Changes

===Other grammatical and categorical attempts===

===Other grammatical and categorical attempts===

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>

Some pro-homosexuals apologists, such as Stacy Johnson, 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'', which the pro-homosexual being restrict to only intercourse. Countering this is the traditionalists response which argues that while that intercourse is prohibited, (cf. Num. 31:17–18,35; Judges 21:11–12)  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 held as 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'', which the pro-homosexual polemic restricts to only intercourse. Countering this is the traditionalists response which argues that while that intercourse is prohibited, (cf. Num. 31:17–18,35; Judges 21:11–12)  yet restricting "the "bed of love" (Ezek. 23:17; cf. 7:17) to only actual intercourse would to be too narrow. It is seen as unreasonable that euphemisms such as "uncover the nakedness, or "lieth with", would only forbid adulterous or incestuous intercourse while allowing all else. 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>  

In response to the idea that only the active partner is targeted in 18:22, it is held that simply because the man is specified does not mean the recipient is not culpable, and a distinction is made in jurisprudence when the latter is not. (Dt. 23:23-29) Likewise in verses before and after 20:13 the male is specified though it addresses a consensual act. (Lv. 20:10-12,14)

In response to the idea that only the active partner is targeted in 18:22, it is understood that simply because the man is specified does not mean the recipient is not culpable, and a distinction is made in jurisprudence when the latter is not. (Dt. 23:23-29) Likewise in verses before and after 20:13 the male is specified, though it addresses a consensual act. (Lv. 20:10-12,14)

David Hilborn (Theological Adviser to the UK Evangelical Alliance) states that,  

David Hilborn (Theological Adviser to the UK Evangelical Alliance) states that,  

Countering the polemic that procreation is the only cause of the prohibition against homosexual relations, it is argued that reproduction is not the sole or determining basis for the foundational premise which 18:22 is based upon, as the Bible in its entirety evidences as that the basis for the complementary nature of the union of opposite genders transcends simply procreation, (Gn. 2:18; Prov. 5:15-19) and that even when that is not a critical issue, then sex is enjoined only between male and female, due to the  nature of their marital union, and of human nature. (1Cor. 7:2-5) Additionally, in no place is marriage afforded between same genders, with Jesus and the N.T. distinctly affirming "what God hath joined" as being male and female.   

Countering the polemic that procreation is the only cause of the prohibition against homosexual relations, it is argued that reproduction is not the sole or determining basis for the foundational premise which 18:22 is based upon, as the Bible in its entirety evidences as that the basis for the complementary nature of the union of opposite genders transcends simply procreation, (Gn. 2:18; Prov. 5:15-19) and that even when that is not a critical issue, then sex is enjoined only between male and female, due to the  nature of their marital union, and of human nature. (1Cor. 7:2-5) Additionally, in no place is marriage afforded between same genders, with Jesus and the N.T. distinctly affirming "what God hath joined" as being male and female.   

In response to the argument that male dominance was the cause for 18:22, it is evidenced that it is God, not society, that established and upholds the headship of the male, and this functional distinction is an intrinsic part of his unique union with the women, based upon creational distinctions, (1Cor. 11:1-12) and which exclude same gender marriage.   

In response to the argument that male dominance was the cause for 18:22, it is evidenced that it is God, not society, that established and upholds the headship of the male, and this functional distinction is an intrinsic part of his unique union with the women, based upon creational distinctions, (1Cor. 11:1-12) and which also excludes same gender marriage.   

As regards the issue of lesbian sexual relations, it is likewise seen that to presuppose that condemnation of same-sex relations between males does not apply to same gender female sexual unions lacks Scriptural warrant, as these are also contrary in nature to the union of opposite genders originally established and uniquely affirmed throughout Scripture, with no principal or precept affording the contrary. In addition, though a phrase like "women lying with women with womenkind" is not specified in the Old Testament, commands and texts which are given to the ''male'' ('îysh) in Lv. 20:13 also can include women, such as in Lv. 20:9; Is. 53:6,11; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 18:12. It is also understood that most likely sexual relations between females was not a known (or a prevalent) practice then, and thus did not warrant a specific injunction. However, under the New Covenant, both male and female consensual homoeroticism is condemned in [[Romans 1]], as being contrary to the creational design of God, and ordained normality, and thus is a manifestation of idolatry ("the mother of all sins").  

As regards the issue of lesbian sexual relations, it is likewise seen that to presuppose that condemnation of same-sex relations between males does not apply to same gender female sexual unions lacks Scriptural warrant, as these are also contrary in nature to the union of opposite genders originally established and uniquely affirmed throughout Scripture, with no principal or precept affording the contrary. In addition, though a phrase like "women lying with women with womenkind" is not specified in the Old Testament, commands and texts which are given to the ''male'' ('îysh) in Lv. 20:13 also can include women, such as in Lv. 20:9; Is. 53:6,11; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 18:12. It is also understood that most likely sexual relations between females was not a known (or a prevalent) practice then, and thus did not warrant a specific injunction. However, under the New Covenant, both male and female consensual homoeroticism is condemned in [[Romans 1]], as being contrary to the creational design of God, and ordained normality, and thus is a manifestation of idolatry ("the mother of all sins").  

Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some pro-homosexuals seek to create a categorical division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, with this signifying a new division rendering the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosexual relations in that type of idolatrous context. In response it is argued that, as most in both camps hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery (v. 20) to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is seen as being a culture-specific aspect of that law, while being universally applicable otherwise. In regard to this, it is understood by conservative Christians that children are sacrificed today to destructive ideals and selfish lusts, as to a god.<ref>The Sin of Silence, by Dr. Laurence White</ref>  

Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some pro-homosexuals seek to create a categorical division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, with this signifying a new division rendering the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosexual relations in that type of idolatrous context. In response it is argued that, as most in both camps hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery (v. 20) to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is seen as being a culture-specific aspect of that law, while being universally applicable otherwise. In regard to this, it is understood by conservative Christians that children are sacrificed today to destructive ideals and selfish lusts, as to a god.<ref>The Sin of Silence, by Dr. Laurence White</ref>  

An early and ongoing attempt<ref>such as by David Bartlett, professor at Yale Divinity School</ref> to negate the Levitical condemnation of homosexual relations is based upon the texts which invoke the surrounding pagan culture as examples of behavior which is forbidden to Israel. (Lv. 18:3,27,28) It then concludes that the Holiness Code was not about personal morality,  but about forming community definition. In response it is evidenced that the whole of Scripture reveals unbelievers are often used, in both Testaments, as behavioral examples who are contrary to the laws on heart attitude and actions which God is instituting.  (Exo. 20:2; 23:24;  Lev. 20:23; Dt. 12:4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; 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 that, considering their nature, (Psa. 106:35-38, being often given in the immediate context of moral laws, but not ceremonial), and the reiteration of such in the New Testament, in particular those against fornications,<ref>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</ref>  to relegate such laws, and in particular those against illicit sexual partners, to being for purposes of establishing cultural distinction is held to be untenable.  

An early and ongoing attempt<ref>such as by David Bartlett, professor at Yale Divinity School</ref> to negate the Levitical condemnation of homosexual relations is based upon the texts which invoke the surrounding pagan culture as examples of behavior which is forbidden to Israel. (Lv. 18:3,27,28) It then concludes that the Holiness Code was not about personal morality,  but about forming community definition. In response it is evidenced that the whole of Scripture reveals unbelievers are often used, in both Testaments, as behavioral examples who are contrary to the laws on heart attitude and actions which God is instituting.  (Exo. 20:2; 23:24;  Lev. 20:23; Dt. 12:4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; 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) Moreover, such admonitions were often given in the immediate context of moral laws, but not clearly ceremonial ones. And that, considering their nature, (Psa. 106:35-38) and the reiteration of such in the New Testament, in particular those against fornications,<ref>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</ref>  to relegate such laws, and in particular those against illicit sexual partners, to being for purposes of establishing cultural distinction is held to be untenable.  

Another argument by pro-homosexual proponents is to assign a radical significance to (what is stated to be) only one prescription in the Old Testament for the death penalty for homosexual relations, in contrast to most of the other sins of Lv. 20 being repeated elsewhere, mainly in Dt. 27:15-26. Upon which basis they restrict Lv. 18:22 to only prohibiting male homosexual temple prostitutes.<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref> (Dt. 23:17)  

Another argument by pro-homosexual proponents is to assign a radical significance to (what is stated to be) only one prescription in the Old Testament for the death penalty for homosexual relations, in contrast to most of the other sins of Lv. 20 being repeated elsewhere, mainly in Dt. 27:15-26. Upon which basis they restrict Lv. 18:22 to only prohibiting male homosexual temple prostitutes.<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref> (Dt. 23:17)