honest answers
If you're new to this conversation, start here. These are the questions people actually ask about Side B Christianity and about what soulintension is. Short answers first, with a little more underneath.
Side B is a way of following Jesus that holds a traditional Christian sexual ethic while fully affirming the dignity, humanity, and belonging of LGBT people. In practice that means believing marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex belongs within that covenant, while insisting that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and same-sex attracted people are fully welcome in the church and loved by God exactly as they are.
Side A affirms same-sex marriage and sexual relationships as fully consistent with Christian faith. Side B holds a traditional sexual ethic, believing marriage is between a man and a woman, while still affirming the full dignity and belonging of LGBT people. Both take Scripture and the lives of LGBT Christians seriously. They land in different places on the ethics of same-sex relationships.
Side X generally refers to the belief that same-sex attraction should be resisted as something to be changed or eliminated, often paired with the expectation that a person shouldn't identify as gay at all. Side B is different because it doesn't treat orientation change as the goal and doesn't ask people to hide or deny their experience. soulintension is a Side B space, and it isn't a place for debating these positions against each other.
Not as a blanket rule. Side B holds that sex belongs within marriage between a man and a woman, so a Side B person who is same-sex attracted and not in that kind of marriage isn't pursuing a same-sex sexual relationship. How that gets lived out varies from person to person, and celibacy isn't framed as the automatic or default path for everyone. These are personal, prayerful decisions, not a formula.
No. Side B doesn't claim that faith will change someone's orientation, and it doesn't promote conversion therapy. It doesn't ask people to pretend they aren't gay or to chase a change that may never come. The focus is on following Jesus honestly, not on becoming straight.
soulintension is a Side B community serving the North Bay of California (Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties), for LGBT people and their allies who want to explore faith in Jesus honestly. It's a mid-week gathering and a set of resources built for people navigating faith and sexuality, especially those who've felt like they don't have a place in church.
It depends what you mean. soulintension fully affirms the dignity, humanity, and belonging of every LGBT person, and it holds a traditional Christian view of marriage and sexuality. So it isn't affirming in the Side A sense of blessing same-sex marriage, but it's wholehearted about welcoming and valuing LGBT people rather than treating them as a problem to fix.
It's for LGBT individuals exploring or returning to faith, straight allies who want to love the LGBT people in their lives well, and family and friends trying to understand someone they love. You don't need to have your theology sorted out or be at any particular point in your journey to belong here.
No. Nobody is required to hold a Side B view to belong, and honest questions and respectful uncertainty are genuinely welcome. soulintension is a Side B community by conviction, but it isn't a debate forum, and you won't be asked to sign onto a position at the door.
No. soulintension is a community and a ministry, not a church, and it isn't meant to replace one. If you have a church you love, come anyway. If you don't, or you're not sure church is possible for you right now, this can be a place to start.
If you're trans or non-binary, the first thing to know is that you're welcome here, no qualifications. You're made in the image of God and worthy of full dignity, honest relationship, and a real place at the table. Past that, we'll be honest with you: these are questions we're still praying and thinking through ourselves, and we're far more interested in walking them out alongside you than handing you a tidy position. Faith and gender are tender, complicated ground, and you deserve people who'll sit in the uncertainty with you instead of reducing you to a debate. So come as you are. Let's get to know each other as people first, and figure out the rest together.
These are the verses people ask about most. Each one is genuinely debated among Christians, including among Side B Christians, so these answers try to show what's actually being argued rather than pretend it's settled.
The men of Sodom demand to sexually assault Lot's guests, an attempted gang rape, not a consensual relationship. Nearly everyone across the debate agrees the passage condemns that specific act of violence and isn't a workable text for judging a loving, committed relationship one way or the other. Where scholars disagree is how much weight the story carries for the wider question. Some point to Ezekiel 16:49, which names Sodom's sin as pride, excess, and failing to help the poor without mentioning sex, and argue the story has little to say about consensual same-sex relationships at all. Others point to the very next verse, Ezekiel 16:50, where Sodom is also said to have committed "abominations," language that echoes the word used for male-male sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and argue the sexual dimension isn't so easily separated from the story's moral logic. Side B holds that Genesis 19 alone can't settle the debate either way, and leans on Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians for the actual case.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit a man lying with a man "as with a woman," calling it detestable, within a larger code covering sexual ethics for ancient Israel. Side B holds that while the ceremonial and civil penalties of Leviticus don't carry into the New Testament (the death penalty in 20:13 isn't something any serious Christian tradition applies today), the sexual ethic itself is treated as carrying forward, similar to how adultery and incest laws in the same chapters are still considered morally binding even though their penalties aren't. Which Old Testament laws still apply and which don't is itself a real point of debate, even among Christians who share Side B's conclusion. Side A readings vary: some argue the prohibition addressed a specific ancient context (like cultic prostitution or the treatment of one man as female, seen as a status violation) not a categorical claim about same-sex relationships as we understand them today, others argue the Old Testament law code isn't binding on Christians at all. This is a real, ongoing scholarly disagreement, not a one-sided case.
Paul describes women and men exchanging "natural" relations for "unnatural" ones, in a passage about humanity's broader rejection of God. Side B reads this as Paul naming same-sex sexual relationships themselves as outside God's created design, consistent with the rest of the passage's argument. Side A scholars raise a few counter-readings: that Paul is describing excess and idolatry-linked temple practices specific to Roman culture, not committed relationships as we know them, or that "natural" and "unnatural" reflect Greco-Roman assumptions about gender hierarchy rather than a timeless prohibition. This is probably the most contested single passage in the debate, and both sides include serious, credentialed biblical scholars. soulintension holds the Side B reading while taking the counter-arguments seriously enough to name them here rather than dismiss them.
Paul lists arsenokoitai, a compound Greek word that doesn't appear anywhere before his letters, among behaviors that exclude someone from the kingdom of God. Most scholars, Side A and Side B alike, agree the word is built from the Greek phrasing of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Septuagint, "arsenos... koiten," male and bed, and most Side B scholars read it as referring to men having sex with men on that basis. Some Side A scholars argue the word's rare, ambiguous usage in ancient sources outside the Bible makes its exact scope uncertain, possibly limited to exploitative practices like pederasty or slavery-linked sex rather than same-sex relationships generally. Honest scholars on both sides acknowledge some real uncertainty here, since the word is so rare outside the Bible that the argument turns heavily on linguistic reconstruction.
The clobber passages get most of the attention, but they're not the whole story. These questions round out what Scripture actually says.
In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus affirms marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman, quoting Genesis. He never addresses same-sex relationships directly. In the same conversation (Matthew 19:12), Jesus also commends those who remain unmarried "for the sake of the kingdom," treating chosen singleness as a legitimate, even honored, way of following him, not a consolation prize. Side B leans on both halves of this passage: the marriage teaching shapes the sexual ethic, and the eunuch teaching shapes the positive vision of a full life without marriage or sex.
David and Jonathan's covenant in 1 and 2 Samuel is described in the language of political alliance and deep loyalty common to ancient Near Eastern friendships between men, and nothing in the text indicates a sexual relationship. Ruth and Naomi are mother and daughter-in-law, not romantic partners, and Ruth's famous vow ("where you go, I will go") is loyalty language, not marital language, in its original context. Most scholars across the spectrum, including most Side A scholars, don't read either relationship as sexual. Where these stories do matter for the conversation is as biblical models of deep same-sex covenant friendship and loyalty, which Side B leans on when talking about what committed, non-romantic same-sex relationships can look like.
Eunuchs, people who didn't marry or have children, often not by choice, show up across Scripture: Isaiah 56 promises eunuchs "a name better than sons and daughters," Jesus commends those who become eunuchs "for the sake of the kingdom" (Matthew 19:12), and Acts 8 tells the story of an Ethiopian eunuch being one of the first Gentile converts, welcomed without qualification. Side B often points to this thread as the clearest biblical model for a full, honored life without marriage or sex, which matters directly for how celibacy gets framed, not as a consolation or a lesser calling, but as something Scripture itself treats with dignity.
Past the verses, these are the questions people are usually actually asking.
Side B holds that same-sex attraction itself isn't a sin, in the same way that any unchosen temptation isn't a sin until acted on. Orientation is experienced, not chosen, and Scripture's ethical instructions are consistently about action and covenant, not about the attraction someone notices in themselves. Where Side B differs from Side A is specifically on whether acting on that attraction in a same-sex relationship is within God's design, not on whether the attraction itself is shameful or sinful to have.
Large-scale, methodologically sound research doesn't support the idea that sexual orientation reliably changes through effort, prayer, or therapy, and major professional medical and psychological associations have documented harm from therapies that try to force it. Some individuals report shifts in attraction over time, but this isn't the common outcome, and it isn't something a person can produce on command. Side B doesn't ask people to pursue orientation change, and doesn't treat continued same-sex attraction as a sign of insufficient faith or effort.
Celibacy isn't the absence of relationship, it's the absence of a particular kind of relationship. People living it out in community talk about investing seriously in deep friendship, chosen family, shared households, and consistent presence in other people's lives, rather than waiting for a future that fixes the loneliness. It's genuinely hard, and soulintension doesn't pretend otherwise. Part of why the mid-week gathering exists is because celibacy done in isolation is a much harder thing than celibacy done in real community.
Yes, without qualification, though many LGBT Christians have real experience of the opposite. If church has hurt you, whether through explicit rejection, subtle distancing, or just never being asked how you're actually doing, that hurt is valid and doesn't need to be minimized or explained away. Some people find healing by staying in their church and working through it, others find they need space or a different community for a season, and there's no single right timeline for that decision. soulintension exists partly because that in-between space, still reaching toward Jesus, not sure where church fits right now, doesn't have a lot of homes.
The most helpful first response is almost always the simplest: thank them for trusting you, tell them you love them, and resist the urge to have every theological question answered in that first conversation. Coming out is often the culmination of a long, private process for them, even if it's brand new information for you. Questions about theology, boundaries, and what happens next can come later, and they'll come easier once the relationship itself feels safe. If you're not sure what to say or do next, reaching out through the connect page is exactly the kind of conversation soulintension exists for.
If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, call or text 988 (the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline) or call 911. The Trevor Project provides crisis support specifically for LGBTQ young people: call 1-866-488-7386, text START to 678-678, or chat at thetrevorproject.org. These are trained crisis responders, and reaching out to them isn't a smaller or lesser step than reaching out to a pastor or counselor. soulintension is a community, not a crisis service or a substitute for professional care, so if you're in crisis, please use these resources first, and reach out to us for ongoing support alongside them, not instead of them.
soulintension gathers mid-week in the Santa Rosa area of Sonoma County, and support extends across the North Bay, meaning Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties. Specific times and the meeting location are shared when you reach out, so the best next step is to get in touch through the connect page.
No. soulintension serves the whole North Bay, so people in Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties are all welcome. The mid-week gathering meets in the Santa Rosa area, but you don't need to live in Sonoma County to belong, and the resources and one-on-one connection aren't tied to any one town.
The connect page is the place to start. You can use it to ask about the next gathering, request a one-on-one conversation, or invite us to speak or facilitate an event.
No. soulintension is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and gathering with the community doesn't cost anything.
