Changes

As regards zimmâh, unlike ''tōʻēḇā'', this word is not not often used for specific sexual sins, but is generally seen in reference to sexual "lewdness," (Jdg. 20:6; Jer.13:27, Eze. 16:43, 58; 22:9; 23:21,27,29,35,48-49; Eze. 24:13; Hos. 6:9). It  often is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ). Yet is not always used for all universal sexual sins, and the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such.   

As regards zimmâh, unlike ''tōʻēḇā'', this word is not not often used for specific sexual sins, but is generally seen in reference to sexual "lewdness," (Jdg. 20:6; Jer.13:27, Eze. 16:43, 58; 22:9; 23:21,27,29,35,48-49; Eze. 24:13; Hos. 6:9). It  often is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ). Yet is not always used for all universal sexual sins, and the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such.   

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there practices which evidently are a direct expression of idolatry - formal or of the heart - such as sex with illicit partners, versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited as a class under the N.T.  (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mar. 7:21; Joh. 8:41; Act. 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3;  Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)  

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there practices which evidently are a direct expression of idolatry - formal or of the heart - such as sex with illicit partners, versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited as a class under the N.T.  (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3;  Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)  

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.

However, extensive examination reveals that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are primarily used to differentiate between male and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only  special significance it provides. These word provide a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile.

However, extensive examination reveals that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are primarily used to differentiate between male and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only  special significance it provides. These word provide a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile.

Other prohomosex polemicists contend that Lev. 20:13 only prohibits actual male intercourse, while also not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93;  by Steven Greenberg</ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, Palestinian Judaism Scroggs  

Other prohomosex polemicists contend that Lev. 20:13 only prohibits actual male intercourse, while also not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93;  by Steven Greenberg</ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, Palestinian Judaism Scroggs</ref>

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.   

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.