Changes

Others contend or postulate that the grammar in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 indicates only a prohibition of actual male intercourse, and only condemns the active party, not the passive one, with procreation being causative of the injunction, and or being due to the need for male dominance, but not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93, by Steven Greenberg</ref> Or that it only targets coercive male intercourse<ref>A Time to Embrace, Stacy Johnson</ref>

Others contend or postulate that the grammar in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 indicates only a prohibition of actual male intercourse, and only condemns the active party, not the passive one, with procreation being causative of the injunction, and or being due to the need for male dominance, but not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93, by Steven Greenberg</ref> Or that it only targets coercive male intercourse<ref>A Time to Embrace, Stacy Johnson</ref>

The focus here is on the words, ''îysh'' (man) ''shâkab'' (lieth) ''êth'' (with) ''zâkâr'' (mankind) ''mishkâb'' (lieth) '''ishshâh'' ''nâshîym'' (women), with mishkâb, usually meaning ''bed'', being restricted to only intercourse. And while that specific action (cf. Num. 31:17–18,35; Judges 21:11–12) is prohibited, yet to restrict "the "bed of love" (Ezek. 23:17; cf. 7:17) to only actual intercourse would appear to be too narrow. It is inconceivable that euphemisms such as "uncover the nakedness, or "lieth with", only forbid adulterous or incestuous intercourse while allowing all else, even if they may be seen as a lesser degree of eroticism. Though the sin of Reuben was that he went up to his father's bed (Gn. 49:4) inferring adultery/incest with his mother, certainly lesser forms of eroticism would not be sanctioned. Gagnon concludes that the idea that ancient Israel would have accepted other aspects of male with male erotic sex is preposterous, which apparently even Johnson is compelled to admit.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasonsCritique.pdf More Reasons Why Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace Should Not Be Embraced: Part II]</ref><ref>"God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? - by Robert Gagnon</ref>  

The focus here is on the words, ''îysh'' (man) ''shâkab'' (lieth) ''êth'' (with) ''zâkâr'' (mankind) ''mishkâb'' (lieth) '''ishshâh'' ''nâshîym'' (women), with mishkâb, usually meaning ''bed'', being restricted to only intercourse. And while that specific action (cf. Num. 31:17–18,35; Judges 21:11–12) is prohibited, yet to restrict "the "bed of love" (Ezek. 23:17; cf. 7:17) to only actual intercourse would appear to be too narrow. It is inconceivable that euphemisms such as "uncover the nakedness, or "lieth with" (''shâkab'', ''‛im'', which term occurs 160 times, and with one exception (Hos. 2:18) is always used for sex, or for dying), only forbid adulterous or incestuous intercourse while allowing all else, even if they may be seen as a lesser degree of eroticism. Though the sin of Reuben was that he went up to his father's bed (Gn. 49:4) inferring adultery/incest with his mother, certainly lesser forms of eroticism would not be sanctioned. Gagnon concludes that the idea that ancient Israel would have accepted other aspects of male with male erotic sex is preposterous, which apparently even Johnson is compelled to admit.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasonsCritique.pdf More Reasons Why Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace Should Not Be Embraced: Part II]</ref><ref>"God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? - by Robert Gagnon</ref>  

As regards the idea that only the active partner is targeted in 18:22, as is seen in such places as Dt. 22:22-27, simply because the man is specified does not mean the recipient is not culpable, but a distinction is made in jurisprudence when the latter is not. In contrast, in Lv. 20:13 both parties are presented as culpable. Likewise in verses before and after 20:13 the male is specified though it addresses a consensual act (Lv. 20:10-12,14)

As regards the idea that only the active partner is targeted in 18:22, as is seen in such places as Dt. 22:22-27, simply because the man is specified does not mean the recipient is not culpable, but a distinction is made in jurisprudence when the latter is not. In contrast, in Lv. 20:13 both parties are presented as culpable. Likewise in verses before and after 20:13 the male is specified though it addresses a consensual act (Lv. 20:10-12,14)