Inspiration

Even if you could conclude that O.T. did teach against homosexual behavior, as with other parts of scripture, maybe there was a cultural reason that was important enough to teach against then, but not today.

For example, homosexual activity plants the seed of life where it can't produce children. In biblical times, a man's economic and personal power was often linked to larger numbers of children (especially male) to help plant the fields and toil the land. Further, just as in dealing with the temple prostitutes, male homosexual prostitutes were also common and were also considered surrogates to the pagan gods.

In the Jewish Hebrew culture a man achieved immortality through his offspring. For example, Onan practiced coitus interruptus to prevent his deceased brother's wife from conceiving, so the LORD KILLED HIM! The sin was not having sex with dead brothers wife (that was required) but the "murderous act" that murdered the dead brothers soul no longer immortal with no children.

Since immortality is passed through the generations, it's clear why the sins for sexual deviation were so savagely condemned. Under those beliefs, homosexual acts, would have been murderous to all of one's forefathers since they did not pass on children to the next generation and jeopardize forefathers afterlife. Adultery was just as bad since it mixed blood lines. Singles sex was seldom an issue since everyone was married (often to many wives) at a young age.

One's state in the afterlife, according to other contemporary documents of the time, was determined by the number of living descendants one had. The more children one had, the more wonderful one's position in the afterlife would be. Hence, it was important to have many children. This may have been why men of wealth had so man wives and concubines (women as breeders). Solomon was very wealthy and had 700 wives and 300 concubines which God never spoke against. Today we need less children not more so these "laws" relating to protecting the bloodline do not apply.

Some teach that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual. This has no theological support. A careful look at scripture corrects such ignorance.

Perhaps one of the most misleading term in English is the use of the word sodomy to describe anal penetration and/or male homosexuality. The mere fact of this linguistic development sealed in the minds of many English speaking people that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The Church's false teaching on this issue is an abomination and travesty, not loving homosexuals that are unfairly condemned by this ignorance.

God appeared to Abraham telling him that he and Sara would have a child and they were going to investigate the wickedness in Sodom & Gomorrah. Thinking God would destroy the cities, Abraham made a deal with God, that He would not destroy the cities if 10 righteous people could be found in Sodom where Abraham's nephew Lot lived.

God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades the angels to stay at his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding "to know them". It was common in those times to use violent and brutal rape as a way to humiliate and establish power over another, not unlike in some prison situations today. It is also done by heterosexual males which is very unnatural for them. This was part of the terrible acts of pederasty, the opposite of today's loving homosexual natural relationships.

Lot attempts to protect the visitors sent by God by offering his two virgin daughters to be raped. The people of Sodom refuse them and the angels render the crowd blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

ALL of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority (7-10%) of the population been naturally homosexual. Therefore it can be assumed most of the violators were heterosexual. Lot's offer to give his daughters suggests he knew the crowd had heterosexual interests - in fact offering young women for sexual hospitality was common. While it is unclear, even if homosexual rape was what the people were after it was do defile the strangers unnaturally

between mostly heterosexual males against another heterosexual male as in pederasty. This rape attempt has nothing to do with loving, consenting homosexual love but was clearly not the reason for God's destruction of Sodom.

Homosexuality can not be called one of the sins of Sodom, Gomorrah or Gilbeah since it is not in any of the lists of their sins given in the O.T. Ezekiel 16:48-50 lists the specific sins of Sodom as pride, plenty, laziness, uncaring for needy, haughty and worshipping idols - which was an abomination - not homosexuality.

Some try and see in the word "abomination", a false reference to homosexual activity. This word translated abomination is to'ebah in Hebrew and is frequently found in the Old Testament. If one reads it in context every where it appears it is always connected with idolatry - never homosexuality. Just a few examples are in Deut 7:25-26 where it is the idol used in false worship, Proverbs 21:27 having to do with broader false worship etc. The people of Sodom were involved in idolatry.

Jude 7 also provides another view of the sin of Sodom: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh..." In another discussion of fornication it is clear it is idolatry and has nothing to do with sexuality. But what is this strange flesh reference?

A view of strange flesh comes from Gen 6. Here we read of a time when the "sons of God" cohabited with the "daughters of humans", resulting in a strange progeny called in the Hebrew "nephilim", a rare word indicating something weird or strange.

Judge 19 tells of a very similar event in Gilbeah, except that the house guest was a man, not an angel, and the people accepted the concubine women in place of the man. The concubine was raped until she died and the city was destroyed - for heterosexual rape and violation of the law of hospitality.

Gen 34 tells of a rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. As a result of this heterosexual rape, Shechem's home town was destroyed. Yet in spite of this destruction, we hear no one condemning heterosexuality on the basis of this passage, but rather a condemnation of rape. So also is the case with Sodom but even worse the attempted rape of strange flesh (angels).

It is interesting that geologists say that the Five Cities of the Plain were situated on an active fault, where rocks are under tension and being pulled apart. A massive earthquake destroyed the cities in Biblical times,

It would seem clear that homosexual would never choose such a behavior that generated so much hate and discrimination. Genetic research, studies of brain chemistry and studies of identical twins raised apart, strongly suggest its not choice but nature. It seems clear that homosexuality is just as natural in humans as it is with other animals and plants. The argument it is chosen is being clearly shown as false.

Most compelling is the many personal accounts of those that have tried so hard to change out of the fear of God, but fail since you can not change natural sexual orientation. Many commit suicide, or leave Christianity feeling they can't respect a God that would make them gay and then condemn them.

How can one believe that God condemns people who love each other tenderly and unselfishly just because they were born homosexual. It seems abnormal only because the predisposition is a recessive tenancy just as is left-handedness.

Try to imagine, I mean REALLY try to imagine this scenario. What if the Bible said that heterosexual activity was immoral, sinful, and to be despised and avoided, while homosexual relations were the norm the homosexuals were following the will of God.

Now try saying to God: "I realize I am a sinner. My heterosexual life cannot be tolerated any more. I must break off my "wonderful" intimate relationships with my companion/spouse of the opposite sex, and make an attempt to live a normal life loving only those of my gender."

Although there is no moral condemnation of homosexuality as such in the Bible, those who cite the Bible, especially the OT, to condemn homosexuality need to realize the OT was written in a very patriarchal society. Homosexuality, at least among males, poses a serious threat to patriarchy and could not be tolerated. This influence in a social context clearly left a mark on the writings of the authors of scripture.

At first it might seem that homosexuality among men should be well received. After all, the preeminent dignity of the male is a central doctrine of patriarchy, and what could be more affirming of that dignity than men loving men? However, this argument assumes that sexuality is closely associated with the sort of love that values the beloved and respects his/her dignity. Love in this sense is not an important component as sexuality in a patriarchy. Rather, sexual intercourse is one of the means by which the active male subjugates, controls and makes use of the passive female. Sex between men, at least when it involves some sort of bodily penetration, is seen as requiring that one of the partners assume the passive, female role. It is therefore inimical to the masculine dignity of that partner. If it is accepted as a possibility, it threatens the dignity of all men. This was a threat well understood by the Hebrews, who had spent a significant portion of their early history under Egyptian domination. Egyptian soldiers routinely sodomized their defeated enemies as a means of affirming the enemies' absolute subjugation. This indignity was no doubt suffered by many a Hebrew male during the Egyptian captivity, and its bitter memory probably influenced the approach to homosexuality in the holiness laws. Even today, it is not uncommon for men to assert their domination of other men by forcing the others to assume the "female" role. This is an important means of defining and enforcing the pecking order in male prison populations. In urban gangs dominant males often address subordinate males in derogatory terms that are feminine in gender.

It is also interesting to note the absence in the OT of any hint that lesbianism is frowned upon. So long as marriage is obligatory for women and their sexuality is tightly controlled, lesbian dalliances pose no threat to the patriarchal order. It in only when women achieve some degree of control over their sexuality and committed lesbian relationships begin to be seen as an alternative to marriage that they become a threat.