Changes

The subject of [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality and the Bible]] is one in which the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations has historically been upheld. However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960's, continued attempts have been made to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same. This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]]. The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

The subject of [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality and the Bible]] is one in which the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations has historically been upheld. However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, continued attempts have been made to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same. This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]]. The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

This article primarily deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosexual polemics regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament, and the examination of its conclusions in the light of traditional/historical Biblical [[exegesis]], that of the explanation of a text, based upon proven principals of [[hermeneutics]],<ref>[http://www.theologue.org/HERMENEUTICS-DMERKEL.html Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation By Darryl M. Erkel]</ref> or rules of interpretation. See also [[New Testament and homosexuality]]

This article primarily deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosexual polemics regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament, and the examination of its conclusions in the light of traditional/historical Biblical [[exegesis]], that of the explanation of a text, based upon proven principals of [[hermeneutics]],<ref>[http://www.theologue.org/HERMENEUTICS-DMERKEL.html Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation By Darryl M. Erkel]</ref> or rules of interpretation. See also [[New Testament and homosexuality]]

</blockquote>  

</blockquote>  

It may be noted that homosexuals in general tend to have have a different view of God than the Biblical one, often indicated to be that of a pantheistic nature of deity which can refer to any of a variety of perspectives.<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights</ref> A few pro-homosexual apologists do present themselves as evangelical Christians, yet as with homosexual apologetics in general, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by them are seen as effectively allowing the negation of most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. (See [[Leviticus 18]].)

It may be noted that homosexuals in general tend to have a different view of God than the Biblical one, often indicated to be that of a pantheistic nature of deity which can refer to any of a variety of perspectives.<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights</ref> A few pro-homosexual apologists do present themselves as evangelical Christians, yet as with homosexual apologetics in general, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by them are seen as effectively allowing the negation of most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. (See [[Leviticus 18]].)

== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==

== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==

However, here some more extreme pro-homosexual apologists, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and sexual active, as in pagan nations.<ref>Faris Malik, "Eunuchs are Gay Men" (pro-homosexual)</ref> They then controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, in order to conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and holding that abstinence is unreasonable for such eunuchs, the pro-homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger (pro-homosexual)</ref>  

However, here some more extreme pro-homosexual apologists, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and sexual active, as in pagan nations.<ref>Faris Malik, "Eunuchs are Gay Men" (pro-homosexual)</ref> They then controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, in order to conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and holding that abstinence is unreasonable for such eunuchs, the pro-homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger (pro-homosexual)</ref>  

Is response it it argued that while it may be true that sometimes eunuchs could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> as the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, yet this does not require that such were homosexuals.<ref>http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Daniel1/less1.html</ref> (Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) And that the existence of sexually active homosexual eunuchs in pagan nations cannot provide sanction for such among the children of God, as both Israel and Christians are distinctly commanded not to like the pagans and unbelievers in practicing such behavior. (Lv. 18:24,27; Acts 17:30; Rm. 1:20-32; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19; 1Thes. 4:5; Titus 3:3; 1Pet. 1:14; 3:4,5) And which moral laws Jesus upheld, except to further intensify the Genesis marriage bond as regards is permanence. Therefore it is held that to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior as well as radically contradicting O.T. moral law and instituting homosexual marriage, is neither found warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>[http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D]</ref> As Gagnon notes, Not only in Scripture but ""every piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior."<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref>   

Is response it is argued that while it may be true that sometimes eunuchs could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> as the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, yet this does not require that such were homosexuals.<ref>http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Daniel1/less1.html</ref> (Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) And that the existence of sexually active homosexual eunuchs in pagan nations cannot provide sanction for such among the children of God, as both Israel and Christians are distinctly commanded not to like the pagans and unbelievers in practicing such behavior. (Lv. 18:24,27; Acts 17:30; Rm. 1:20-32; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19; 1Thes. 4:5; Titus 3:3; 1Pet. 1:14; 3:4,5) And which moral laws Jesus upheld, except to further intensify the Genesis marriage bond as regards is permanence. Therefore, it is held that to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior as well as radically contradicting O.T. moral law and instituting homosexual marriage, is neither found warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>[http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D]</ref> As Gagnon notes, Not only in Scripture but ""every piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior."<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref>   

Using established means of exegesis, it is further argued that the untenable nature of the pro homosexual argument is evident from the beginning and throughout.

Using established means of exegesis, it is further argued that the untenable nature of the pro homosexual argument is evident from the beginning and throughout.

Homosexual apologists sometimes contend that this abuse also was non-sexual, and they only wanted to kill the man by violent interrogation, but here again, that the crowd's desire to "know" the guest(s) was sexual is best indicated by the context and language. The only two choices for the manner of “knowing” are that the men wanted to non-sexually interrogate the men, or that they desired to know them sexually, both being in a violent way that could or would lead to death.  Again, rather than the word “know” (yâda‛) meaning gaining intimate personal knowledge by interrogation, it is clearly used is many places for gaining sexual knowledge by physical intimacy, as shown under the Gn. 19 section.  And as there, the offer of virgins by the resident host (who like Lot, would know what his fellow countrymen were after) is best understood as an offer of substitute bodies for immediate gratification by sex, even if it was abusively. This is in contrast to the idea that the offer of the women was for a pagan sacrifice, which is contrary to their response and th fact that the men of the city were Benjaminites (19:14;  20:4; cf. Josh. 18:24; 21:17).  The Levite did fear they would kill him (Jdg. 20:5), and the concubine did die, but not until after they “knew her, and abused her” and let her go (vs. 25-28). The Levite further stated that they “forced” (KJV) her, that she was dead (Jdg. 20:5).  He then states that they “committed lewdness and folly (same word as vile) in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6).  

Homosexual apologists sometimes contend that this abuse also was non-sexual, and they only wanted to kill the man by violent interrogation, but here again, that the crowd's desire to "know" the guest(s) was sexual is best indicated by the context and language. The only two choices for the manner of “knowing” are that the men wanted to non-sexually interrogate the men, or that they desired to know them sexually, both being in a violent way that could or would lead to death.  Again, rather than the word “know” (yâda‛) meaning gaining intimate personal knowledge by interrogation, it is clearly used is many places for gaining sexual knowledge by physical intimacy, as shown under the Gn. 19 section.  And as there, the offer of virgins by the resident host (who like Lot, would know what his fellow countrymen were after) is best understood as an offer of substitute bodies for immediate gratification by sex, even if it was abusively. This is in contrast to the idea that the offer of the women was for a pagan sacrifice, which is contrary to their response and th fact that the men of the city were Benjaminites (19:14;  20:4; cf. Josh. 18:24; 21:17).  The Levite did fear they would kill him (Jdg. 20:5), and the concubine did die, but not until after they “knew her, and abused her” and let her go (vs. 25-28). The Levite further stated that they “forced” (KJV) her, that she was dead (Jdg. 20:5).  He then states that they “committed lewdness and folly (same word as vile) in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6).  

    

    

Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.  

Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544, 48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.  

Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. Even prohomosex author Robin Scroggs also concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75</ref>   

Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. Even prohomosex author Robin Scroggs also concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75</ref>   

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of the holy love of God. Verse 7 come after examples of men and angels who went backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)   

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of the holy love of God. Verse 7 come after examples of men and angels who went backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)   

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but also Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of  “ek,”  denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and  “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom in Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, most homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the primary physical sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that it was because women sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels,<ref>Bailey, pp. 11-16; Boswell, p. 97</ref> perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the apocryphal book of Enoch.  However, if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, or if Enochian legends are being alluded to,<ref>there are sound reasons for the Book of Enoch being rejected from the Jewish canon, the Septuagint and Vulgate, and the Apocrypha (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm), including tales of approx. 443 foot height angelic offspring, or angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys, (86:1-5) if taken literally</ref> then it is about them going after the daughters of men, not the other way around. And if homosexual advocates must give the Book of Enoch more veracity above the portion which Jude uses,<ref>or simply Enoch. Jude would be following the Biblical practice of quoting an inspired utterance from a source that is not wholly inspired, just as Paul did in quoting a pagan prophet (Acts 17:28)</ref>  then its condemnation of "sodomitic" sex (10:3; 34:1)<ref>http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/enoch/2enoch01-68.htm</ref> indicates that was the prevalent sin of Sodom. As Jude connects the judgment of Sodom with their going after strange flesh, then the connection to Gn. 19 is intimated. Additional evidence indicative of Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-7,10 possessing a homoerotic dimension is found in the nearest parallels in early extra Biblical Jewish texts:  Philo of Alexandria (Abraham 133-41; Questions on Genesis 4.37), Josephus (Antiquities 1.194-95, 200-201; Jewish War 4.483-5; 5.566) and the Testament of Naphtali (3:4).<ref>Robert  A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice pp. 87-89.</ref>

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but also Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of  “ek,”  denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and  “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom in Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, most homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the primary physical sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that it was because women sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels,<ref>Bailey, pp. 11-16; Boswell, p. 97</ref> perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the apocryphal book of Enoch.  However, if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, or if Enochian legends are being alluded to,<ref>there are sound reasons for the Book of Enoch being rejected from the Jewish canon, the Septuagint and Vulgate, and the Apocrypha (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm), including tales of approx. 443 foot height angelic offspring, or angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys, (86:1-5) if taken literally</ref> then it is about them going after the daughters of men, not the other way around. And if homosexual advocates must give the Book of Enoch more veracity above the portion which Jude uses,<ref>or simply Enoch. Jude would be following the Biblical practice of quoting an inspired utterance from a source that is not wholly inspired, just as Paul did in quoting a pagan prophet (Acts 17:28)</ref>  then its condemnation of "sodomitic" sex (10:3; 34:1)<ref>http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/enoch/2enoch01-68.htm</ref> indicates that was the prevalent sin of Sodom. As Jude connects the judgment of Sodom with their going after strange flesh, then the connection to Gn. 19 is intimated. Additional evidence indicative of Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-7,10 possessing a homoerotic dimension is found in the nearest parallels in early extra Biblical Jewish texts:  Philo of Alexandria (Abraham 133-41; Questions on Genesis 4.37), Josephus (Antiquities 1.194-95, 200-201; Jewish War 4.483-5; 5.566) and the Testament of Naphtali (3:4).<ref>Robert  A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice pp. 87-89.</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>  

Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (akin to “team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref><ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref> though even pro-homosexual author Robin A. Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>

Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (akin to “team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref><ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref> though even pro-homosexual author Robin A. Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>

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

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

However, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text is shown to evidence that it is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to the such things being abominable for Israel (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for  abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. (vs. 27,29) As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16, etc.)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>

However, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text is shown to evidence that it is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to the such things being abominable for Israel (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for  abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. (vs. 27,29) As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16, etc.)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>

Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā

Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā

    

    

*1. idolatry or idols (Dt. 7:25,26; 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7; 23:13; 2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 44:19)

*1. idolatry or idols (Dt. 7:25,26; 13, 2&nbsp;kg. 21:2-7; 23:13; 2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 44:19)

*2. empty, vain worship (Is. 1:13)

*2. empty, vain worship (Is. 1:13)

*3. witchcraft; occultism (Dt. 18:9-12)

*3. witchcraft; occultism (Dt. 18:9-12)

*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)

*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)

*7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:26,27,29,30; 20:13)

*7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:26,27,29,30; 20:13)

*8. temple prostitution (1Kg. 14:24; 21:2,11)

*8. temple prostitution (1&nbsp;kg. 14:24; 21:2,11)

*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)

*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)

*10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)

*10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)

===Psychologically based polemics===

===Psychologically based polemics===

An even more imaginative psychologically based argument on Lv. 20:13 is advanced by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who renders that to only forbid male with male intercourse when they pretend one is a women, and or that this verse is really mandating a parallel set of institutions for dealing with male with male sex.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm</ref>  That this is a egregious example of "wresting" of Scriptures (cf. 2Pet. 3:16) should be obvious, but such is evidenced elsewhere in prohomosex apologetics. In no place do emotions or imaginations, motives or mental attitude play a part in the prohibitions of sex with illicit partners, whereas when it does within laws regarding marriage (Dt. 24:3; Num. 6:12-31) or killing (Dt. 19:11,12) then it is made explicit. Likewise, the idea that a fundamental prohibition against male homosex, which is manifestly contrary to what God has sanctioned and established by design and decree, is somehow mandating a like means of sanction for it, is seen as utterly without warrant. And that is makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent authority for even basic human behavior.  

An even more imaginative psychologically based argument on Lv. 20:13 is advanced by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who renders that to only forbid male with male intercourse when they pretend one is a women, and or that this verse is really mandating a parallel set of institutions for dealing with male with male sex.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm</ref>  That this is an egregious example of "wresting" of Scriptures (cf. 2Pet. 3:16) should be obvious, but such is evidenced elsewhere in prohomosex apologetics. In no place do emotions or imaginations, motives or mental attitude play a part in the prohibitions of sex with illicit partners, whereas when it does within laws regarding marriage (Dt. 24:3; Num. 6:12-31) or killing (Dt. 19:11,12) then it is made explicit. Likewise, the idea that a fundamental prohibition against male homosex, which is manifestly contrary to what God has sanctioned and established by design and decree, is somehow mandating a like means of sanction for it, is seen as utterly without warrant. And that is makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent authority for even basic human behavior.  

Nor is it indicated that "as he lieth with a woman" is making a distinction between an effeminate versus masculine internal disposition of the partner. Rather the simile and euphemism serves to identify the sexual nature (intercourse) of laying down, and would distinguish it from simply sharing the same real estate to lay down on, as with women.

Nor is it indicated that "as he lieth with a woman" is making a distinction between an effeminate versus masculine internal disposition of the partner. Rather the simile and euphemism serves to identify the sexual nature (intercourse) of laying down, and would distinguish it from simply sharing the same real estate to lay down on, as with women.

*3. All sex outside marriage is classed as fornication, and outlawed marriage partners are determined by a violation of marriage bond (adultery), or of nearness of kin (incest), or of nearness of kind (homosex), as well as being other than humankind (bestiality). These prohibitions are based upon what God has joined together, (Mt. 19:4-6), which incest being added later, and upheld in the N.T. (1Cor. 5:1) showing a progression toward greater strictness, not lesser.   

*3. All sex outside marriage is classed as fornication, and outlawed marriage partners are determined by a violation of marriage bond (adultery), or of nearness of kin (incest), or of nearness of kind (homosex), as well as being other than humankind (bestiality). These prohibitions are based upon what God has joined together, (Mt. 19:4-6), which incest being added later, and upheld in the N.T. (1Cor. 5:1) showing a progression toward greater strictness, not lesser.   

* 4. Motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<ref>Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify  an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34; Mk. 7:21-23).  

* 4. Motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<ref>Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify  an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc., and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34; Mk. 7:21-23).  

* 5. Lv. 18:22 finds no abrogation elsewhere, nor is the Biblical context (marriage) established in which the practice of homosex is sanctified, as is explicitly provided for heterosexual relations, but which provision is likewise absent for illicit unions such as adultery and bestiality. Nor does the allowance or the use of polygamy, concubines or Levirate marriage set a precedent for homosexual marriage, as the only variance with the Genesis original is in the number of times a man takes a wife, not the gender of the wife, which is clearly manifest

* 5. Lv. 18:22 finds no abrogation elsewhere, nor is the Biblical context (marriage) established in which the practice of homosex is sanctified, as is explicitly provided for heterosexual relations, but which provision is likewise absent for illicit unions such as adultery and bestiality. Nor does the allowance or the use of polygamy, concubines or Levirate marriage set a precedent for homosexual marriage, as the only variance with the Genesis original is in the number of times a man takes a wife, not the gender of the wife, which is clearly manifest