle mass” that they have), competitive angling (because everyone knows that fish like LGBTQIA+ people more), darts (she even had a “biological advantage” against cisgender men somehow, apparently), and even hot dog eating contests.
(Just ignore all of the times when that “biological male” that they're all hating on actually turns out to be a cisgender woman.)

Of course, the other part of all of this that far too often gets ignored is transgender men in men's sports, who (by the same chauvinistic logic of these people) should be at a “disadvantage” compared to all of us “biological males”, and who should obviously be unable to compete against us because of how we're “bigger, faster, and stronger” than them, right?

“…The idea that trans boys cannot compete with cis boys on the field is demonstrably false. Mosier making Team USA means that he is literally one of the best in his category of all the men in the country. And Bailar, who competed against men while swimming for Harvard University, was ranked 443 out of all 2,983 Division I male swimmers — meaning he beat 85% of the men he swam against.” “The narrative that we’re not capable of [being up there with cis men] at worst excludes trans boys from even stepping into sport,” he says. “And at best, makes them doubt themselves. No matter how you look at it, that narrative is toxic.”

When people ask Bailar how he plans to beat cis men, “It’s very simple,” he says. “The answer is, I did.”

“In Changing the Game, you can see the difference for wrestler Mack Beggs. When he wins the State Championships after beating a girl, he looks dejected. His head hangs while the official raises his arm in victory, the girl who spent a year training to defeat him in the fetal position next to him, screaming in emotional agony. By contrast, at the end of the film, when he comes in third place wrestling against other boys, he’s glowing. The difference, of course, is simply that he was able to step onto the mat as his authentic self. “All I ever wanted to do was wrestle men,” he says, breaking into a smile. “And now that I am? It’s freaking dope.”

Source

None of these ridiculous restrictions on transgender athletes are based on actual science or fact, they are simply based on misogyny and transphobia. I am NOT saying that in elite competitive sports that are gender-divided that there shouldn't be some sort of reasonable prerequisites (such as having been on the appropriate hormone treatments for a sufficient length of time) for transgender athletes to be allowed to compete, but to tell someone like Mack Beggs that they can't compete against other men, or someone like Laurel Hubbard that they can't compete against other women is just unscientific garbage that flies in the face of both common sense and common decency, and the fact that Republican lawmakers are trying to impose these sorts of transphobic restrictions on children who just want to play on their school's sports teams is absolutely shameful.
(Sports at that age are just supposed to be about teamwork and having fun, not all of this other nonsense.)

Just like with the previous segment, I've included plenty of links to other websites with additional information on this (obviously rather complex) subject throughout this segment, and I encourage y'all to check them out if you're interested in learning more about all of this stuff. Here are a few more:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/04/trans-women-athletes-may-actually-have-disadvantages-compared-to-cis-women/

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/09/1168858094/arguments-that-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-advantage-lacks-evidence-to-support

https://www.science.org/content/article/world-athletics-banned-transgender-women-competing-does-science-support-rule

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/transgender-athletes-to-watch

https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/12/04/theyre-chasing-us-away-sport/human-rights-violations-sex-testing-elite-women

https://allthingslists.com/sports-that-women-beat-men/

https://www.metroleague.org/what-sports-are-females-better-than-males/

https://www.newsweek.com/women-are-better-athletes-men-study-about-gender-fitness-says-736047[/Spoiler]

[Spoiler=3. Broader Implications]

“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

—Former President Ronald Reagan

Although Ronald Reagan was just as anti-LGBTQIA+ as most Republican politicians are today, ironically, those famous words of his are oftentimes true, especially when it comes to LGBTQIA+ rights issues.

Below are a list of important trans rights issues that while not necessarily worthy of devoting an entire segment to (due to how poorly thought out the anti-trans arguments for each of them are), are still worth covering in this blog, particularly due to how they could negatively impact us cisgender people as well.

---

1. Bathroom Bans

Much like anti-trans discrimination in sports, regulating who gets to use what public restrooms and changing rooms is sold to people based on this idea that we need to protect cisgender women from “biological males”, whose mere presence in such places is a threat to them somehow.

From a transphobic rightwing chauvinist's perspective it all makes perfect sense, but suppose you're a cisgender woman whose appearance doesn't quite match our sexist society's idea about what a woman “should” look like. When you REALLY gotta use the restroom, do you want to be harassed by some “bathroom enforcer” who suspects that you might be trans for some reason? And how exactly is it that you're supposed to prove to them that you're a “biological female” without them violating your privacy?

“…The legislation effectively deputizes cisgender individuals as bathroom enforcers, tasking them with identifying and reporting suspected transgender people for arrest and subsequent gender investigation.”

Source

In short, the government regulating who is allowed to use which public restrooms is completely freaking insane and also completely unnecessary, and anyone who doesn't think that this is a MASSIVE government overreach isn't just a transphobe, but also a totalitarian.

---

2. Misgendering and Deadnaming

Honest to God, I can't think of any legitimate reason for not respecting the feelings of trans people when it comes to this issue, and all of the anti-trans arguments that I've heard regarding this subject sound incredibly petty, stupid, and cruel.

Yes, it is technically limiting your freedom of speech to prohibit you from intentionally misgendering LGBTQIA+ people, but why on Earth do you want to do it anyway? All it does is needlessly hurt their feelings, and those obsessed with their supposed “right” to needlessly hurt the feelings of others with their words just seem like assholes to me.

Also, it is important to be fair about how we approach these sorts of things. As a cisgender male, would you be OK if someone kept intentionally using she/her pronouns to refer to you, and kept calling you some girl's name? As a cisgender female, would you be OK if someone intentionally kept using he/him pronouns to refer to you, and kept calling you some boy's name?

And regarding deadnaming trans people, it's worth pointing out here that none of us get to choose what name our parent(s) give us when we're born, and that there are plenty of cisgender people who choose to change their names at some point in their life as well. And so regardless of whatever your personal moral views are regarding all of this LGBTQIA+ stuff, you shouldn't be doing it to LGBTQIA+ people. Period.

---

3. Legally Defining Gender

For some bizarre reason, many conservatives seem to like the idea of defining gender in law, and making it so that (legally) there are only 2 genders—male and female—and that it is assigned to you at birth by some doctor going “it's a boy!” or “it's a girl!”.

Aside from how the very idea of “birth gender” is wrong to begin with since primary sex characteristics develop in the womb (which is also in line with Scripture), these sorts of laws needlessly complicate things not only for trans people, but also for intersex people and even cisgender women, and just like all of the other anti-trans laws that I've covered in this blog thus far, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for the government to be doing this.
(It's literally just an attack on LGBTQIA+ rights for no legitimate reason whatsoever.)

---

4. Hate Speech Laws

Basically, everything that I said about intentionally misgendering and deadnaming trans people applies here as well. If you aren't OK with hate speech directed at any other groups, then you shouldn't be OK with transphobic hate speech either.

Additionally, it is worth pointing out that transphobic hate speech (like all other forms of hate speech) promotes discrimination and violence against trans people in society, sometimes with lethal consequences.

Our God-given right to freedom of speech does NOT give us the “right” to bully, slander, dehumanize, or promote the mistreatment of trans people or any other group, and this is just another pathetic excuse on the part of evil fascist bigots to get away with saying vile things that there is literally no legitimate reason to ever say. Period.

---

5. Sexualization of Children

Perhaps the most disgusting and dangerous lie propagated by far right hatemongers is that LGBTQIA+ rights advocates like myself are guilty of “sexualizing children”, weaponizing words like “pedophile” and “groomer” as defamatory slurs to attack those that disagree with their narrow-minded views, and even going as far as to claim that LGBTQIA+ people are “pornographic” and “should not be around children”.

“[The] Nazis indeed targeted transgender individuals in early Germany. The Institute of Sexology, led by Magnus Hirschfeld, was the first institute to advance the study and medical care of transgender people in Berlin. The institute provided transgender individuals with employment and “transvestite passes” for a form of legal gender recognition in the city.”

“Magnus Hirschfeld was intensely targeted during the rise of Nazism in Germany. Hitler notoriously labeled Hirschfeld "the world’s most dangerous Jew." An early edition of Nazi publication Der Stürmer, focusing on Hirschfeld, accused him of grooming youth, echoing contemporary attacks on LGBTQ+ individuals today.”

Source

Those who shamelessly attempt to weaponize pedophilia like this are literally following in the footsteps of the Nazis, and anyone who bears false witness against others in this most vile and despicable manner does so not only at the expense of those that they slander, but also at the expense of the children that they pretend to care about.

---

There are obviously other attacks on trans rights and LGBTQIA+ rights going on RN as well. In some states, transgender adults are being detransitioned against their will; hate crimes against LGBTQIA+ people are on the rise nationwide; and so-called “obscenity laws” are actually being passed in some places, in blatant violation of our God-given rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

There are lots of good online resources out there for getting information on these and other important LGBTQIA+ rights issues, and how they are being violated both here in the US and in other countries around the world. LGBTQ Nation and Erin Reed's website (both of which I've already linked to several times throughout this blog) are 2 of my personal favorites, but here are a few others:

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

https://www.gendergp.com/

https://www.assignedmedia.org/

https://www.washingtonblade.com/

https://www.dailykos.com/tags/LGBTQ[/Spoiler]

[Spoiler=4. What Would Jesus Do?]

“The most important [commandment] is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

—Jesus Christ (Mark 12:29-31 NIV)

Although the answer to this question doesn't necessarily mean anything whatsoever to nonbelievers, and it in no way justifies any of this anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation being passed or proposed here in the US due to the separation of church and state enshrined in our country's Constitution, for myself and over 2,600,000,000 other Christians worldwide this is still an important issue that needs to be addressed, and no amount of ignoring God's Word is ever going to make it go away.

Now, the way that I am going to be approaching this subject in my blog here is by addressing each “clobber passage” used by non-affirming believers (meaning believers who are anti-LGBTQIA+) to condemn being LGBTQIA+ one or two at a time, and explaining in detail why I think that they are or aren't a problem for LGBTQIA+ Christians.

Also, although he obviously didn't have this blog in mind when he allowed me to do so, I'd actually like to thank my dad here for allowing me to use an old New King James Version Bible of his recently, and because it's what I have access to IRL, all Bible verses and passages referenced in this segment will be taken from the New King James Version, except when specifically stated otherwise.
(Like with Mark 12:29-31 at the beginning of this segment, which was taken from the New International Version instead, for example.)

Lastly, it is also worth mentioning here that there are some references to sexual violence in this segment, due to 2 particularly messed up stories in the Old Testament (in Genesis 19 and Judges 19) that are sometimes misused to condemn homosexuality. It goes without saying that these are my least favorite parts of the entire Bible (not that I like any of these clobber passages very much), but for the sake of addressing all of the clobber passages in this blog, I felt that it was necessary to include them in it as well.
(I figured that I should at least give y'all a heads-up first, though.)

---

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22

“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

Leviticus 20:13

There are no more explicit condemnations of male homosexuality in the entire Bible than Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and if taken at face value, they pose a major problem for gay Christian men.

Interestingly enough, however, lesbianism is not condemned anywhere in the Bible (with the one possible exception being Romans 1:26 in the New Testament, which I will be getting to later on), and it actually seems as though the primary basis for many believers condemning lesbianism as “sinful” is the bizarre assumption that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 somehow prohibit lesbianism as well, despite it specifically saying “a man [lying] with a male”, which obviously isn't in any way a description of what lesbians do.
(It seems like the sort of thing that God would've cleared up at some point if it were the case, y'know?)

Unlike Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16 specifically state that bestiality is sinful for both men and women to engage in, and there are plenty of other laws in Leviticus that either only apply to men, only apply to women, or that clearly state that they apply to both just like Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16 do, and so it is obvious to me that there is no legitimate basis whatsoever for condemning lesbianism based on Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. Period.

“Nor shall you mate with any beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before a beast to mate with it. It is perversion.”

Leviticus 18:23

“If a man mates with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.”

Leviticus 20:15-16

Regarding the problems that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 might pose for gay men, however, it is important to keep in mind the following:

“The prohibitions in Leviticus don’t apply to Christians. Leviticus condemns male same-sex intercourse, but the entire Old Testament law code has never applied to Christians in light of Christ’s death. Leviticus also condemns eating pork, rabbit, or shellfish, cutting hair at the sides of one’s head, and [A=https://www.biblegateway.com/pa ssage/?search=Leviticus%2015:19-24&version=NIV]having sex during a woman’s menstrual period[/A] — none of which Christians continue to observe.”

—Matthew Vines, founder of the Reformation Project. (Source)

Of course, Matthew Vines isn't the only Bible expert who has made this particular point about these laws in Leviticus before.

“Leviticus was written to be the laws governing a specific group of people at a specific time. Without understanding their culture, their environment, their diseases, and other factors, quotes are being used out-of-context. Deuteronomy 22:8 instructs the Israelites to build a fence around their house's roofs so that sleeping visitors don't roll off in their sleep [and] die. By your logic of ancient Israelite law's relevance to today, your family is probably sinning at this very moment! A better place to look would be the Pauline epistles, since much of what they say [applies to] the entire world (except when Paul says otherwise). Leviticus may apply to modern Jews, so it is worth asking them, but it does not apply to Christians, aside from an interesting historical document on how the ancient tribes of Israel lived their lives.”

—HullBreach (Source)

It is hypocritical for us believers who don't abide by every part of the Mosaic Law (all 613 commandments of it) to go around condemning homosexuality based on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 without also condemning all of the other things described as “abominations” in the Old Testament (and there are certainly enough of them), especially in light of the fact that Jesus Christ Himself never actually condemned homosexuality even once.
(Again, it seems like the sort of thing that He would've cleared up at some point if it were an issue, y'know?)

“Mosaic Law also contains prohibitions against wearing garments of linen and wool together; burning incense; eating pork, rabbit, and shellfish; charging interest on loans; and working on Saturdays. In fact, the Old Testament refers to each of these things as “abominations” and states that the latter two items should be punished by death. Other parts of the Old Testament say it’s okay to kill women who have pre-marital sex, to smear animal feces on the faces of lazy priests, and that it’s okay to own and beat slaves.”

Source

Most Christians accept that Jesus Christ did away with all of this barbaric nonsense, and there are countless passages throughout the New Testament that support this interpretation of Scripture, including (but certainly not limited to) Mark 12:29-31 (shown earlier at the beginning of this segment), John 8:3-11, Matthew 15:7-9, Luke 12:54-57, Galatians 2:14-16, Galatians 3:23-25, Galatians 5:4-5, Galatians 5:14, Colossians 2:18-23, Ephesians 2:14-16, Hebrews 7:18–19 and Hebrews 8:6-13:

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

John 8:3-11

“Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

Matthew 15:7-9

He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”

Luke 12:54-57 NIV

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to lives as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

Galatians 2:14-16

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Galatians 5:4-5

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Galatians 5:14

Let no one defraud you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase which is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Colossians 2:18-23

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Ephesians 2:14-16

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 7:18-19 NIV

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first one obsolete. Now what is obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:6-13

Hebrews 8:13 was written 2,000 years ago, so when it said that back then the old covenant was “obsolete and growing old [and] is ready to vanish away”, I would say that it's pretty safe to assume that it already has.

For more information about this subject, I encourage y'all to also check out this page on the Reformation Project's website about it.

Part 2[/Spoiler]