There was a debate on facebook about Same-Sex Marriage, and of course,

conservative Christians came in and started quoting the Bible to reference why
Homosexuality is a sin.

Some of you may know that Religion has been a large interest of mine. I enjoy
studying it and it is because of my studies that I pulled away from the
stereotypical "Christian" label and instead leave my relationship with God to be
personal and of my own.

But anyhow, I wrote lengthy studies upon the scriptures that were quoted by the
opposing opinions. I felt like I should store them here and perhaps have you guys
read them as well if you'd like. Comments are screened, there is to be no slander
on here. Please know that these are simply the conclusions I have come to after
researching ancient history and the Bible over time. (I really wanted to be a
Theologists lol)

Actually, the word "homosexual" did not exist in that time period. The word came
about much much later in 1869 in a German pamphlet. So to say that the true text
of the Bible said Homosexuality was a sin, is false. This is the scripture you
actually are referring to:

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

The key word in this is 'effeminate' which is sometimes also translated as

'homosexual' wrongly. If Paul wanted to intend it to mean gay men, he would have
used the Greek word "paiderasste" which meant that very thing. However, he didn't.
The words he used is "malakoi" and a very unusual one "arsenokoitai". It isn't
exactly a real word and true meaning of it has been lost. One assumes it means
"Male pervert" for it is also used in I Timothy 1:9-10:

"We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and
rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill
their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and PERVERTS
(arsenokoitais), for slave traders and liars and perjurers."

It also has been seen similarly to I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 which has
passages about a Temple who had MALE PROSTITUTES. So it is also safe the believe
he was referencing them. It appears that he was trying to get across a meaning of
a man who was perverted, or a prostitute. Not a homosexual. Because as stated
earlier, if Paul wanted to specifically mean a gay man, he would have used the
word "paiderasste" which was the widely used term in Greek for gay men.

As for malakoi, it's root is malakos, which means "soft". Non-Biblical writings of
the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and
cowards. . When translating at the time, it seems clear why they chose the word
"effeminate". Especially with the cultural views of women and femininity. A man
who was "soft" or a "coward" would be like a woman, effeminate (now we all know
that isn't true about women! But our era is vastly different with women's rights).

So, to sum it all up, this passage is in no way referencing gay men. At all.
The story of Sodom and Gamorah is spoken in Genesis and also referenced back to
frome Jude. I will reference both of these.

Here is the passage from Genesis 19:

"The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of
Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to
the earth and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend
the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way." They
said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square." But he pressed them
strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a
feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and
old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot,
"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know
them." Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said,
"I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who
have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you
please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my
roof." But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn,
and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then
they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. But
the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut
the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the
house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the
door." - Genesis 19

Whew. Okay :) Here we go. Let's start with Genesis 19:4. The language used is
important for it says that everyone from Young and Old down to the last man of
Sodom had come to Lot's door.

With this, we can come to two conclusions: 1) Everyone in the city came to Lot's
door, women too. It uses the phrase "to the last man". The word "man" is commonly
used to mean Mankind. So it could very well be saying EVERYONE in the city. 2) At
the very least, all the men in the city both young and old.

Because of this, it would be absurd to believe that EVERY man and male child was
homosexual. If the passage had said "most of the men" or "some of the men" we
could possibly think they were driven by homosexual lust. However, it being that
either EVERYONE or at least ALL THE MEN came to Lot's door, throws this motivation
out. It would be reasonable to interpret that all men, both heterosexual and
homosexual (and maybe even women), came to Lot's door to participate in the
attack. Something much greater than homosexual lust had to be the cause.

Another instance happened, that actually reinforces the point above: at Genesis
19:8, Lot tried to bargain with the crowd his two daughters to spare his guests.
If the attack was driven by homosexual lust, why would offering them a woman be
sensible at all? It is clear that Lot had thought the majority of the men at his
door were in fact heterosexual men.

So what was the true moral of this story? First there was an extreme aggression
towards two individuals (the angels). The idea of rape very could be the moral,
but I think there is more to it.

Remember what was explained above in Romans? How going against what is "natural"
for them was a sin? If you think about it, many of the men in Sodom had to be
Heterosexual. For them to be driven by a lust of rape for two men would be
unnatural to them. Hence, the sin.

But also... it goes a little further than simply Rape and Paul's writings of
unnatural lust. One thing that can be over looked is the fact that the two men in
Lot's home were in fact, Angels.

Let's move on to Jude 7:

"Sodom and Gomorrah, 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.”

Key word here: "strange flesh"

At the time Jude was written, it was well known that women had intercourse with
Angels. This is further known by Genesis 6:1-4 where they tell of how the Son's of
God (Angels) came down and married women of the Earth and created Titans. This is
the act that God brought forth the Great Flood.

It is widely accepted that in this passage, the "strange flesh" was that of
another being's flesh, an angelic flesh. This is how the story had been
interpreted up until Philo in the first century AD in which it had then changed to
target Homosexuality.

So, the sin of Sodom and Gamorah was that of Rape, Paul's idea of abandoning your
"natural" and the desire and lust for intercourse with Angels.

It, again, does not show anything about a loving and committed homosexual couple.

For Romans, the passage you are referring to is:

““Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them
up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor 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 forever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did
change natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men
leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men
with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompense 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, covenant
breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” (Romans 1:21-28)

Paul was a Greek and Hebrew literature scholar. So, his writings may come off a
bit odd to people today. What we do know is that Paul tend to write in a
progression. In this scripture he is following an increase of sins that all tie
together:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)

2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator).
(v. 23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an
unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for
parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)

It is clear that Paul is referencing Idol worship. Within that, he mentions men
and women who give up their sexual orientation for that of a different one in a
promiscuous manner. This is something that was commonly done in Pagan worships.

One of the key terms in this is "natural". For a woman who first is attracted to
men and solely men, it is her "natural" orientation. If she gave that up to sleep
with another woman for promiscuous or lustful purposes, then that is the sin Paul
is referencing.

Now, we can easily flip this around the other way. It is acknowledged in the Bible
that "homosexuals" are born naturally. Take for instance the scripture Matthew
19:12

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there
are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept
this, let him accept it."

When one looks at the ancient texts of Eunuchs, a man who is unwilling to lie with
a woman or has a disinterest of a woman is a born from the womb Eunuch. These also
include men who are impotent, intersexed and debatablely transsexuals.

So, for a man, who is a homosexual (does not lie with women) to lie with a woman
for solely lustful reasons, then that as well falls under Paul's description of
sin. It would be "unnatural" for a homosexual to lie with someone of the opposing
gender.

Once again, Romans does not specify a loving and committed relationship between
two men nor two women.

In Leviticus 18:22 it states:

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

However, you are leaving out the whole context. Just before it in 18:21 it states:

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither
shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."

Once again, they are speaking of idoltary worship. Molech is a God or ritual
performed during the time. The context of the scripture has not changed. So when
one goes on to 18:22, it is essentially saying "Ritual sex between two men is
forbidden."
So it is still not referencing a loving and committed homosexual relationship. It
is referencing an act of idol worship.

I bring to you the story in Matthew 8:5-13 which is also referenced in Luke 7:1-
10.

"When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But
just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under
authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that
one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell
you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to
you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at
the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects
of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it
would." And his servant was healed at that very hour." Matthew 8:5-13

" When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered
Capernaum. There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick
and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to
him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they
pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he
loves our nation and has built our synagogue." So Jesus went with them.
He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him:
"Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my
roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say
the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority,
with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,'
and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following
him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Then
the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well." Luke
7:1-10

Once again I am going to speak of this in the original text of Greek. The Greek
word that was used by the Roman Centurion to reference his servant is "pais". This
word could be used for 3 things: 1) a boy or girl, 2) a servant, or 3) a servant
male lover. More information about this word could be read in "Homosexuality in
Greek Myth" by Bernard Sergent.

In that culture, a gay "spouse" was obtained by purchasing a male lover servant.
This servant was often called a "pais". So is this what the Centurion had?

To find out, we must see what was the context this word was meant in. To do so, we
are going to look further at Greek words and the Bible. We are first going to look
at Luke. When they are describing this sick servant, he uses many additional
words.

Luke calls this pais the Centurion's "entimos doulos". The word "doulos" is the
common word for "servant" or "slave". It was never used in Greek to reference a
son or a boy. So we know from this that the pais was not his Son. Luke makes it
clear that this person was his slave. What is curious, is that Luke adds on the
word "entimos". In Greek this word is translated to "honored". So, Luke is
specifying that this is no ordinary slave, he was an honored slave. Someone very
special to the Centurion.

When placing all the words together, this 'pais' was 'entimos doulos'. It was not
just a boy, or an ordinary slave. This leaves the conclusion to only mean that it
was the Centurion's male lover.

The second piece of evidence, which supports the former conclusion is back in
Matthew. When the Centurion is talking with Jesus about his faith in him, he
states:

"When I tell my slave to do something, he does it." In this sentence, he is not

discussing the sick servant, he is discussing his slaves (he mentions his soldiers
and his slaves). When he references his slaves in this sentence, the Centurion
uses the word "doulos", the generic term for slave. However, when he references
the sick servant, he switches to the word "pais". The Centurion marks a very clear
distinction between his normal servant and the servant he wishes Jesus to heal.

When the word 'pais' is used to describe a servant who is no ordinary slave, it
conclude to him being the master's male lover.

The last piece of evidence is rather circumstantial. The story is of a Roman

Centurion coming to Jesus to ask for him to heal his servant. What makes this
story remarkable is that the person was a proud Roman, who at the time were the
conquerors, begging for Jesus, a Jewish, to heal his servant. The lengths this man
went were extraordinary! Clearly this was not any slave.

What makes the story most remarkable of all, is while this man was begging for
Jesus to heal his male lover, Jesus looked to him and said "Then I will come and
heal him."

He didn't turn away in disgust, he didn't say that the man was living in sin and
so he would not help. Jesus said "I will come and heal him." Afterwards the
Centurion says he believes in Jesus so much that he would not have to come to his
home. He believed that his Pais would be healed.

That is when Jesus turns to the crowd and says: "I tell you, I have not found such
great faith even in Israel."

Actually, in the Hebrew text it says it much differently. Naomi's husband dies
when the reach Moab, then later her sons die after being married to Ruth and
Orpah.

During these times, a woman only had two possible social standings: being a
Daughter in his Father's household or being the Wife in her Husband's household.
Naomi and Ruth were neither and so without a Husband or returning to one's family
they had no social standing.

Naomi, knowing this decided to go back to Bethlehem to be with her family and
advises the other two to do so. However, Ruth rejects the idea while Orpah left
back to her family.

Passage Ruth 1:14 says this:

"And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-
law, but Ruth clung to her."

The word that is used for Ruth is "clung". The Hebrew word used is "dabaq". This
is precisely used the same way in which Adam feels about Eve in Genesis 2:24

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (dabaq)
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Ruth thusly felt the same way spouses are supposed to feel toward Naomi. This is
then followed by the vow she takes:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I
will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your
God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do
thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you" Ruth 1:16-17

The death unto which she speaks is not a theoretical death, but a real one that
they would face being two women. When they tell the story between the two, they
describe the harshness of their life. When they finally return home, Ruth marries
a much older man which is described as for convenience, another task to help them
survive.

In fact, when Ruth gives birth to a child they ignore the father completely and
say:

"“A son has been born to Naomi.” Ruth 4:17

And they even go to re-affirm their love for each other

"He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-
law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth."
Ruth 4:15

The story is about a love so strong, that Ruth, who felt the same way about Naomi
as Adam did of Eve, throws caution out of the window to be with Naomi against all
odds and likely death. She put her life at risk rather than flee home as would the
sensible thing to do.