I Am An LGBTQIA+ Ally

By Dan Stoneking

I am a Christian.  I am a Soldier.  I am a Heterosexual.  I am a Human.

And, yes, I am an LGBTQIA+ ally.

Pride Month is the obvious reason, the perfect time, to have this discussion.  This topic impacts work lives, personal lives, all humans, and humanity.  And it is more important than ever to take a stand.

The Trump Administration

On day one, a Presidential Action stated, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”  The order further states:  “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

In his inaugural address the same day, Trump also stated:  “It will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.”

Early in 2025, references to sexual orientation, gender identity, and LGBTQ issues were removed from various federal webpages.

Also in 2025, Trump stated that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would no longer host drag shows or what he called “anti-American propaganda.”

These, and countless more examples are cruel, dehumanizing, unnecessary, and have a direct and lasting negative impact on this community.  Moreover, they empower bigotry and bias against people who differ in identity and sexual orientation.

This marginalized community deserves to be treated with dignity, respect, kindness, love and advocacy.

I am a Christian.

One of the most important realities in any discussion of Christianity and LGBTQIA+ identity is this: Scripture does not interpret itself. People interpret Scripture.  I do not judge others’ interpretations.  I simply ask that others do not judge mine or the LGBTQIA+ community.

Transmission, translation, and human influence on the Bible

The Bible was written over centuries, copied by hand for thousands of years, and translated repeatedly across languages, cultures, and political eras. These translations were overwhelmingly produced by men living in specific historical contexts, each bringing linguistic choices, cultural assumptions, and theological biases into the text.

Today, there are dozens of widely used English Bible translations, and they do not always agree on wording or emphasis. Even small shifts in translation can significantly affect meaning, especially in passages that are often cited in discussions about sexuality. This reality alone should introduce humility into any absolute claim about what Scripture “clearly says.”

Ongoing theological disagreement

Even among highly trained theologians, biblical scholars, and historians, there is no universal agreement on whether Scripture definitively condemns same-sex relationships as understood in the modern sense.

Serious academic and theological traditions continue to debate language, historical context, and intent. This means that for the average person—someone who attends church on Sundays but has not studied ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek in depth—it is not reasonable to claim absolute interpretive certainty. Faith is real; humility about interpretation should be, too.

Language and historical context

It is important to note that the modern English word “homosexuality” did not appear in biblical translations until the 20th century. Earlier texts used ancient Greek terms such as arsenokoitai and malakoi, whose meanings are still debated among scholars today.

Some interpret these terms as referring broadly to exploitative or abusive sexual practices common in the ancient world, while others interpret them as general prohibitions of same-sex intimacy. The point is not that the Bible is silent, but that interpretation is far from settled or simple.

Proportionality within Scripture

Even if one accepts that certain passages address same-sex behavior in a negative way, they are relatively few compared to the breadth of moral teaching in Scripture. The entire Bible contains roughly 750,000 words depending on translation, yet direct references that are commonly interpreted as addressing homosexuality are extremely brief and appear in only a handful of passages.

They do not appear in the Ten Commandments. By contrast, prohibitions against lying, injustice, pride, and neglect of the poor are repeated frequently and emphatically throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

And yet many of the behaviors most clearly and repeatedly condemned in Scripture are widely practiced with little controversy. People lie in everyday conversation, exaggerate or mislead on resumes, and shade the truth in business dealings. Infidelity remains common despite clear biblical prohibition. Theft is not rare in subtle forms, from taking office supplies to manipulating time sheets or cheating on taxes. Even coveting, which is explicitly named in the commandments, is normalized in a consumer-driven culture.

Christian emphasis, however, is not always proportionate to textual emphasis. Many sins that are repeatedly condemned in Scripture receive far less public attention than this one issue, which raises a question of consistency in moral focus.

Selective application of biblical law

Many biblical instructions are not followed literally by modern Christians, including practices that were central in ancient Israelite religious life.

Examples include animal sacrifice, which was once a central act of atonement, dietary restrictions such as prohibitions on pork and shellfish found in Leviticus, and strict Sabbath observance that originally prohibited work in ways most modern societies would consider ordinary activity. Other teachings include rules about debt forgiveness cycles, agricultural land rest, and clothing made of mixed fabrics, many of which are no longer practiced.

In modern life, Christians routinely drive on Sundays, work in hospitals and emergency services, eat foods once considered unclean, wear mixed materials, charge interest on loans, and engage in complex financial systems that would not align with ancient biblical economic instructions. These are generally understood as contextual, fulfilled, or reinterpreted within Christian theology.

This illustrates a broader pattern of selective emphasis, where certain behaviors draw strong public judgment while other clearly prohibited actions are widely practiced without the same level of scrutiny, raising thoughtful questions about consistency in how Scripture is applied.

The central command of Jesus

When Jesus is asked to summarize the law, He does not begin with rules about exclusion or sexual behavior. He centers love.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”
“And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37–39)

He further commands: “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34)

The consistent theological thread of Jesus’ teaching is not exclusion, but radical love, mercy, and dignity toward others—even those society marginalizes or misunderstands.

Judgment belongs to God

Christian teaching also includes a repeated caution against moral presumption and judgment of others.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

Across the Gospels, the emphasis is not on believers determining the spiritual standing of others, but on humility, repentance, and self-examination. Theologically, judgment is consistently framed as belonging to God alone.

I am a Soldier

I swore an oath “…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….”

The First Amendment protects both LGBTQIA+ expression and religious beliefs about sexuality, even when they conflict. The Constitution does not resolve that conflict; it protects the right of both to exist without government coercion.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, “No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This principle has been the foundation for major LGBTQIA+ protections, including marriage equality (as affirmed in Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

At its core, constitutional law is neutral on identity. It does not endorse or condemn who people are. It requires equal treatment under law, leaving moral and theological interpretation to individuals, families, and faith traditions—not the state.

As a Soldier, my obligation is not to personal preference or cultural debate, but to that constitutional framework itself. I defend the Constitution. I defend the rights of all citizens. I defend the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am a Heterosexual.

At some point, most people are introduced to Martin Niemöller’s reflection that begins, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist.” The foundation of his argument is simple and unsettling: silence in the face of injustice directed at others eventually becomes complicity in injustice directed at all of us.

The principle is not about agreeing with every position or ideology. It is about recognizing a moral pattern. When a society becomes comfortable targeting or diminishing one group, the threshold for targeting the next group lowers. What begins as someone else’s vulnerability rarely remains someone else’s problem.

White people must stand up for Black people. Rich people must stand up for poor people. Men must stand up for women. The healthy must stand up for the sick. And those in positions of majority, power, or social comfort must be willing to notice when that comfort is built, even unintentionally, on the discomfort or exclusion of others.

This is not about identity guilt. It is about moral responsibility.

Because history does not only judge what people believed. It also remembers what people were willing to ignore.

I am a Human.

I am a human.

Before any label, belief, profession, or identity, that is the most fundamental truth about me. And it is the most fundamental truth about everyone else.

Humanity is not divided into categories that determine whose dignity matters more. It is shared. It is fragile. It is complicated. And it is the only condition we all have in common.

Across cultures and throughout history, one of the most consistent moral ideas is simple: treat other people the way you would want to be treated. The Golden Rule appears in many forms across many traditions because it reflects something universally recognizable about human experience. It does not require shared belief to understand, only shared imagination, the ability to see another person as fully real.

And yet history also shows how easily that recognition can break down when difference becomes the focus instead of shared humanity. When that happens, it becomes possible to rationalize exclusion, indifference, or harm toward people who are simply seen as “other.”

To be human is to carry differences. But it is also to share needs that are universal: to be safe, to be seen, to be treated with dignity, and to be allowed to live without fear of being diminished for who we are.

No society becomes stronger by narrowing the circle of who counts as fully human. It becomes stronger when that circle expands far enough to include people we do not fully understand, agree with, or resemble.

I am a Christian. I am a Soldier. I am a Heterosexual. I am a Human.

And I am an LGBTQIA+ ally.

###