Biblical Homosexuality: The Truth

This is a topic I appear to be required to cover a great deal, so I'll just write this to hopefully sort a few things out.
Source: http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/index.html

Included:
Three Biblically Supported Homosexuals
Refutations Of Anti-Gay Passages

Refutations
You hear it all the time, from nowhere more so than the infamous WBC, but I've covered them all too often, so they'll be ignored. Mainly because they are really just plain idiotic.
So, the big one: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
20:13 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.
Seems pretty clear cut, doesn't it? Well, aside from being a few passages away from calling shellfish an abomination, the chapters themselves limit themselves. What do I mean by that? Well, read the chapters in context. You will find a few interesting remarks:
18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
The meaning of this is simple enough: Egypt and Canaan had 'doings'; that were an abomination. With a little historical research, it isn't hard to see what. They carried out Pagan rituals involving adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality-I believe, and, yes, homosexuality. Interestingly, it is these things which are condemned by the passage: providing strong evidence for the simple fact that it was forbidden to take part in such rituals.
To my knowledge, this is the only homosexuality-condemning passage in the Jewish Torah also.
Next up, the good old classic Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only is this the sole anti-gay passage in the Quran, it is also one of the most widely used Christian passages.
You no doubt know the story, but if you don't, read Genesis 19 and Jude 1.
This story has nothing to do with love: I want to make that abundantly clear. Homosexuality is about love primarily, which is why many homosexual Christians choose to remain celibate believing that it is the sex that is a sin. Anyway, this story has some interpretations that are not at all sexual-the sodomites were inhospitable-and some that refer instead to bestiality: in the sense that the angels were a different species. However, there is one simple point to make: the men of Sodom were guilty of adultery, as they apparently left their wives, fornication, for those that were not married, and also rape. Male to male rape. However, there are many people today who rape others of the same sex-not for any sexual attraction, but simply to establish dominance. So male to male rape has no connection to homoromantic and homosexual love.
Next up, the least clear passage. Romans.
1:26 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:
1:27 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.
There is no real evidence that this refers to homosexuals as it is: the 'improper use' could be anything, ranging from fornication and adultery to such things as rape.
However, one thing that is evident: it condemns God-Haters. those who use homosexuality as, almost, a weapon against God. Read the whole or Romans 1 and you'll see; the entirety of the chapter describes those who hate God-such as idolaters, so it makes no sense to suddenly leap to a description of people who love the same gender, while minding their own business. In context, it obviously refers to people who practice homosexuality in such contexts as the aforementioned Egyptian and Canaanite rituals.
Now for two passages to be refuted at once.
1 Corinthians 6:9 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,
1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
In Corinthians, the word 'effeminate', in the original Greek that the New Testament was written in, was Malakoi. This word literally means 'soft' and morally weak, and has nothing to do with feminine men.
But, the words 'abusers of themselves with mankind' and 'them that defile themselves with mankind' were both the same word in Greek. Arsenokoitai. The interesting thing? No one knows what this word means. However, it is made from two separate words: one meaning 'male', and one meaning 'bed' referring to sexual intercourse. But does this automatically mean homosexuality? It seems so, but read the word in context. To my knowledge, every time it has been used, the word has applied to just one thing: rape. Male to male rape, yet again. Two examples are when Zeus abducted and raped a young boy named Ganymede, and an ancient legend in which, in the Garden of Eden, the snake was a satanic figure known as Naas who slept with both Adam and Eve. His sin with Adam was 'arsenokoitai': rape, or more precisely, sex as a sign of dominance.
Finally, just a lighter ending: people state that the fact God made male and female is a reason against homosexuality. This is ridiculous. it's using the idea that omitting one detail is a reason against that detail. Well, there is no Biblical condemnation for gay marriage, so by following that logic then you should support gay marriage.

Biblically Supported Homosexuals
There are many examples, but I'll stick to three couples.
First of all, there's the classic Samuel and Jonathan tale. I don't have to go into anything too complicated for this, just a quick bit from 2 Samuel:
1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
'Passing the love of women'? Enough said.
Of course, if you still need more, 1 Samuel:
18:1 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.
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 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.
How would this be read if it was between a man and a woman?
20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
20:31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
20:32 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?
Read this in context: in the times where people believed homosexuals should be killed, Saul is trying to kill the homosexuals. What other reason is there?
20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
So, that's one couple. Next is the nice story of Ruth and Naomi. There's a lot to be said about them, but you can read about that elsewhere.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Ruth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
They appear completely unrelated on the surface don't they? But, yet again in the original Hebrew, there are hidden meanings. the word 'cleave' in the former passage was the Hebrew word Dabaq. It's evident what that means from the context. Guess which word was used instead of 'clave' in Ruth? You got it! Dabaq.
So this is simple isn't it? Ruth loved Naomi in the same way a man loves his wife. The exact same way.
Read the book of Ruth again, without preconceptions: it reads a lot like a tale of two women in love. This includes the support, the way it is written, and even references to the fact that lesbians would've been put to death. This speech has also been used in weddings-first spoken woman to woman-and I would like to quote it here as it is one of the best speeches I have ever heard.
Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
1:17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
And, just to finish off, Jesus Christ supporting a gay couple. Think it's never going to happen? Wrong. Matthew:
8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Means nothing does it? Well, if you read the Greek then you will see that the word the centurion uses to describe his servant is Pais. This has three meanings: son, slave or male partner.
I should explain: centurions could not take wives on duty, so it was common practice to choose a favourite slave as a homosexual partner.
So, how do I know it is not one of the other meanings? The same story is told in Luke.
7:6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
The words used are Entimos Duolos. What do these mean? Honoured servant. So it cannot be a son, it can't be an ordinary slave, so it stands to reason that it must be a servant, honoured-the centurion's favourite and consequently the only viable answer is that the servant is the centurion's male partner.
What did Jesus do? Ask them to change? Tell them they were sinners? No such thing. Luke:
7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
He held them up as an example.
And, interestingly, throughout the gospels people come for healing for friends and relatives. This is the only time a servant was asked to be healed: how much connection must they have had?

To conclude, I'll leave you with some more biblical passages.
My personal favourite:
1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
And indeed, much of 1 John chapter 4 is interesting.
Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Disagree? Let me know: and give a reason.
You can email me at bijanewhite@gmail.com if you have anything to say that you don't want to put in a comment. Please say in the message if you do not wish me to reply.