Side A and Side B are the two main positions gay and lesbian Christians land on regarding same-sex relationships. Side A affirms same-sex marriage, holding that Scripture's traditional teaching on sexual ethics doesn't rule out loving, committed same-sex relationships. Side B holds the traditional teaching, that marriage is between a man and a woman, while fully welcoming gay and lesbian people as equal members of the family of God.
That's the short version. If you're trying to figure out which camp a church, a ministry, or a person you know falls into, that question is the fastest way to sort it. The rest of this post is about what separates the two positions more carefully, and where people often get the comparison wrong.
Both start from the same place
It's worth saying clearly: Side A and Side B are not the difference between people who take the Bible seriously and people who don't. Both positions are held by Christians who affirm Scripture's authority, who've studied the relevant passages closely, and who are trying to be faithful to what they believe God is actually saying. The disagreement isn't about whether Scripture matters. It's about what a handful of specific passages, mainly in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, are teaching, and how those passages should be applied.
Side A Christians aren't reading past Scripture or setting it aside. They're interpreting it differently, often arguing that the biblical authors were addressing specific practices like exploitation, temple prostitution, or pederasty rather than committed, consensual same-sex relationships as we understand them today, and that the broader biblical themes of covenant faithfulness and self-giving love can extend to same-sex couples. That's an interpretive case, made by serious scholars, not a dismissal of the text.
Side B Christians read the same passages and conclude the prohibition is broader than any one ancient practice, that it reflects a consistent creational pattern running from Genesis through the rest of Scripture, and that the traditional understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman still stands. This is also an interpretive case, made by serious scholars, not a reflex or a refusal to engage.
There's another way to frame the disagreement, since it's often what's underneath the exegesis on both sides. Side A's case tends to focus on ruling out the traditional prohibition texts, arguing they don't actually describe committed same-sex relationships as we understand them today. Side B's case looks at the question from the other direction: it asks what kind of relationships Scripture positively blesses, and notes that in every place Scripture depicts God blessing a covenant sexual relationship, it's between a man and a woman. Side B reads that consistent pattern, not just the absence of a clear exception, as meaningful in its own right.
Where the real differences show up
The interpretive question is the root of it, but it shows up downstream in a few concrete ways.
On relationships. Side A affirms same-sex marriage as a legitimate context for sexual intimacy, on the same theological footing as opposite-sex marriage. Side B holds that sexual intimacy belongs within marriage between a man and a woman, which means a same-sex relationship, however loving and committed, isn't something Side B affirms as a marriage in the biblical sense.
On what's asked of gay and lesbian Christians. Side A doesn't ask anything different of gay and lesbian Christians than it asks of straight Christians: pursue a faithful, monogamous marriage if you're called to one. Side B asks gay and lesbian Christians who hold this conviction to forgo a marriage aligned with their own attraction, which, as we've written elsewhere on this site, is a real and often lifelong sacrifice, not a minor inconvenience. That's the sharpest practical difference between the two positions, and it's worth naming plainly rather than glossing over.
On identity language. Both sides generally affirm that using the word gay to describe one's orientation is fine. Where they can differ is on emphasis. Side A tends to treat sexual orientation as simply one true and good part of who a person is. Side B tends to hold orientation more loosely, as a real experience but not a defining identity, though there's real diversity within Side B on how much weight to put on this.
What they share, and why that matters
Despite the real disagreement, Side A and Side B usually share more common ground than either side gets credit for. Both affirm that gay and lesbian people are made in the image of God. Both reject conversion therapy and the idea that orientation can or should be prayed away (Side X). Both believe gay and lesbian Christians belong fully in the church, not as a special category to be managed but as full members of the body. Both are responding, in their own way, to real damage done by churches that got the posture wrong, whether that meant treating gay people as a project, a threat, or an afterthought.
That shared ground is why soulintension, as a Side B ministry, doesn't treat this as an argument to win. The people most often caught in the middle of this debate, gay and lesbian Christians trying to figure out how to be faithful, and their families trying to figure out how to love them well, deserve better than watching two camps talk past each other. They deserve an honest account of where the real disagreement is, without either side pretending the other hasn't done the work.
If you're trying to figure out where you land
This isn't a decision you need to make today, and it isn't one you need to make alone. If you're gay or lesbian and still working through what you believe about your own life and relationships, that's a real process, and rushing to a conclusion because you feel pressure from one side or the other isn't the way through it. Talk to people who hold each position seriously. Read the exegetical arguments rather than just the online shorthand. And know that wherever you land, or if you're still in the middle of figuring it out, you're welcome here.