Reply #2: The Judeo-Christian perspective needs some clarification

[Calvinist Basset]

A lot of people believe that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. But this is merely a case of misunderstanding certain dynamics in the ancient culture and the unfortunate problem of interpretation biases by translators.

Allow me to elucidate:

1. The prohibition in Leviticus was written in a culture where people needed to procreate in large numbers. This was in order to guarantee that some of the children would live to child-bearing adulthood. *Any* sexual activity that did not directly result in making a woman pregnant was frowned upon. Hence, not only the restriction on homosexuality, but also on such things as a man being intimate with his wife during her menstrual cycle.
It should further be noted that the law was concerned with heterosexual people engaging in same-sex activity. "Homosexuality" as we understand it now was not perceived in the same way in the ancient cultures as we understand it today. It was thought that everyone had a "natural" heterosexual predisposition and that same-sex activity was one item in a list of perversions that did not lead to making babies.
As well, the entire Law was never supposed to be prescriptive for all eternity. Much of it was supposed to be malleable depending on the conditions the Israelites found themselves. Basically, one purpose of "Law" was to have the people living in distinct contrast to the cultures around them. They were regarded as a "holy" people; and since "holy" means "set apart," certain specifics of the "Law" were to make the people live in distinct contrast to their neighbors.

2. The story about Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with same-sex "sin." It was about inhospitality. Other references in the Bible to this story make that absolutely clear.

3. Pauline references in the New Testament were likely focused upon two highly practiced customs. The first was an ancient Roman tradition wherein older men mentored young boys; and it was not only accepted but expected that part of the relationship would be sexual in nature. The second was related to prostitution. Simply put, some pagan cultures believed the orgasm was an actual connection with divinity; and a few of their rites involved temple prostitutes, both men and women.
Keep in mind that even in Paul's age, the high mortality rate for infants still compelled people to look down on same-sex activity as a "lifestyle." The two exceptions I just mentioned were supposed to be in addition to heterosexual procreation, not instead of it.

So, you see, what a lot of fundamentalists criticize today is based on misinterpretation of Scripture and ancient cultural norms. If they were to look carefully--without their biases--they would find that the Bible *does not* condemn homosexuals or homosexuality as we recognize them in the contemporary world.

As I've told people in my congregation, I sincerely doubt that God is concerned about the gender of two people who sincerely love each other.