This is a genuine question, because one of the reasons I left Christianity (I was raised Christian) was that I didn’t like how they hate gay people, are pro-life, etc., and overall are pretty hypocritical. But as I got older, I realized there are Catholics who are pro-choice, aren’t homophobic, and don’t have an issue with having sex before marriage, etc., and basically are not stereotypical religious people at all. But I have to ask—how do they justify this? I mean, it must be very confusing, because if the Bible does say being gay is a sin and you are not homophobic and are pro-LGBTQ+, then you are basically saying sinning is okay, which goes against their very religion. How about Catholics who swear? Basically, how do liberal Christians/Catholics justify their religion? Why be religious if you aren’t going to go all in?
The bible doesn’t say being gay is a sin. At worst, there’s an old testament law against bisexuality (that may just be about not cheating on your wife with a man), and a new testament story about God making some homophobic Romans gay to punish them.
More importantly than the ambiguity of either the old testament laws or the post-gospel epistles however are the actual techings attributed to Jesus. Each of the four gospels tells the story slightly differently, but two stories are applicable here.
The first is the story of the Mary who was neither Jesus’s mother nor bestie, but just a random Jewish girl who was caught cheating with a married man and was about to be gang-murdered by an angry mob chucking stones at her until she died. Obvious sexual sin, and apparently the customary punishment. But God essentially says “I tell you what, SURE she’s a sinner, how about y’all get someone who isn’t to start this execution right.”
( Which, when coupled with a few later passages about leaving judgement for God, honestly let’s any Christian ignore anyone else’s sin entirely.)
The second story is a bit more on point, and is contained in all four gospels as essentially the thesis of the new religion. Jesus was asked what the most important part of the law was, and he essentially said “love” twice. To love God with all that you are, and love everyone else as you love yourself. And then went on to imply that one could derive all of celestial law from just those two. Which means any Christian can and should ignore any hateful old testament law if they honestly feel it is wrong.
(Which can sound like a cop out until you get back to the “we are all sinners” point. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality or premarital sex are sins, because being a hateful jerk or judgemental ass are also sins and the only way anyone gets to avoid hell is if God decides to not give us the horrible fate we deserve.)
The Christianity I practice is a religion based around the idea that God created everything, loves us all, and really just wants us to not be dicks to each other.
There isn’t enough room in a life concerned with the “new” commandment to love everyone as we love ourselves to be a dick about anyone else’s sex life. As long as you’re honest with your lovers and do your best to not spread STDs, whether or not your seventy-five member atheistic informal polycule is sinful or not is between you and God.
In particular, I think the issue is likely a misinterpretation of Leviticus 18:22, which is thus using a YLT:
`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is .
Bisexuality is, indeed, a form of homosexuality, but justified with both binary sexes. While yes, what you do with your sex life is yours, as long as it isn’t pushed onto us who hate that lifestyle (or won’t practice it), we don’t give a rip about it.