pretty lenient on homosexuality

Whoa there! It's true that illustrations depicting homosexuality abound before the 19th Century, but the suggestion that China has been a traditionally pro-gay society, even before heavy Western influence, is a serious overstatement. Emperor Kangxi (ruled 1661-1722) disowned his son for his homosexual relations with court officials (although admittedly the fact that they were court officials could well have been the more serious issue at stake). (Spence, 1974)

But to directly address the question, the answer (at least from my perspective) is perhaps one of the least (ostensibly) satisfying but most important answers one can give. We don't know.

At least, not really, and not at the moment. Internal documents remaining from the Taiping are chiefly edicts and policy pronouncements – hardly the most enlightening sources of social attitudes. Any answer is probably a stab in the dark, but I think it might be possible to orient this stab in the correct general direction.

The Taiping probably saw themselves to some extent as restorers of moral decency. At the very least there was an official ban on alcohol, gambling and the smoking of opium. (Spence, 1996) At the more extreme levels, they were destroying an institution – the empire itself – that was inherently blasphemous and restoring a better China. (Reilly, 2004) However, ignoring the latter (indeed, it is more of a theological and/or constitutional than a social issue) we must ask the question of how far the Taiping actually enforced their moral policy. The answer is 'basically not much'. Platt (2012) notes that the opium trade in southern China failed to be severely affected by the ostensible Taiping ban on its use, whilst Spence (1996) recounts the possession of a secret stash of alcohol by a man providing lodgings for Western volunteers in the capital of Nanjing. If, then, the Taiping opposed homosexuality moralistically, this would probably only have been an official stance and not necessarily enforced voluntarily, assuming, of course, that the Taiping were introducing a radical element.

We do know, beyond issues of general moralising, that the Taiping leadership was less than fond of sexual licentiousness. Until 1856 (when presumably the policy simply became unmanageable) the Heavenly Kingdom was entirely gender-segregated, with husbands and wives forcibly separated during that period. The desire for segregation appears to have not been purely for sexual reasons, however, as it was so extreme that Hong's son, Hong Tianguifu, apparently did not have any contact with any of his female family member at all after the age of seven, and the palace women were trained to perform the administrative tasks necessary themselves to as to save them from male contact. (Spence, 1996) Now, gender segregation does nothing to stop homosexual activity, but that's about where the evidence ends. Equality between the sexes had been established, at least legislatively – women soldiers were more commonplace in the early stages of the rebellion than the latter, but more due to the notable strategic issue of foot-binding – but of course this should not be extrapolated to tolerance of homosexuality. Still, given the ultimately laissez-faire attitude towards the Taiping's other moral policies and the tacit admission of the segregation policy's failure, we could theoretically say that homosexuality existed but was overlooked or considered unimportant.

However, a crucial element being overlooked is the Bible. Hong Xiuquan eventually edited and published most of the Bible, including Leviticus, which is the only Old Testament book to directly impose punishment for homosexuality. Given Hong's focus on the Ten Commandments as the core laws of the Kingdom, however, it's possible that Leviticus' proclamations were ignored. The New Testament books mentioning homosexuality – Romans, Corinthians and Timothy – generally do so quite vaguely, so again quite probably had little effect on popular thought. It must be granted that there were Bibles beyond the Taiping annotated editions – Gutzlaff's translation was used in place of the Confucian classics as the basis for examinations during the first years of the Nanjing administration – but given that the Bible as a whole only mentions homosexuality seven times in five books (and five of these mentions are quite contentious anyway) it could be said that Biblical influence on attitudes about sexuality was minimal.

At best, we can conclude that:

• Homosexuality, if opposed officially, was probably practiced anyway without serious reprisals, especially later in the rebellion;
• If opposed at all, it was probably more as part of an anti-sexual programme generally rather than a specifically anti-gay agenda; and
• The influence of anti-homosexual mentions in the Bible was almost certainly quite small.

I must end with a slight caveat. I have yet to read Tobie Meyer-Fong's What Remains (2013), which is a social history of the Taiping Rebellion from the perspective of rural communities on the front lines (although it happens to be in delivery as I write this), but based on the chapter headings it appears that discussion of attitudes towards homosexuality will not form much of a section, if it is mentioned at all. Again, I would say that this is almost certainly due to a lack of remaining primary evidence, so don't be too bummed out. I hope I've given as satisfactory a response as I can.