You seem scared and defensive jmfcst. Perhaps you don't like people who try to give you another interpretation of Christ's message.
But here you go:
The most widely used scripture used to denounce homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Now, the key aspect about the letters of Saint Paul is that we only get to hear one side of the correspondence. Most of his letters, perhaps even all of them were written in response to correspondence that was sent to him by the church to which he wrote. This was of course at a time before what we would now consider 'organised' religion and matters of doctrine and practice were not set in stone.
First lets turn to what Paul says earlier. In Romans 1:25, immaediately before the passage quoted above, Saint Paul says:
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
So if you put Saint Paul's "condemnation" of homosexuals into context by relating back to 1:25, which was referring to to idolatry, you will find that he was not attacking monogamous relationships, but rather was condemning idol worship and related temple practices which involved prostitution and fornication among people of both sexes and with people of both sexes. (History of this period is littered with examples)
He was therefore not attacking homosexuals in a relationship but was in fact condemning the same sin condemned in the Ten Commandments, that of adultery and idolatry. You with me?
In I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:9-10, often used to back up Romans you will see exactly where the main problem in the translation of 'arsenokoites' lies.
''The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
Now what does 'arsenokoites' mean?
The Bible has been reproduced more than any other book in the past 2000 years and early copies do survive. Not only were single words translated differently throughout time, but so too were whole passages and the context was often lost. The word 'arsenokoites' was added to, extended by prefix or suffix to change it's meaning over time and these changes can be checked against each other by comparison. When we translate directly the surviving 1st Century examples of Corinthians and Timothy into English, looking at the word 'arsenokoites' and the words surrounding it we are given this translation in Corinthians:
'nor the
traders in homosexual slaves. ' And in Timothy,
'those who
trade in homosexual slavery. '
Seems reasonable to me. It's a condemnation of slave traders and prostitution. It is not a direct condemnation of homosexuals. If condemnation of homosexuals or homosexuality was intended, they would have used the more common and more exact word, 'homophilia.' But they did not.
And so it continues, right through to the 700's when Greek was surpassed by Latin. There are numerous examples here:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm in which all bar 1, translate 'arsenokoites' to mean 'homosexual slave trading,' which is consistent with the condemnation of prostitution to be found throughout the Bible. Somewhere in the 1300 years since, the meaning has been warped and twisted, by intent? Who is to say. But what can be said is that subsequent translations are NOT compatable with the Scripture as it was originally written.
-------------------------
I really have nothing else to add to this. But I do want you to think about it. This is not my argument, it is one that has cropped up in scholarly debate.
