Changes

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref>  In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].   

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref>  In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].   

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God  made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions or behavioral conditions.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God  made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions or behavioral conditions.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture must view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>  While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while forcing homosexuality into most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture must view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>  While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while forcing homosexuality into most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref> <ref>"No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, advocated removing them from the canon as "dangerous".<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, with homosex being revealed to be a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making the God of the Bible into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, advocated removing them from the canon as "dangerous".<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, with homosex being revealed to be a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making the God of the Bible into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==

(Gen 2:18-24)  "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

(Gen 2:18-24)  "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

The Biblical texts primarily subjected to prohomosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and aptly enough, (Gn. 3:1-5) this begins in Genesis. Beginning in Gn. 2, attempts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (and which, by implication, would also include animals). However, it is evident that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. It was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.<ref>Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991 http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html</ref>  

The Biblical texts primarily subjected to prohomosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and aptly enough, (Gn. 3:1-5) this begins in Genesis. Beginning in Gn. 2, attempts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (and which, by implication, would also include animals). However, it is evident that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. It was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991]</ref>  

The Lord Jesus affirmed this opposite gender union in Matthew 19:  

The Lord Jesus affirmed this opposite gender union in Matthew 19:  

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man sexually, in marriage. “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man sexually, in marriage. “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref>  However, this relegation of the purpose of marriage to being simply for procreation, or dependent upon such, and it's desired conclusions are found to be untenable. Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship",<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being injected into the orifice of man designed only for waste to comes out, is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and his precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref>  That women are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship. <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>   

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref>  However, this relegation of the purpose of marriage to being simply for procreation, or dependent upon such, and it's desired conclusions are found to be untenable. Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship",<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal]</ref> the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being injected into the orifice of man designed only for waste to comes out, is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and his precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref>  That women are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship. <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>   

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref>

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref>

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

    

    

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive." Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural" <ref>

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive."<ref>Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural"</ref> The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12</ref>

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."   

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."   

{12} And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: {13} For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

{12} And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: {13} For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak, http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation  to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak, http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation  to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding]</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6;  6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing).  As for “Iyish” [H376]  this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.   

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6;  6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing).  As for “Iyish” [H376]  this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.   

Thus, while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.  

Thus, while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.  

The next word in contention, ''yâda‛'' (H3045) is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yada as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning is clear enough, but homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then it's use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. However, while forced sex is mentioned elsewhere (2 Sam. 13:1-14), violent interrogation itself is not evident in the Scriptures, and "yâda‛" is never used to denote gaining information by such means, unless  Jdg. 19:25 (the parallel account to Gn. 19) is made to convey such, but interrogation is hardly conveyed by “they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning”. (Jdg. 19:25). Even the use of  "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), but  "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, in addition to Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New, to denote knowing sexually: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another likely instance, and of a non-consensual homosexual act, is in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis, http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref>  

The next word in contention, ''yâda‛'' (H3045) is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yada as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning is clear enough, but homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then it's use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. However, while forced sex is mentioned elsewhere (2 Sam. 13:1-14), violent interrogation itself is not evident in the Scriptures, and "yâda‛" is never used to denote gaining information by such means, unless  Jdg. 19:25 (the parallel account to Gn. 19) is made to convey such, but interrogation is hardly conveyed by “they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning”. (Jdg. 19:25). Even the use of  "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), but  "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, in addition to Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New, to denote knowing sexually: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another likely instance, and of a non-consensual homosexual act, is in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis]</ref>  

The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into."  Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,<ref>(Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460),</ref> as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek <ref>(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334).</ref>  Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'<ref>(Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366),</ref> 'homosexual intercourse'<ref>(Botterweck, 5:464),</ref> and 'crimes against nature',<ref>(Gesenius, p. 334).</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into."  Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,<ref>(Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460),</ref> as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek <ref>(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334).</ref>  Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'<ref>(Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366),</ref> 'homosexual intercourse'<ref>(Botterweck, 5:464),</ref> and 'crimes against nature',<ref>(Gesenius, p. 334).</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10).  Heteros could easily refer to "other than normal,  lawful or right," as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this, and is the real issue, not angels, as some suppose. Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10).  Heteros could easily refer to "other than normal,  lawful or right," as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this, and is the real issue, not angels, as some suppose. Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

Some assert that Jude is referring to the Sodomites seeking sex with angels,<ref>W. Countryman</ref> but that is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was an ongoing and regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Gagnon contends, "Not only is it not required by the wording of the Greek text that ekporneusasai (“having committed sexual immorality”) refer exclusively to copulation with angels, there are also at least six indications that ekporneusasai alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7 http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm</ref> Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary physical sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that it was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and but which attempt positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.

Some assert that Jude is referring to the Sodomites seeking sex with angels,<ref>W. Countryman</ref> but that is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was an ongoing and regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Gagnon contends, "Not only is it not required by the wording of the Greek text that ekporneusasai (“having committed sexual immorality”) refer exclusively to copulation with angels, there are also at least six indications that ekporneusasai alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7]</ref> Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary physical sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that it was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and but which attempt positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.

== Ezekiel 16:49 and inhospitality texts ==

== Ezekiel 16:49 and inhospitality texts ==

However, a crossover between categories is evident, and perhaps more as part what have been referred to as “culturally applied laws,”<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html Does Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Flat-Out Condemn Homosexuality?. J. P Holding]</ref>  are religiously based law which target certain practices which were a direct expression of formal idolatry and superstition, from temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), to child sacrifices to a specific idol, to cutting oneself for the dead, (Lv. 19:28) as well as lesser practices which had become distinctive of paganism, such as certain ways of cutting one's hair or beard a strange way (Lv. 19:27) or planting trees near the tabernacle. (Dt. 16:21) These prohibitions are not typological in nature, yet not all of them are unconditionally wrong, as is determined by foundational moral laws upon which they are based. While the practice of prostitution is wrong in any context, as is child sacrifice to any false god, things such as how one cuts his beard is has little to warrant it being more than being only be contextually wrong. Boswell's error in this regard is that he lists temple prostitution in Dt. 23:17 and 1Ki. 14:24, as well as child sacrifice to idols (2Ki. 16:3) as mere "ritual impurity.<ref>ibid pg. 100; The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979</ref> However, both the proscribed practices of prostitution and literal child sacrifice are wrong in any context (unless Judge 11 is seen as sanctioning the latter to God, and as a practice).  

However, a crossover between categories is evident, and perhaps more as part what have been referred to as “culturally applied laws,”<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html Does Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Flat-Out Condemn Homosexuality?. J. P Holding]</ref>  are religiously based law which target certain practices which were a direct expression of formal idolatry and superstition, from temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), to child sacrifices to a specific idol, to cutting oneself for the dead, (Lv. 19:28) as well as lesser practices which had become distinctive of paganism, such as certain ways of cutting one's hair or beard a strange way (Lv. 19:27) or planting trees near the tabernacle. (Dt. 16:21) These prohibitions are not typological in nature, yet not all of them are unconditionally wrong, as is determined by foundational moral laws upon which they are based. While the practice of prostitution is wrong in any context, as is child sacrifice to any false god, things such as how one cuts his beard is has little to warrant it being more than being only be contextually wrong. Boswell's error in this regard is that he lists temple prostitution in Dt. 23:17 and 1Ki. 14:24, as well as child sacrifice to idols (2Ki. 16:3) as mere "ritual impurity.<ref>ibid pg. 100; The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979</ref> However, both the proscribed practices of prostitution and literal child sacrifice are wrong in any context (unless Judge 11 is seen as sanctioning the latter to God, and as a practice).  

    

    

The Bible makes basic categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually, <ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfil the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being abundantly prohibited in 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,<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)

The Bible makes basic categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja]</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually,<ref>[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfil the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being abundantly prohibited in 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,<ref>["http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel (ICR)]</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)

===Grammatical, categorical and cultural  polemics===

===Grammatical, categorical and cultural  polemics===

====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh====  

====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh====  

Boswell and most others promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translation ''abomination'' to describe men laying with men as with women, seldom  refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics.  Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his revisionist position.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47 http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html</ref>  

Boswell and most others promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translation ''abomination'' to describe men laying with men as with women, seldom  refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics.  Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his revisionist position.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47 [http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to

Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref>  

Instead, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref>  like laws against unclean foods, or strange haircuts, simply enacted because they were a distinctive practice of idolatry.

Instead, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref>  like laws against unclean foods, or strange haircuts, simply enacted because they were a distinctive practice of idolatry.

* 7. Attempts to relegate 18:22 and 20:13 to only temple idolatry are unwarranted, as the grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural immutable commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh. Homosex is structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, one's own gender.<ref>Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"?</ref> To restrict v. 22 to only targeting male temple prostitution is unwarranted like as doing the same to Lv. 19:29 is.  

* 7. Attempts to relegate 18:22 and 20:13 to only temple idolatry are unwarranted, as the grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural immutable commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh. Homosex is structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, one's own gender.<ref>Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"?</ref> To restrict v. 22 to only targeting male temple prostitution is unwarranted like as doing the same to Lv. 19:29 is.  

* 8. When homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is possibly targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“with dogs” likely referring  to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality."<ref>Greg Bahnsen p 45</ref> Though some argue that there is no evidence to suggest these texts even refer to Canaanite cultic practices<ref>Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf</ref>

* 8. When homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is possibly targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“with dogs” likely referring  to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality."<ref>Greg Bahnsen p 45</ref> Though some argue that there is no evidence to suggest these texts even refer to Canaanite cultic practices<ref>[http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith]</ref>

* 9. While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws. The attempt to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22  due to the culturally specific aspect of v. 21  (child sacrifice to Molech) fails, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistent with the hermeneutic behind their categorical argument, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery).

* 9. While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws. The attempt to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22  due to the culturally specific aspect of v. 21  (child sacrifice to Molech) fails, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistent with the hermeneutic behind their categorical argument, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery).