Changes

While these explicitly condemn male homosex and are presented as general commands, and given to all Israel, these commands have relatively recently become the subject of intense attack by prohomosex polemicists. While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibited homosex.  

While these explicitly condemn male homosex and are presented as general commands, and given to all Israel, these commands have relatively recently become the subject of intense attack by prohomosex polemicists. While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibited homosex.  

Most of these prohomosex writers usually first assert that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' for ''abomination'', which describes male sex with men here, does not usually signify something inherently evil, like adultery or theft,  but something which is ceremonially unclean for Jews, such as the dietary laws. (Lv. 11).<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><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>  The Hebrew word “zimmâh” (Lv. 19:29) is instead sometimes suggested as the word which would be used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not intrinsically evil.

Most of these prohomosex writers usually first assert that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' for ''abomination'', which describes male sex with men here, does not usually signify something inherently evil, like adultery or theft,  but something which is ceremonially unclean for Jews, such as the dietary laws. (Lv. 11).<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><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>  The Hebrew word “zimmâh” (Lv. 19:29) is instead sometimes suggested as the word which would be used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not intrinsically evil.

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosex only prohibit pagan temple prostitution, or were only concerned with the waste of sperm, though even noted prohomosex author Robin Scroggs  thinks the latter explanations to be form of conjecture which are best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>, rather being a universal and transcedent injunction such as the other laws against illicit partners are.  

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosex only prohibit pagan temple prostitution, or were only concerned with the waste of sperm, though even noted prohomosex author Robin Scroggs  thinks the latter explanations to be form of conjecture which are best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>, rather being a universal and transcedent injunction such as the other laws against illicit partners are.