As another WNBA All-Star weekend comes to a close it felt like an important time to update this post. Much has changed since I originally wrote this post a year ago. Love has been found and lost, romances have sparked and fizzled, and a great deal of shit has gone down.
There are 53 current WNBA players and a whole lot of gay former WNBA players. The “chart” for the WNBA would be extensive, glorious and complicated as hell. But right now we’re just looking at who (we think) is currently together, and the scope of this list is limited to couples of basketball players, not just WNBA players who are dating women.
This list includes every basketball couple in which:
- Both have played or are playing basketball at the professional or collegiate level
- One or both have played or are playing for the WNBA
- They are still officially confirmed to be together
Paige Bueckers (Dallas Wings) & Azzi Fudd (Dallas Wings)
The two exceptional basketball players have been best friends for years, having met in high school at a USA basketball camp and played together on youth national teams before ending up at UConn together. When they look at each other, hearts and stars explode right out of their eyeballs, it’s really something! The fan edits will make you believe in love again. After a certified hard launch via phone case in 2025, Paige Bueckers referred to Azzi Fudd as her girlfriend with entire words on the 2025 All-Star orange carpet in an interview with wagtalk. It was a moment to treasure forever and truly beyond adorable.
Azzi was drafted to the Dallas Wings as their #1 pick for the 2026 season, and in the lead-up to the draft, the two seemed to be making a deliberate effort to quiet conversation about their relationship. Fans speculated about a breakup, while others speculated that Azzi was only drafted to the Wings because of her relationship with Paige. In an early-season press conference, Paige told reporters that her and Azzi’s “personal relationship is nobody’s business but our own” and they’d choose what they wanted to share. Furthermore, she reminded everyone that “we’ve been doing this for a long time. We have countless reps at it. We have a lot of experience at it. So we will continue to use that experience to show up and be professionals, great teammates, great leaders, the hardest workers and continue to show up and do our job and help the Dallas Wings win basketball games.”
And indeed, they have.
Dijonai Carrington (Minnesota Lynx) & Jackie Young (Las Vegas Aces)
Dijonai Carrington, having recently broken up with NaLyssa Smith (a true relationship saga for the ages), started dating Jackie Young in early 2026, while Young was playing for Unrivaled and Carrington was still recovering from foot surgery. After shared skylines, flower arrangements and a whole bevy of dropped hints on social media, they showed up together to the Studbudz hotel party at the 2026 All-Star weekend.
Alyssa Thomas & Dewanna Bonner, Phoenix Mercury
Alyssa Thomas and Dewanna Bonner started dating in 2020, as teammates on the Connecticut Sun — and Thomas proposed during the 2023 All-Star Weekend. Ahead of the 2025 season, Thomas was traded to Phoenix and Bonner to the Indiana Fever — but Bonner left the Fever and got picked up straight away by Phoenix. Isn’t that romantic? Also, Bonner has twins with her ex, Candace Dupree, who was also a basketball player.
Natasha Cloud (Chicago Sky) & Isabelle Harrison (Toronto Tempo)
Tasha is an elite defender, an outspoken activist and one of the W’s biggest personalities, and in an interview last year, said that Izzy Harrison radically transformed her life at a time when she was in need of refocusing, and also that Izzy is a “beautiful straight woman that fell in love with me,” Okay then! They had the extreme privilege of playing on the same team after both got traded to the Liberty (Cloud from Phoenix, Harrison from a year overseas) in 2025, but were split up in 2026. But they remained strong, Harrison helping Cloud through a rough free agency period. That said, although Harrison was at Cloud’s game in early July, it appears Cloud is no longer following Harrison on Instagram (Harrison is still following Cloud), and Cloud did attend All-Star weekend without Izzy.
If you like this post, you’ll love the Sports Issue of the Autostraddle Print Magazine.
Gabby Williams (Golden State Valkyries) and Marine Johannès (New York Liberty)
Despite wearing engagement rings, these two stayed quiet about their relationship for a long time, although nobody else did — Jonquel Jones, game announcers, the Stud Budz. In 2026 they seem to have let go of the mystery and are now appearing openly together, together.
Both have played in Europe and on the French National team in the Olympics — Gabby for the Seattle Storm and the Chicago Sky, and Marine for the Liberty in 2019, 2022, 2023 and the current 2025 season. While Gabby’s father is French, she was born in the U.S., whereas Marine was born in France. So they probably say cute French things to each other.
Kahleah Copper (Phoenix Mercury) and Michaela Mabrey (formerly Notre Dame)
Mabrey is the sister of Toronto Tempo’s Marina Mabrey and a former Notre Dame college basketball star and coach. Copper, who was Marina Mabrey’s teammate on the Chicago Sky, started sparking Michaela rumors in early 2025, before gradually going public through social media posts, culminating in a big Christmas family photoshoot that December. They’re very cute!
Jewell Loyd (Las Vegas Aces) & Natalija Marshall (U Miami)
Jewell Loyd of the Las Vegas Aces hard-launched her relationship with Nat Marshall in June of 2025 with a post on instagram declaring, “Some souls just find each other.” Marshall played at Notre Dame and the University of Miami, but is now working as a model, brand collaborator and stylist — Sonia Citron is one of her clients.
Breanna Stewart (New York Liberty) & Marta Xargay Casademont (Retired WNBA)
Stewart’s wife, Marta Xargay Casademont, is a former player for the Phoenix Mercury and the Spanish National Team. They met playing professional women’s basketball in Russia. In 2021, Marta retired from the sport — the same year in which she and Breanna got engaged, got married, and brought their first child, Ruby Mae, into the world. They had their second kid in October 2023.
Courtney Vandersloot (Chicago Sky) & Allie Quigley (Retired WNBA)
Known as “The Vanderquigs,” Courtney and Allie met in Slovakia at the end of the 2012-2013 Euroleague season, and ended up on the same flight back to the U.S. to prepare for their upcoming season with the Chicago Sky. Eventually their friendship turned romantic. They hold first and second place for many of the franchise’s all-time statistical categories and are the first married couple to win a professional sports championship together. While Courtney still plays for the Sky, Allie hasn’t played since 2022 but officially retired in May of 2025. They welcomed their first daughter in April 2025.
Diana Taurasi and Penny Taylor, Retired WNBA
Now-retired WNBA legend Diana Taurasi (the league’s all time leading scorer!) married her former teammate Penny Taylor in 2017, after eight years of dating. Taylor had their first son in 2018, and in 2021, her second pregnancy went past its due date and overlapped with The Phoenix Mercury’s WNBA final games. In her post-game interview Taurasi told her wife, “hold it in babe, I’m coming,” and then flew home to Phoenix from Vegas to witness the birth. That’s iconic behavior!
Tierra Ruffin-Pratt and Victoria Vivians, Retired WNBA
Vivians spent six years in the WNBA and now serves as assistant coach for her alma mater, Mississippi State Bulldogs. She got engaged to Tierra Ruffin-Pratt, formerly of the Washington Mystics and the Los Angeles Sparks, in 2021, and they are now married and very cute together!
Candace Parker (Retired WNBA) & Anna Petrakova (Retired Russian Professional Basketball)
Another WNBA GOAT, Candace Parker, delighted us all when she revealed to the world in 2021 that she’d married Anna Petrakova in 2019 and they were henceforth expecting their first child. Parker met Petrakova, retired Olympian and former Russian Premier League player of the year, in 2012 while playing for UMMC Ekaterinburg in Russia during the WNBA offseason. They now have three kids — Parker’s daughter Lailaa from a previous marriage and two sons they’ve had together, Airr and Hartt.
Mikaela Dombkins (Retired WNBL) and Leilani Mitchell (Former WNBA, Currently WNBL)
Mitchell, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Australia, was drafted to the Phoenix Mercury in 2008 and currently plays with the Southside Flyers of the WNBL in Australia. Mikaela Dombkins currently coaches the Bendigo Spirit of the WNBL but also played for eleven seasons. Dombkins gave birth to their son Kash in 2018, and their daughter Elle in June of 2022.
Comments
Gabby Williams (Storm) and Marine Johannes (Liberty) as well. :)
It’s great to see these fantastic women basketball players exercising their USA rights to what we so call free speech, despite trumps psycho sick hateful narcissistic pitiful white racist attempts bro somehow forbid women from marrying other women, and trumps sicko band of Monica hateful white privileged billionaire friends still trying to hang on to their white racist majority ! Congratulations to these great ladies ! Merci BEAUCOUP! S’ IL VOUS PLAIT !
Your the hateful person. Trump has gay friends
You’re an illiterate moron, Erik Chatreaux.
You’re a very sick person. Hopefully you’ll stay in France
This comment has been removed as it is in violation of Autostraddle’s Comment Policy. Repeat or egregious offenders will be banned.
That is just sick. And I’ll presume you or your women partner(s) never, ever engage in oral relations?
Cause if you do that would make you a “pussy” and her a “dick”. Hmmm, ponder on that for a minute………………………..
Sad that men continue to equate love to sex when love is so much more. Perhaps that is why some women prefer women. Because they are so much more.
This comment has been removed as it is in violation of Autostraddle’s Comment Policy. Repeat or egregious offenders will be banned.
And why is that? Love is love. Everyone is different ya know…………..
Let all hear & read the words of our Lord God on homosexuality… repent from your actions, or you will not see the eternal light of God’s Heaven. Period. Nuff said.
Since you want to quote the ‘Bible’ as the ‘Bees Knees’ of knowledge/slash judgement of one’s sexuality, consider these expert studiers of the ‘Bible”: (Enjoy the read)
Homosexuality Is Never Condemned In The Bible: A Theology Student’s Take
The typical passages that are used to condemn homosexuality are:
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Judges 19-20 (cf. the parallel in Genesis 19)
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Romans 1:26-27
Jude 7
First of all, scholars of all kinds agree that the concept of “homosexuality” as a sexual or gender identity first arose in the late 19th century, with no meaningful precursors in antiquity. So the idea that Jesus or his contemporaries would have had opinions about “homosexuality” as an orientation is completely anachronistic. Rather, as Christopher B. Zeichmann writes, the “evidence suggests that sexuality tended to be thought of along a series of intersecting axes: penetrator-penetrated, senior-junior, masculine-effeminate, elite-plebian, free-slave, and so on” (Christopher B. Zeichmann, Same-Sex Intercourse Involving Jewish Men 100BCE–100CE: Sources and Significance for Jesus’ Sexual Politics, Brill, 2020, pp. 13-14). Zeichmann continues:
Thus, rather than understanding sexuality as an identity grounded in the gender(s) to which one is attracted as is common today, Greeks and Romans instead interpreted specific sexual actions and their affirmation or abrogation of the hegemonic power ideals as paramount. That is to say, today actions are less important than identities: a person can identify as bisexual and be a virgin, a woman may realize she is a lesbian despite her previous sexual experiences all being with men, and so on. In Greek and Roman culture, actions were far more significant than identities, and the importance of sexual intercourse revolved around a handful of questions. Who did you have sex with? Who penetrated whom? What was the social standing of each party? As we will see below, authors in the Roman empire were looking for specific answers: the higher status individual should always be the penetrator and if this were not the case, such intercourse could humiliate and emasculate. Thus, while one can speak of homosexual intercourse, there is reason to doubt that there was a broad identity-based category of “homosexuality” as there is today.
(Christopher B. Zeichmann, Same-Sex Intercourse Involving Jewish Men 100BCE–100CE: Sources and Significance for Jesus’ Sexual Politics, Brill, 2020, pp. 13-14)
Arland J. Hultgren makes similar points in his book Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), pp. 101. He even goes as far as to say: “to be sure, there were those in the Greco-Roman world who were aware that some people were attracted to persons of their own gender. But that having been said, there is no evidence in his letters that Paul had such an awareness.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Meaning of Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10
The Greek word that has been translated as “sodimites” or “homosexuals” is arsenokoitai respectfully. The word, arsenokoitai, crucial to the traditional translation, is a combination of two Greek words, arsen and koiten, which together result in the expression ‘male-liers’ or ‘liers with males’. To assume this is speaking of same-sex relations universally is a stretch to say the least. The only positive reason to take this word as denoting same-sex relations universally is because it appears as though Paul may have taken two words from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (“arsenos” and “koitein”) to both refer to same-sex actions when combined. However, while cited by many to condemn homosexuality as we know it today, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 probably does not. This 2020 article published by Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research boldly announces that:
“Recent research has undermined the traditional interpretation of the two OT verses in Leviticus, interpreted as condemning every instance of consensual male-male sex.”
Most importantly, as Bruce Wells writes: “both contain the phrase מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה (vocalized as miškəbê ʾiššâ), a longstanding crux for interpreters. In fact, Jacques Berlinerblau finds this phrase so unintelligible that he believes scholars should “admit defeat” in light of the perplexities it presents and forgo further attempts to arrive at a sensible interpretation of these biblical texts” (Bruce Wells, “On the Beds of a Woman: The Leviticus Texts on Same-Sex Relations Reconsidered,” T&T Clark, 2020, pp. 124).
The Meaning of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Typical English translations on the issue are irrelevant, since most translations are interpretive rather than literal. Berlinerblau says that a literal, secular, translation of Leviticus 18:22 might read something like this:
And with a male you will not lie lying downs of a woman, It is an abomination.
The initial phrase, “and with a male you will not lie” (or have sex), may seem very explicit and clear. Most scholars have little problems translating this part of the verse. If the author left the verse as is and cut out מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה and a couple other elements of the verse, this would be a clear condemnation of homosexuality universally speaking among males. But this universal interpretation is probably blocked by the phrase מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה, which must add some sort of different element or nuance to the statement “with a male you will not lie.” Why else would the author add the phrase “מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה” (“lying downs of a woman” or “on the beds of a woman”) if this was not the case? Stewart among others have already noticed:
“Did the writer need to write more than ‘You shall not lie with a male’ if the intent was a general condemnation of male homosexuality? Unless one posits that the ‘lyings of a woman’ means nothing, or is a redundancy, it must specify something.”
(Tabb Stewart, “Leviticus,” pp. 97)
In Leviticus, the specific target of the texts is sexual relations between men that occur “on the beds of a woman” (משכבי אשה), as Wells translates it. The big question has to be: what does that expression – “on the beds of a woman” or “lying downs of a woman” – mean? A possible suggestion is that the verse condemns male on male incest (since the main aim behind Leviticus 18-20 is to ban incestuous practices). Another potential interpretation is that the texts are basically saying, ‘don’t have sex with a man who is the sexual partner of a woman.’ Many different directions could be had because of the ambiguous phrase. In 18:22, the adverbial use to describe how the lying down occurs (which results in the English translations “as one lies with a woman”) is not supported for משכב. Such an adverbial use would first need to be demonstrated. I think that one has to assume a locative connotation, because משכב nearly always (I would say always) indicates a place or location. So for 18:22, the grammatical/syntactic function of משכבי is telling the reader “where” you can’t lie with a man. In 20:13, the use of משכבי is appositional. The conclusion is almost inevitable, in both cases, the end result is that it is qualifying the sleeping partner in question, which limits the scope of the prohibition of the male-with-male relationship. At least four other experts of Leviticus all agree that the expression “lyings of a woman” functions as a qualifier, which signifies a specific category of males with whom same-sex sex is forbidden. In other words, it limits the scope of the prohibition to a specific male-with-male relationship (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, pp. 1569; Lings, “The ‘Lyings’ of a Woman”; Joosten, “A New Interpretation of Leviticus 18”; Johanna Stiebert, First-Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible: Sex in the Family, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 596 [London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016], 91, 98–101).
The words מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה that are translated “lying downs of a woman” occurs also in a similar verse (Leviticus 20:13) does little to clarify matters:
And a man that will lie with a male lying downs of a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They will die. Their blood is upon them.
Source of the two translations above = Jacques Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 103.
Daniel Boyarin translates Leviticus as:
“Do not lie with a man a woman’s lyings” (miškĕbē ʾiššā) (Lev 18:22)
(Daniel Boyarin, The Talmud – A Personal Take, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 124).
Once again, the first phrase would seem to be a clear condemnation of homosexuality, but author adds the very ambiguous phrase discussed above, adding another element to the prohibition, unknown to us modern readers. Thus, there is little reason to think Leviticus is referring to sex between two members of the same gender universally with מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה is factored in. Wells is a legal specialist (vis-a-vis the OT) and thinks that Leviticus is not condemning homosexuality (see this 2020 article by Wells here). Wells’ recent interpretation has been praised, sometimes with qualifications, by a number of Old Testament scholars with a specific expertise in Leviticus or sexual laws in the Hebrew bible. Below is from footnote 115 of this article cited above:
Mark S. Smith, Helena Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Skirball Professor Emeritus of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, New York University, commented: “Bruce Wells’ article is nearly flawless in the direction that its reasoning cum evidence takes, except for the argument about women having guardianship over males. There is not a lot of clear evidence for that . . . I do think that these matters will continue to be the subject of scholarly discussion and debate, and further insights may shift the lines of conclusion. At the same time, it seems to me that the current discussion is correct in suggesting that these two verses do not represent general prohibitions against male-male sexual relations.”
Renato Lings, independent scholar and author of Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible (Trafford Publishing, 2013), remarked: “[Bruce Wells’] discussion of Lev 18:22 and its extended pendant 20:13 is well-researched and his main points are convincing. I regard this essay as a major contribution towards a broader understanding of the rules and regulations issued by the ancient priestly lawgiver.” Email correspondence to Luca Badini Confalonieri, 17/06/2020.
Tamar Kamionkowski, professor of Bible at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, wrote: “I find [Bruce] Wells’ work to be fascinating and I believe he makes a strong argument.” Email correspondence to Luca Badini Confalonieri, 11/06/2020.
Johanna Stiebert, professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Leeds, UK, commented. “The piece by Wells is compelling and brings a valuable and novel dimension to the debate […]. The philological case is well made.” Email correspondence to Luca Badini Confalonieri, 1/09/2020.
This 2020 article by Tamar Kamionkowski (published in Westar Institute) translates Lev 18:22 thus:
You shall not lie the lying downs of a woman with a man, it is an abomination.
And they translate 20:13 as:
“As for the man, who lies the lying downs of a woman with a male, they, both of them, have committed an abomination; they shall certainly be put to death, their blood is upon them.”
Kamionkowski writes:
Several questions arise while examining this verse in Hebrew. Does the text intend “man” or “male?” What does “lying downs of a woman” mean? Are the English additions of “as” or “after the manner of” reasonable and true to the original text? What does the Hebrew word for “abomination” mean? Is it moral or ritual? (pp. 163)
Kamionkowski goes on to doubt that Leviticus condemns homosexuality in the article and announces on page 167 that “In short, we simply do not know what the verse means!”
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not concerned with (male) homosexuality in itself, but rather with some other illicit sexual activity designated by the expression “beds of a woman,” which signifies a specific category of males with whom same-sex sex is forbidden.
The Meaning of Arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 | 1 Timothy 1:10
With this in mind, even if Paul does get the word arsenokoitai from Leviticus, there is little reason to think that Paul’s use of the words from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus necessarily condemns sex between those of the same gender. There is also a lack of probative evidence of any actual connection of arsenokoitai with an earlier Hebrew term or with the two texts of Leviticus in Rabbinic sources. But granting that Paul does make the compound word from Leviticus, there are eight points that all, when combined, make the condemnation of same-sex relations unlikely:
Leviticus is vague and more likely than not does not condemn same sex relations between men universally (see above).
This compound word does not even show up prior to Paul’s letters in ancient Greek literature. In other words, Paul made it up! We have little to compare it to.
Compound words do not always mean what the sum of their parts suggests. As Dale Martin writes: “It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of the word by taking it apart, getting the meaning of its component parts, and than assume, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts” (Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation, 2006, pp. 39).
“It is wrong to define a word by its (assumed) etymology; etymology has to do with the history of a word, not its meaning” (ibid, 39-40).
The usage of the word in 1 Timothy should drive our interpretation of this passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9, given there is a bit more to work off of in 1 Timothy with regards to deciphering the meaning of arsenokoitai. In 1 Tim 1:10, sexual slavery may have been the target of the apostle’s prohibition since “kidnappers” or “slave traders” is listed in the vice list directly after arsenokoitai. In 1 Timothy there are three terms that are most relevant: pornois (“sexually immoral”)), arsenokoitai, and andrapodistais (“kidnappers,” “slave traders”). Placed in a list such a this, it is suggestive against the traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai, and is evidence of a grouping of the sexually immoral, or prostitutes, or those who visit and/or use male prostitutes, or those who sexually exploit others for money (e.g., traffickers who kidnap and sell human beings).
As K. Renato Lings in his book Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible, 2013 points out, the usual Greek terms for two male lovers are erastēs and erōmenos, among others. In many instances these words talked about pederasty, but the other type of relationship would be between two equal partners, of which there is some literary evidence. In these cases erastēs and erōmenos would frequently be used, but Paul chose not use these words, but instead create his own word never used in ancient Greek literature before – arsenokoitai. This suggests that Paul is not addressing male lovers. Instead, a more credible alternative is to view arsenokoitai as a specific reference to men who practice abusive sex or commit economic exploitation, including theft and kidnapping young people of either sex into sexual slavery.
Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77 is one of the earliest appearances of the word arsenokoitai. Although the exact date of this text is uncertain, it is probably independent from the NT. Here is the translation from J.J Collins: “Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds. Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life. Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need. Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly” (2:70-77). This text is likely an independent witness to an author coining this word from “arsen” and “koiten.” The original author was also Jewish, like Paul. The immediate passage the word arsenokoitein is embedded in appears to be Jewish in origin, since it has no Christian parallels. For the Jewish origin of substratum of the second book of the Sibylline Oracles: see “The Sibylline Oracles,” in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 2 Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, by John J. Collins. The caveat to this text is that it has some Christian interpolations. However, J.J. Collins argues: ‘nothing in these verses [2.56–148] is necessarily Christian.’ And according to Dale Martin, the term here is used in a list involving “economic sins,” actions related to economic injustice or exploitation: accepting gifts from unjust sources, extortion, withholding wages, oppressing the poor, theft of grain, etc. See Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation, 2006, pp. 39-41. Rather, it refers to some kind of economic exploitation, probably by sexual means: rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort. This is may be independent evidence of a rarely used word (around Paul’s writing) not being used for same-sex actions universally, despite the conjunction of “arsenos” and “koiten.”
John Boswell writes, “It is extremely difficult to believe that if the word actually meant “homosexual” or “sodomite,” no previous or contemporary author would have used it in a way which clearly indicated this connection” (Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 345). Writers like Josephus and Philo, both Greek-speaking Jews who discussed Sodom and believed that it was punished for its homosexuality, never used ἀρσενοκοίτης, Boswell also surveyed Christian authors and observed that this word was hardly ever used to describe same-sex actions (so John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2008, pp. 342-50).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:26-27
First of all, the word ἀδικίαν in Rom 1:18 should be rendered as “injustice.” As Sarah Ruden says, “there is nothing vague about it. It is about hurting people” (Sarah Ruden, Paul, 69). So Romans 1:18-27 is not about loving relationships. In fact, the entirety of Romans 1:18-32 is about abusive relationships among the Gentiles, not loving ones. Arland J. Hultgren writes:
The passage falls within a section (18-32) about abusive relationships of all kinds, and that should inform ones reflection of these verses. In light of that, one must ask whether they speak unilaterally of all types of same-gender sexual relationships. That they speak of all non-abusive ones between persons of homosexual orientation (in modern understanding) can be legitably challenged.
(Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011, pp. 102)
Second, understanding the temporal aspect of the verbs in Romans 1:26–27 is crucial for evaluating the views on sexual defiance that Paul appears to be expressing. The three key Greek verbs are all held in the past tense indicating distant events. If these verbs (paredōken, ‘gave them up’; metēllaxan, ‘exchanged’; exekauthēsan, ‘burned’; etc) are read properly, it seems suggestive (though is not necessarily the case) that Paul is referring to one or several incidents in the past with which he assumes his Christian audience in Rome to be familiar, such as possibly sexual scandals in cults or elsewhere. A more likely potential interpretation is that Paul is referring to ante-diluvian women and Sodom’s men who had sex with angels. As Brett Provance observed:
A strong tradition exists in ancient Jewish and Christian literature wherein the judgment stories of Genesis 6 and 19 are often joined as dual rhetorical examples of God’s judgment. This tradition is well presented by, inter alia, Lührmann in his notable work on Q, who writes “[T]here is a fixed tradition of the connection of the Flood – sometimes as the judgment of the fallen Angels – and the destruction of Sodom; both are primarily understood as examples of the punishment of the ungodly, and only secondarily, but then never without the first meaning present, as examples of the salvation of the godly.” (Provance, “Romans 1,” pp. 91)
That dual judgement motif was very well-known. We find it in pre-Christian texts from the Hellenistic-Roman era of the Second Temple, such as 1 Enoch (specifically ‘The Book of Watchers’, i.e. 1 Enoch 1-36), the Testament of Reuben 5:5-6, Jubilees 20:3, 3 Maccabees 2:3-5 and the Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5. A particularly striking parallel of Romans 1:27 is Philo’s On Abraham 135–137. We find it also in the Old Testament Wisdom of Solomon 10:3-6, 8, 9 and Sirach 16:7-8. Jesus uses it in his apocalyptic sermon, Luke 17:26-29 and parallel Mt 24:37-39 (from Q source). We meet it again in other New Testament epistles: Jude 5-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-10. In the second century, Justin Martyr’s Second Apology 5:2-6 refers to the story of the angels mating with antediluvian women in a passage which “utilizes language and concepts found in Romans 1” (Provance, “Romans 1,” pp. 115). In light of this, it is likely that the motif was part of early Christian catechesis. Paul was familiar with it and so was his audience. This position can be summed up in these points (from this article; pp. 54-55):
Rom. 1:26-27 belong to the larger passage of Rom. 1:18-2:11, where Paul is trying to establish his principal point: that all have sinned, Jews as well as Gentiles.
To do so, Paul points to well-known events from the Old Testament: the Golden Calf in v. 23; the antediluvian women and Sodom’s men in vv. 26-27. The raison d’être of those verses is to provide examples of sinning women and men in support of Paul’s overall thesis.
The content as well as form of vv. 26-27 are not original to Paul; rather, Paul relates and rehearses a stock description of what by his time had become a dual-judgment motif common in apocalyptic literature. In other words, those references are not an original description of either event; instead, as literary parallels show, Paul borrowed them from a stock apocalyptic rhetorical motif which presented those two events side by side as examples of divine judgment. It was the standard way those two stories were jointly referred to.
Again, those references were to the behavior of women and men at two specific events from the past: specifically, the mythico-historical past of Jewish salvation history. As noted, verse 26 does not concern female homosexual behavior [see below]. In turn, the object of Paul’s condemnation in verse 27 is the specific behavior of the male inhabitants of ancient Sodom – in the original version of the story in Genesis 19, an attempted gang rape of male guests.
Moreover, such a gang rape was attempted by the entire male population of Sodom – presumably by and large heterosexual men. In both cases, nothing is said about the morality of free and faithful same-sex relationships between homosexual couples.
It would not make sense for Paul to point to the fact that some people “exchange natural intercourse for unnatural” i.e. engage in same-sex intercourse, in order to conclude that all people are deserving of condemnation. In contrast, Paul’s reasoning does make sense if he was referring to specific “mythico-historical event[s] that involv[e] judgment of the whole world,” as those involving the antediluvian women and Sodom’s men were traditionally taken to be.
This all seems to point against the applicability of this passage to today’s day and age. So even if Paul is referring to some kind of homoerotic behavior, he is speaking of behavior that occurred in the past and were well known to the audience – so probably in cults in the region that committed sexual scandals or the topos discussed above. Some English translations change the verbs into present tense, thus changing the meaning of the text. That said, verb tenses/aspects apart, the main concern is the very simplistic approach to the section 1:25-27 that so many Christian commentators adopt. And as commentators have noted, Paul is not talking about Christians at all in this particular part of the argument, but rather Gentiles (cf. Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011, pp. 101-102). Paul’s words in Romans 8:1 is where his authentic theology shines through (“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”).
Third, one has to note how Rom 1:26-27 starts off. The words that begin this passage are “for this reason” or “because of this” (Διὰ τοῦτο). That initial statement entails that the type of sexual behavior described in 1:26-27 is the direct result of the type of idolatry described in the context in 1:22-25. The idolatry that is being described by Paul in 1 Rom 1:22-26 is the theriomorphic representation of the divine. Paul says that “they” portray God or their gods as animals, as birds, four-footed animals, or reptiles in Rom 1:23, and he repeats this notion once again in 1:25 when Paul says that they “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Then, in 1:26, Paul says that because of this, these people were given over to behavior described. For this point, see this 2015 article by Robert K. Gnuse.
Fourth, there is no allusion to same sex relations between women in Romans 1:26, where Paul speaks of females. Instead, this is about Gentile women who offered themselves to men for anal sex. This is exactly how the text was interpreted during the first three or so hundred years of the early church (e.g., Clement of Alexandria [150–215 CE] and Augustine of Hippo [354–430 CE]). It was not until John Chrysostom (400 CE) that anyone misinterpreted Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between two women. What moves this interpretation from likelihood to near certainty are the arguments mustered up in this 2019 JBL article by David J. Murphy that offers further support for the notion that Paul is not referring to same-sex relations between women, but rather anal sex with men. Murphey in the article writes: “When χρῆσις refers to the act of intercourse, χρῆσις is assigned to the male, who is expected to penetrate the other and thus “use” that person—a woman, a boy, a male slave. It is no surprise that Fredrickson found no case in ancient Greek where one female is said to enjoy sexual χρῆσις of another female” (pp. 223). Murphy gives Fredrickson further support for this contention in his article. So in no instance is the word Paul employs in Romans 1:26, χρῆσις (“use” or “intercourse”), used to denote a female enjoying sexual “use” of another female within ancient Greek literature. “Rather, when it refers to the act of intercourse, χρῆσις is assigned to the male [in this case, an angel?], who is expected to penetrate the other and thus “use” that person—a woman, a boy, a male slave” (ibid.). This argument from Murphy pretty much necessarily entails that sexual relations between women are not condemned in Romans 1 at all. So why would sexual relations between men be universally condemned?
Fifth, some people read the homoeroticism in 1:27 back into 1:26. However, David J. Murphy writes: “Jamie Banister’s finding, however, has not been refuted—namely, that there is no contemporary parallel for a conjunctive ὁμοίως clause that operates backwards, so to speak, to provide clarification of an otherwise vague or ambiguous antecedent clause. On the contrary, all thirty-eight instances of ὁμοίως τε καί in TLG support Banister—that is, after an antecedent clause already understandable on its own, ὁμοίως introduces a clause whose argument is co-oriented with the previous clause’s argument. To read female homoeroticism back into 1:26 because we have male homoeroticism in the next verse is to reverse the way conjunctive ὁμοίως functions” (Murphy, David J. “More Evidence Pertaining to ‘Their Females’ in Romans 1:26.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 138, no. 1, 2019, pp. 235-236).
Sixth, some point to para physin (translated as “unnatural”) as proof that Paul condemned same-sex relations in Romans 1:26, since some Jewish authors used these words to (possibly) condemn same-sex relations universally. However, the fact that in no instance does “χρῆσις” (1:26) denote sexual relations between two women makes this point moot
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jude 7
The ancient Greek word in Jude 7 that is of interest is apelthousai (“they went after other flesh”). This crucial element in v. 7 is the notion of ‘other flesh’. Given the Greek wording, the traditional interpretation is ironic indeed. If one looks at the modern term ‘heterosexual’, it refers precisely to those who are attracted to the ‘other’ sex/flesh! So some kind of heterosexual sex seems to be in view here. See K. Renato Lings, Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible, 2013 on this point.
Addendum: Judges 19-20
Daniel Boyarin writes: “In the story in Judges 19 the account is similar to the Sodom story . . . This is an absolutely horrifying story of violence toward women, and, while the men of Gibeah are punished terribly for their murder of the woman (20:4ff.), the Levite who threw her to the dogs to save his skin is let off scot-free by the text. A story of primitive male privilege of the most repulsive sort, this is not in any way, however, a discourse about homosexuality. Indeed, here, the acceptance of a “heterosexual” substitute shows that the people of Gibeah are not being anathematized as “homosexuals.” Their punishment is explicitly owing to their violence toward the woman and not to their supposed homoeroticism. In both of these stories we find, then, a representation, perhaps with some historical basis, of a tradition of aggression toward strangers, acted out as “homosexual” rape (and murder – the Levite expected that he was to be killed as well [20:5]). These accounts have nothing whatever to do with either legal or discursive practices related to same-sex desire” (Daniel Boyarin, The Talmud – A Personal Take, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 140-141).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
What About Jesus?
If Jesus shared the contempt for same-sex relations found among Hellenistic Jews like Philo or Josephus, it would have been inconceivable that his encounter with the centurion would have occurred without at least an admonition to the centurion about his relationship with his pais in Matthew 8:5–13//Luke 7:1–10 (cf. Neill 2009, pp. 215). Most scholars see a sexual element to the relationship between the centurion and his servant. While this is an argument from silence as well, if Matthew 19:5’s silence on gay marriage is valid (which many Christians think), than so too is this argument. Besides, this argument is better, since Jesus literally does them a favor (heal the Centurion’s servant) and makes no mention of any wrongdoing, which Jesus does in other episodes. Other than this, there isn’t much to go off of. You’d think Jesus or the Gospel authors would make a mention of this topic if it was a sin? Plus, the bible may actually affirm same-sex relations, as I think it does (1 Sam 18:1-4; 20:17, 30-41; 23:18; 2 Sam 1:25-26; Ruth 1:14, 16-17; 4:15-17).
Appealing to what Jews believed pre-70 CE is irrelevant, because there was no unified Jewish belief pre-70 regarding same-sex relations! Christopher Zeichmann writes that Judaism “like most cultures throughout history, there were various attitudes toward same-sex intimacy, ranging from disgust to acceptance to eager participation” (Christopher B. Zeichmann, Same-Sex Intercourse Involving Jewish Men 100BCE–100CE: Sources and Significance for Jesus’ Sexual Politics, Brill, 2020, pp. 15). There are texts from Jewish authors (even those that disapprove of it like Josephus) that narrate same-sex relationships (A.J. 15.25-30; A.J. 16.230-232 = J.W. 1.488-489; J.W. 4.560–563), proving that such relations were embraced by at least some Jews. Pagan authors also accuse Jewish people of homoerotic relations (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1-2), and there is graffiti that likely show that same-sex relationships were accepted in some circles of Judaism (e.g., CIIP 3499), etc.
Addendum: Marriage (Matt 19:4-6)
(A) Appealing to Matthew 19:4-6 is an argument from silence, since Jesus is not being prescriptive here. Just because Jesus affirms hetero-sexual marriage does not mean he condemns homosexual ones. Jesus wasn’t talking about what kind of marriage was licit, but rather what kind of divorce was (as this is what the question proposed to Jesus was all about in the first place), and Jesus was saying that once a man takes a wife he has to treat her as the same flesh. (B) Whether Jesus thought that homosexual marriage was sinful in his life or not is something we already know the answer to (and likewise for Paul and the others), and that answer is “no,” since the notion of same-sex marriage didn’t even exist yet, and so couldn’t have been commented on or thought about.
Paige & Azzi are both baptized Christians. They talk about their faith a lot. I’m a gay Catholic who understands the Bible in its historical context. You want to try again because those nonsense talking points don’t work anymore.
Middle Ground and Pastoral Approaches
Some traditions, including the Roman Catholic Church, teach that individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ must be treated with respect and dignity. While the Church does not allow for same-sex marriage and teaches that homosexual acts are contrary to God’s law, it emphasizes that God’s love and grace are available to everyone.Personal and Individual
Perspectives Outside
0f organized religion, many individuals believe in a loving God who embraces all people regardless of sexual orientation, viewing homosexuality as a natural variation of human diversity created by God. Others who identify as agnostic or atheist do not attribute human sexuality to a deity.
I believe that the Bible also teaches “Judge not lest ye not be Judged ” Matthew 7:1-3
In Plain text for ye:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
As you say: ” Nuff Said” ( IMHO)
This comment has been removed as it is in violation of Autostraddle’s Comment Policy. Repeat or egregious offenders will be banned.
God’s greatest gift to you was a brain and here you are wasting it.
It’s not your fault that you were a defenseless baby when they started traumatizing and brainwashing you, but that you’ve made it to adulthood without seriously examining the beliefs that were forced upon you….well that’s entirely on you and your lack of personal development.
Paige & Azzi are both baptized Christians. They talk about their faith a lot. I’m a gay Catholic who understands the Bible in its historical context. You want to try again because those nonsense talking points don’t work anymore.
I lovecme some Veronica Burton. Damn she fine!
autostraddle, why do you allow your comment section to be filled up with heterosexist hate?
We don’t wanna see it.
They are all beautiful couples!!!
Thank you!
These women are badasses.
Especially Gabby.
Johannes got game apparently! Lol