Changes

The issue then becomes that which Boswell and company originally argue, which is that the Levitical laws against male homosex only pertain to a cultic context. However, this requires relegating only one of many laws against illicit sex to a cultic context, when the language and structure is general, and disallows a categorical significance for a second but distinctively religious injunction against homosex, which all prohomsex efforts to warrant such come critically short. In addition, if only the prostitutional or idolatrous aspect is wrong, it would postulate that physical ceremonial temple sex is contextually allowable, rather than such ceremonial sex always being an expression of idolatry. Yet Scripture offer no support for this, must less for ceremonial homosex, despite specious attempts by certain authors. Nor does the Bible provided the sanction of homosex marriage, which it desperately requires, considering the depth of the exclusivity of the male/female union consistently established in the Bible, which homosex intrinsically opposes.     

The issue then becomes that which Boswell and company originally argue, which is that the Levitical laws against male homosex only pertain to a cultic context. However, this requires relegating only one of many laws against illicit sex to a cultic context, when the language and structure is general, and disallows a categorical significance for a second but distinctively religious injunction against homosex, which all prohomsex efforts to warrant such come critically short. In addition, if only the prostitutional or idolatrous aspect is wrong, it would postulate that physical ceremonial temple sex is contextually allowable, rather than such ceremonial sex always being an expression of idolatry. Yet Scripture offer no support for this, must less for ceremonial homosex, despite specious attempts by certain authors. Nor does the Bible provided the sanction of homosex marriage, which it desperately requires, considering the depth of the exclusivity of the male/female union consistently established in the Bible, which homosex intrinsically opposes.     

The choice of the word ''Sodomite'' to denote homosexual prostitutes is itself fitting, as often words both come from and or are translated into terms that denote what they are associated with. The name ''Sodom'' itself means ''burnt'', evidently referring to the judgment of the city, while the word ''whore'' is thought to be derived from a European girl, named Arlotta (or Arletta, also known as Arlette, Herlève and Herleva) who fornicated with Robert, duke of Normandy, and to whom William The Conqueror is believed to have been born<ref>Adam Clarke, commentary, Gn. 34:31</ref><ref>http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579147/William_I_(of_England).html</ref> Likewise homosexuals themselves have appropriated "gay and "queer" to refer to themselves.  

The choice of the word ''Sodomite'' to denote homosexual prostitutes is itself fitting, as often words both come from and or are translated into terms that denote what they are associated with. The name ''Sodom'' itself means ''burnt'', evidently referring to the judgment of the city, while the word ''harlot'' (KJV) is thought to be derived from a European girl, named Arlotta (or Arletta, also known as Arlette, Herlève and Herleva) who fornicated with Robert, duke of Normandy, and to whom William The Conqueror is believed to have been born<ref>Adam Clarke, commentary, Gn. 34:31</ref><ref>http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579147/William_I_(of_England).html</ref> Likewise homosexuals themselves have appropriated "gay and "queer" to refer to themselves.

 

=== Summation ===

=== Summation ===