Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Intro)

I'll admit, perhaps the title is ever-so-slightly misleading. Don't expect me to apologise (nor explain, if you don't understand it).

At the request of a few people, on various occasions, what follows shall be an account of my views on Christianity and the Bible in relation to homosexuality. It's not going to be short, and I'll even include references at the end. Aren't I kind?

But before I begin, I would like to make certain points clear:

• This isn't intended to sway anyone's beliefs, but merely clarify and explain how I came to my own conclusions and opinions. Better people than I have tried and failed to change the stance of anti-homosexuality proponents. One cannot reason a man out of a position he has not been reasoned into. I gave up trying a while ago.


• I spent a long time over this subject, and invested a lot of thought, research, introspection, and prayer into it before I decided what was right in my eyes. We are all biased, but this is, in no way, merely an exercise in self-justification. I don't need that.


• Within this disquisition, I shall not be addressing in depth my perception of the follies and downfalls of organised religion, or the Christian churches. I don't want to end up typing a novel. Most major Christian denominations put great emphasis on the authority of the Bible, and some on the authority of the Church and Tradition. It is these aspects I shall mainly be concentrating on.


• I have tried to make the main body concise and fairly easy reading, for those who can't bear the thought of indepth study. The references/bibliography at the end are, therefore, quite comprehensive, and I'd urge anyone with the will and patience to study further on their own. Don't take my opinions as gospel.


• This is a touchy issue, with many people having very big fights and fallings-out. It's not likely to be resolved any time soon, but in all the theology and philosophy, try to remember that real people, with real feelings, are being affected by society's opinions (i.e. YOUR opinions) in a very real way.


• I don't make a habit of pondering and debating theology any more. There are more imortant things to life. This is in answer to a couple of requests, not a sign of more things to come.


• Comments, criticism, and debate are always welcome, on the strict condition that they are legible, grammatically correct, polite, justified/backed-up with suitable evidence, and in response to having actually read my writings. Slogans, derogatoriness, dogma, condemnation, etc. may be inserted directly into your rectum, without having to be aired to me first.


• If you can't understand sarcasm, I have no time for you.


• If you don't know common Latin abbreviations, or polysyllabic words, might I recommend a dictionary as a wonderful resource?


• If you wish to use this essay, by all means do so. I will request, however, that it remains complete, including references, and you don't claim it as your own unless you bother to reword it. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery copyright infringement.

And so, without much further ado, let us move forwards, beyond the forewords!

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 1)

The mainstream Christian stance on homosexuality has long been (and to a large extent still is) that homosexuality is a Sin. "God Hates Fags", as some might eloquently suggest. Certain modern groups put a gentler, more politically-correct spin on it, talking about "loving the sinner, hating the sin" and stressing that it's "homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation/desires" that is the sin. Pretty wording, just as destructive and sinister when put into practice.

Ask the average self-professing Christian why it's Wrong, and you'll likely get the answer "the Bible says so". Ask them where, and you'll have many people stumped. Que mutterings about "Old Testament" and "Sodom and Gomorrah", or even "Unnatural-ness" and "fallen worlds". I have yet to meet a person who, having been brought up in a Western/Judeo-Christian country, could tell me that they thought homosexuality was absolutely fine until they read it was wrong in the Bible. Always, the opinion comes before the justification.

Two words: Societal Influence.

There are cultures and societies in our world for whom homosexuality and transsexuality are perfectly normal, in fact are an intrinsic part of life (for example, tribes in New Guinea¹). If they don't have some mystic instinct that tells them it's Evil, why do Westerners?

We grow up with the concept of some things being "right" or "wrong" all around us, either implied or outright expounded. A person's take on homosexuality often fits in as part of their fundamental worldviews, which are formed early on in childhood and heavily influenced by those around them (e.g. parents, siblings, teachers)². So we generally perceive homosexuality as either "good" or "bad" before we're of an age to understand what romance and sex even are. Worldviews are very hard to change; they form our core beliefs, how we view our surroundings, our opinions on how life should operate; therefore when we are mature enough to begin considering such subjects as sexuality, we already carry deeply rooted preconceptions and biases.

Hence, it is little wonder this debate is causing so much strife in our world, and people rabidly stand by arguments touting "proof" that endures scrutiny and reason, like a snowman endures a Saharan heatwave.

Proof such as "the Bible says so".

For those who don't know (viz. the majority of people), in the original translations of the Bible, homosexuality is directly mentioned a grand total of zero times. Even different English translations cannot agree, with some including no mention of "homosexual" or "homosexuality" (e.g. the KJV, NCV, the Message, ASV, YLT) and others (e.g. NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, NASV) including the word in dubious translations that I shall address later. Interesting to note, however, that those translations that do make direct mention of the term "homosexual" are exclusively modern, (from the latter part of the 1900's, or the start of 2000, often the 1980's or 1990's), whereas translations with no mention of the word include those both old and new. Again, this reeks of societal influence upon the translators.

This, of course, has not stopped people from finding passages in the Bible, from which to construct support for their arguments. The most common of these include the Creation account in Genesis, the Levitical laws, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Timothy.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 2)

Levitical Laws

The book of Leviticus, third book of the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah. An entire volume on ritual purity. Instructions to the Jews and their priests, designed to distinguish them from the surrounding nations. To strengthen their cultural identity, and prevent foreign practices and acts of worship from corrupting their traditions.

It lays down the law on "proper" behaviour, from sacrifices and offerings³ to ceremonial purification⁴, from how to perform rituals⁵ to what not to do as acts of worship⁶, and sets out punishments for those who disobey⁷. It states that Israel should not act like the Egyptians and Canaanites, and gives a list of deeds and behaviours that should, therefore, be considered unacceptable⁸.

Amongst all this, we find the brief verse used by some to condemn homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."⁹

Repeated a couple of chapters later with the punishment:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."¹⁰

So, within an entire book on "How To Be a Righteous, Purified Jew and Perform All the Correct Rituals" and "What To Do To People Who Try To Do Differently (Kill Them)", we have two verses that apply to all peoples of the modern world, unequivocally stating that homosexuality is wrong. How indubitable.

Frequently, the popular bandwagon to jump on whenever Leviticus is brought up in debate, is the fact that other Laws from the book are blatantly ignored nowadays, specifically re: eating shellfish¹¹ and wearing mixed-fibre clothing¹². This is sometimes countered by talk of different "levels" of Law being present, of important Moral Codes alongside mere Health Recommendations and Ritual Codes of Practice.

It is of some significance, then, that the word translated as "abomination" is the Hebrew word "Tow`ebah", used throughout the Old Testament to signify ritual uncleanliness<sup>14</sup>. Not quite what the modern English-speaker thinks of when presented with Abomination: "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome.". And why use "Tow`ebah" if the author meant "Zimmah"; moral wickedness, evil¹⁵?

Another oft-made observation is that the verses cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, include female homosexuality; the wording/grammar irrefutably specify men who "lie" (whatever that means...) with men. In the same chapters, when bestiality is dealt with, both men and women are specifically forbidden from intercourse with animals¹³. So God is cool with lesbians but not gay men?

Interesting, also, how the 2004 NLT bible for example, says instead "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin", to handily cover up, through translation, any doubt that might otherwise ensue.

However, neither of these common points pique my interest quite so much as the fact that, in Leviticus Chapter 18 (and again in Chapter 20), it uses the phrase "Do not have sexual relations with..." eighteen times¹⁶ (alternatively, "The nakedness...thou shalt not uncover..."/"You shall not have intercourse with..."); and yet, for our single, all-important verse, the author abandons the less ambiguous phraseology for "lie as with a woman".

Or, in alternative translations, "beds-[of-a]-woman". For the Hebrew construct, "Mishkevey", formed of two nouns, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament translated as anything other than "bed" or "bed-chamber"; describing all this as obscure and enigmatic borders on understatement. A similar argument holds true for the Greek translation, the Septuagint¹⁷.

In addition, the command appears just after burning children as a sacrifice to Molech is forbidden, and just before ritual bestiality is banned, "as were the practices of the nations around Israel"¹⁸. Not a huge leap of logic to discern that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" ⁹ might just, ever so possibly, have something to do with worshipping other gods.

What a stupendous argument against two people of the same sex having an emotional and physical relationship.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 3)

Sodom & Gomorrah

Ah, Sodom, the city that lent its name to the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite". Terms we automatically link with "teh buttsecks". How droll, then, that despite the Sins of Sodom being mentioned in over a score of different verses throughout the bible, "homosexuality" is never one of them¹⁹. Societal influence? Surely not again?!

Certainly, there is word of the city being full of immoral people. Inhospitable people. Idolatrous, murderous, greedy, arrogant, adulterous, prideful, oppressive, unrepentant people. All that, and more, mentioned quite specifically. But no reference to queers.

Hence one might ponder, wherefore art said fated city the namesake of such terms? Afterall, sex doesn't even come into the picture until the early Christian Church decided to note sexual immorality as being amongst Sodom's sins (for example Jude Chapter 1 Verse 7, KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."). And even here, "fornication" is the translated word "Ekporneuo" (to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication")²⁰ and has very heterosexual connotations. "Strange flesh" refers to having sex with angels, the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis Chapter 6 Verses 1 to 4 (for Lot's guests were, apparently, two angels sent by God²¹).

The entire argument hinges, as usual, upon one precarious passage (in Genesis 19), and an interestingly translated word: Yada`. For it is this word that appears in Genesis 19 verse 5:

"And they [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."²²

Alternatively:

"They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"²³

There appears to be ever-so-slight-a-difference in the implied meaning between these two translations; what is translated as "to know" in the KJV, becomes "to have sex with" in the NIV. One could argue, the author meant "to know carnally". However, Yada` appears in the Old Testament 947 times. Yes, that's nine hundred and forty seven times²⁴. The overwhelming majority of those mentions have no sexual implications whatsoever; it literally means to know experientially, to learn of, find out, etc.

It is perfectly true that there exists a handful of instances (about 5%) where Yada` suggests carnal knowledge. All instances (bar this single, disputed account of Sodom's tale) denote heterosexual sexual encounters. Yada` doesn't always appear alone in these cases (i.e. it is combined with other words that translate as "to lie with.." etc.) and, often, the results of this heterosexual "knowing" are also recorded (e.g. "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..."²⁵). In addition, if the mens' intention was to perform sexual acts with the strangers, why use Yada`, instead of one of the more direct Hebew words?

Could it not be, that the men of the city wanted to know, i.e. identify, the strangers Lot had decided to shelter within their city? In an era and culture where war, conquest and barbarism were common, and cities had walls with gates that were locked at sundown, is it odd for people to wonder why a foreigner living amongst them²⁶ was harbouring strangers in his home at night?

Still, some consider the Sin of Sodom, and the reason it was destroyed, to be that it was full of homosexuals. I find Abraham's pleading with the Lord beforehand interestingly relevant²⁷. It concludes with God saying "For the sake of ten [righteous men], I will not destroy [Sodom]." So, in the words of the Lord, if there were but ten men in the whole of Sodom who were righteous, the city would not have been destroyed.

Therefore, it goes without saying that if the Sin was homosexuality, then the entire city woud have had to be gay. Even today, with our advanced methods of communication and transport, you couldn't find a city like that (more's the pity). How statistically likely is it, then, that Sodom would have been populated by homosexuals?

And to say "But it was one of the sins, not the only sin, so they didn't have to all be gay, so nyer!" holds no water, for "both old and young, all the people from every quarter" were surrounding Lot's house, demanding to Yada` the strangers.

Finally, it must be mentioned that even if the incident in Sodom was about sexual acts (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...) then it was a case of attempted rape. An act of power, against the wishes of the recipient, degrading to the victim. Making the angels their bitches, so to speak.

Rape is never a good thing.

But neither is a case of rape grounds to condemn sex or relationships in general. A very similar occurance happened in Gibeah²⁸, which resulted in a concubine actually being raped to death, and again a city being destroyed. But no one would use that to outlaw heterosexuality.

The sad tale of Sodom and its fate is no grounds for condemning homosexuality; one can barely concede that it's even remotely relevant.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 4)

Paul's Epistle to the Romans

First off, this book is quite possibly one of the most complex letters ever. Books have been written about books that have been written about [sic] Romans. Paul's theology in a nutshell, scribed to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in the metropolis that was Rome; a place and people, also, Paul had never visited²⁹ (unlike with many of his other letters, which were "follow-up" epistles, reinforcing what he had already said, in person, during previous visits³⁰).

Ergo, it is misguided foolhardiness of the greatest order, to presume to pick a couple of verses out of context, expecting to glean a correct and enlightened message from them. But we do it anyway.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator...For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."³¹

At least Paul is less vague and ambiguous than the Old Testament authors. Well...at face value.

One challenge Paul faced in writing to the Romans, as mentioned, was that he hadn't met them. How, then, could he relate to these people? For the Jewish citizens of Rome, the answer is simple: quote and/or paraphrase Jewish writings³². For the Gentiles? Well...all the cool kids were down with the Greek Philosophers. So why not borrow some of their phrases and writings?

The concept of "natural" or "unnatural" acts is not a Jewish one. It appears nowhere in the Old Testament. Naturalism³³ is a philosophical concept. The first recorded use of the term "nature" was by Homer³⁴. By definition, the phrases have nothing to do with the theological or divine moral implications of an action, as the endeavour is to explain actions and beliefs via factual and causal observations, excluding any deity or supernatural authority. Something that is "according to nature", is controlled, logical, reasoned, within Custom and Law; "against nature" is out of balance, uncontrolled, driven by emotion. Also, those terms were often used in a proscriptive manner, not descriptively (e.g. in Stoicism).

To simplify with a relevant example, for a man to have sex with a woman in order to produce offspring is a natural act; the causal result - the reason behind the action - is the production of an heir, continuation of a bloodline, help around the house, security in old age, et al. But for a man to have sex with a woman utilising prophylactics because she is hawt, is unnatural; for it is an act of lust, ruled by self-gratification and passion. Even more so when the act leads to loss of self-control and addiction.

Important to note that the Greeks viewed sex as a purely physical act, in which one body used another body as an object; it had no connection with today's concepts of romance³⁵. Men were assumed to have high sex drives, and this desire was good in that it defined manhood, which itself was the central virtue of humanity. This force was dangerous, but needed to be sated more than it needed to be restricted to particular "objects"³⁶.

Going back to the passage in Romans, Paul is referencing Plato:

"And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure."³⁷

Keeping in mind what has thus far been mentioned, it follows that homosexual intercourse is deemed a prime example of "unnatural acts" because in the eyes of Ancient Greek philosophy, there is no visible result other than personal gratification of the penetrator using the submissive partner's body. Taken in further context, the passage in Plato was a dialogue with a Cretan, renound for prolonging the sexual erastes/eromenos (man/pubescent boy) relationship beyond the point of the boy reaching full maturity, which went against cultural norms. The passage starts out mentioning crass jokes made about the matter. The acts are then compared to drunkenness/alcoholism, which becomes the focus of proceeding chapters.

It is not homosexuality being critisised, here, but "slavery to pleasure". Excess, loss of control; Passion.

To further emphasise "passion" as the misdemeanor in question, five seperate forms/parts of "passion" appear in these few verses Paul wrote: Epithumia³⁸, Pathos³⁹, Ekkaio⁴⁰, Orexis⁴¹, and Plane⁴².

Which is a moderately overwhelming way of concluding that, actually...Paul isn't condemning homesexuals at all.

Fortunately (!) it doesn't end there. For the purpose of Romans Chapter 1 doesn't appear to be deliberately setting out an exhaustive list of sins to avoid, or people to condemn. Taken in context with Romans Chapter 2:

"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"⁴³

What an unfortunate choice that scholar made, all those years ago, to separate Romans Chapters 1 and 2 where he did. Paul wasn't making a list of people headed straight for Hell; he was preaching against hypocrisy! The end of Chapter 1 might be imagined to make Paul's Roman audience think, "Wow, yeah, despicable heathen Romans with their orgies and debauchery, thank goodness we're not as bad as that..." only for Paul to turn round and say "Don't be so smug! Don't judge! You're exactly the same!" He goes on to preach against legalism, a common problem, and a common theme in many of Paul's writings (i.e. most of the New Testament...).

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 5)

Paul's First Epistles to the Church of the Greek City of Corinth, and to Timothy

Our good friend Paul, again. Such a great guy; but is he as homophobic as some might suggest?

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."⁴⁴

Another verse commonly taken to sentence queer folk to Hell. Lo and behold, the NIV unsurprisingly skews the translation further:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."⁴⁵

All this in a passage moaning about in-fighting amongst church members, members suing each other in local courts, and partaking in local (sexual) customs (let us not forget what was previously mentioned of Greek culture and its attitude towards sex). To me, it reads as if Paul is primarily concerned about the public image of the recalcitrant church of Corinth.

Once again, the whole premise rests on ambiguity. Or rather, in this particular instance, colloquialism.

To begin with, Malakos⁴⁶, "effeminate" in the KJV, could be taken to mean, depending on your chosen translation and interpretation: masturbators; limp-wristed, camp, un-macho men; transvestites, or transsexuals; male prostitutes, or the submissive partner in anal intercourse (the latter being the most likely, considering Greek societal stigma³⁶)

Malakos appears twice more in the bible, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke⁴⁶, describing what the garments of John the Baptist weren't (i.e. "soft", the literal translation of the word). Hmmm....

Wading further into the sea of uncertainty, "abusers of themselves with mankind" are Arsenokoites, or "man-beds"⁴⁷. Déjà vu à la Leviticus, anyone? A unique word, made up of two Greek words translating seperately as "man" and "bed". It appears once more in the entire Bible, in 1 Timothy Chapter 1 Verse 10, written by...guess who? Paul again is not condemning anyone, but explaining who the Law was made for (manbeds, apparently).

So, homosexuality is wrong based on a single, highly equivocal word, seemingly made up by Paul, for he is the only one to ever use it. Even though Greeks were hardly prudish when it came to depicting sex acts of any shape or form, he used a bizarre euphemism to hint at woofters, rather than use a perfectly good word already established in the Greek language? Sure, I can believe that.

My leprechaun believes it too.

Maybe Paul did mean gay people. But I have been unable to find contemporary recordings of Arsenokoites outside of the two mentions by the same author. It's certainly not a word in use today. It gets a few mentions amongst authors referencing Paul's writings, so that's of no use in our epic quest to clarify the essence of the word. The fact remains that to surmise what Arsenokoites means is folly, and no suitable grounds for any argument against homosexuality.

Thus ends the discourse on the only verses in the bible one might consider to be a negative reference on the subject of homosexuality.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 6)

Creation, Marriage, Nature and Honorable Mentions (or lack thereof)

A.K.A. the "misc." chapter.

Where would we be without such deep and enlightened syllogism as "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"?

Some would choose to claim God made woman for man, exclusively; some uphold the view that God created them gay. Neither argument belongs in a debate forum; both shall, in all likelihood, remain as unsubstantiated as the existence and precise identity of God. I know God exists, in the same way I know I didn't choose to be gay and it isn't wrong. Simple as. End of.

It has been said to me, that if one cannot take the Creation Account in Genesis as literal and exhaustive, one might as well discount the whole of the Bible and its authority. That is not a rational argument, but a plea; it is saying "My world view is founded upon literal acceptance of Genesis". Genesis could be infallible to the letter, or it could be a campfire tale concocted by many generations of an ancient patriarchal society. Good luck proving whatever you hold true and dear to your little heart. To say homosexuality is "against the order of original creation" and abhorrant in its "unnaturalness" stems from a warping/misunderstanding of Paul (as addressed previously). Also, common belief has been brought under debate after proliferous documented cases of animal bisexuality and homosexuality, both in the wild and in captivity⁴⁸

Oh, and the Bible. Is. A. Collection. Of. Books. And. Letters. Written. And. Compiled. By. Men.

How people have gotten away with using unwarranted obscurities to justify discrimination for so long, is beyond me. There exists no "-ism" under the sun that is not susceptible to exoneration via religious intolerance.

Moving on, claiming the bible only documents heterosexual relationships is both asinine and questionable.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. ⁴⁹

Make of that what you will. No proof of the platonic nature of their souls' entwining, nor evidence that they were humping like a pair of horny puppies overdosed on aphrodisiacs. Just a bit of suggestive wording.

And besides, the bible is not a sappy romance novel (outside of cheesy born-again slogans claiming that it is God's love letter to mankind....). As some are wont to persistently comment on, homosexual unions cannot produce offspring. So why would the bible mention such unions, when it is frequently concerned with documenting lineage?⁵⁰ And why use homosexual unions to illustrate a point concerning "sinful behaviour", when the majority of the earth's population are more heterosexually-inclined?

Omission is not permission, but nor is it prohibition.

Paul talks of marriage as a condonable method to sate sexual desire and lust⁵¹. The institution of partnership had, and still has, much further-reaching legal and social implications than getting your rocks off, but that's another argument. Point is, if it's good for heterosexuals, why do those with homosexual tendencies need to "control their urges", "get fixed" or remain celibate? If even Paul can admit that humans have urges and needs, and very few people are gifted with the ability to control or suppress them, why do we try to deny people what is right for them?

Finito

5000 words. Well done, if you made it all the way. Why not go and treat yourself to a brew...?

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (SAUCE!)

Please, please, please don't just take my word for it. Go see for yourself.

Seriously, this took a great deal of earnest effort to put together. Use it.

N.B. Where quotes from various bible translations have been mentioned, or statements made about publication dates of said translations, no link has been given. If you wish to study further, the Bible is readily available in most translations, for example BibleGateway.com

¹. "What Ever Happened to Ritualized Homosexuality? Modern Sexual Subjects in Melanesia and Elsewhere"
Annual Review of Sex Research, 2003 by Knauft, Bruce M

². Worldview Diversity 2006 by Mynga Futrell, Ph.D.

³. Leviticus Chapters 1 to 7

⁴. Leviticus Chapter 12

⁵. Leviticus Chapter 16

⁶. Leviticus Chapter 17

⁷. Leviticus Chapter 20

⁸. Leviticus Chapters 18 and 19

⁹. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 22, King James Version

¹⁰. Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13, King James Version

¹¹. Leviticus Chapter 11 Verses 9 to 12

¹². Leviticus Chapter 19 Verse 19

¹³. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 23 and Chapter 20 Verses 15&16

¹⁴. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Tow`ebah

¹⁵. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Zimmah

¹⁶. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verses 6 to 23, New International Version

¹⁷. Stephen C. Lovatt

¹⁸. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verses 21 to 24

¹⁹. Genesis 13v13; Genesis 18v20; Genesis 19v13; Deuteronomy 29v17-26; Deuteronomy 32v32-38; Isaiah 1v9-23; Isaiah 3v8-15; Isaiah 13v 11-19; Jeremiah 23v10-14; Jeremiah 49v16-18; Jeremiah 50v2-40; Lamentations 4v3-6; Ezekiel 16v49-50; Amos 4v1-11; Zephaniah 2v8; Matthew 20v11; Matthew 11v19-24; Mark 6v10-11; Luke 10v10-12; Luke 17v26-29; 2 Peter 2v6; Jude 1v7-8

²⁰. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Ekporneuo See also New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Porneuo

²¹. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 1

²². Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 5, King James Version

²³. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 5, New International Version

²⁴. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Yada`

²⁵. Genesis Chapter 4 Verse 1

²⁶. Genesis Chapter 14

²⁷. Genesis Chapter 18 Verses 16 to 33

²⁸. Judges Chapter 19 Verses 14 to 28

^.29. Romans Chapter 1 Verse 13

³⁰. E.g. 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; Galatians; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy

³¹. Romans Chapter 1 Verses 25 to 27, King James Version

³². Wisdom Chapter 14 for example, which bears a striking resemblence to Romans Chapter 1 Verses 18 to 32

³³. Definition of Naturalism

³⁴. Homer's Odyssey, 800 B.C.

³⁵. Eros: The Myth Of Ancient Greek Sexuality by Bruce S Thornton

³⁶. Sex and Reason by Richard A. Posner

³⁷. Plato's Laws, 360 B.C.

³⁸. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Epithumia Romans Chapter 1 Verse 24

³⁹. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Pathos Romans Chapter 1 Verse 26

⁴⁰. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Ekkaio Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27

⁴¹. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Orexis Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27

⁴². New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Plane Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27

⁴³. Romans Chapter 1 Verse 24 to Chapter 2 Verse 3, King James Version

⁴⁴. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9 and 10, King James Version

⁴⁵. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9 and 10, New International Version

⁴⁶. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Makakos

⁴⁷. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Arsenokoites

⁴⁸. National Geographic Article; Scott Bidstrup

⁴⁹. 1 Samuel Chapter 18 Verses 1 to 4, King James Version

⁵⁰. E.g. Numbers

⁵¹. 1 Corinthians Chapter 7