Homosexuals are not still condemned in the Bible

Before I begin, I must thank you for staying. For most people I attempt to create a debate with, they leave the 2nd or 3rd round. There are almost always "dominant" and "submissive" partners. Except with the reference, Professor Mary Tolbert was making, it was primarily for dominance of one man over another to feel powerful and in-charge (as she said). Today, men and women have sex for pleasure and out of love, not primarily to show who is dominant over another. The positions of straight men and women are obvious, however, when one man took on another, it was significant because it showed the "taker"/penetrated (I guess you could call him) as inferior to that of the dominant subject. It was disrespected and considered unacceptable. Whereas that is not such as with straight people, nor had it been (providing zero evidence that it was) in Biblical times. "In biblical times, sex was regarded as an activity engaged in by a dominant person and a submissive person. For a man to play the role of a submissive partner would be a reversal of roles, and unacceptable. [Most adults engaged in sexual activity today consider each other as equals.]" Link: http://www.religioustolerance.org... "This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male"not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the Mediterranean." She then goes on to say that "in these societies", referencing to those that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated (in which was the act of "penetrated" was frowned upon). Not that there were none merely interested in the sex out of attraction for them. The majority of sex acts in Biblical times were merely, and subjectively, for heterosexual men to dominate another. I am not saying that homosexuals did not exist, I am saying that, simply, heterosexuals having sex with another man was majority rather than homosexuals and "a prevalent (because, as said before, the population of homosexuals would have been extremely low based on common sense out of today's statistics of homosexuality). "This article from the CARM you cited [2] explains in great detail why the word arsenokoites refers precisely to gays, and says the following at the end: 'Therefore it is easy to see why the word "homosexual" was not used until later English translations. Once a more accurate English word existed, it was matched to the corresponding Greek word. Homosexuality is still a sin according to the Bible.'" Except, from basic Greek-ology, it has been disproved from meaning "homosexual". See second source cited: https://serendipitydodah.files.wordpress.com... In a source used for the "'abusers of themselves unto mankind' reference", it explains the word as well. "When paired with arsenokoitai, malakos seems to refer to a person that is a victim of sex with men " a slave, a prostitute, a catamite, a victim of rape " someone perhaps drawn into temple sexual rituals, and not necessarily male. With this word, Paul is referring to the victim of sexual (and financial?) coercion, whether pederasty, pedophilia, rape, or forced prostitution. And if malakos indicated an underage male prostitute, the following arsenokoites would mean the one who forced himself on the youth. This would apply to heterosexual gay-for-pay prostitutes as well, as it would in any case where a male was subjected to forced sexual activity." Source: https://www.stopbibleabuse.org... " You go on to say that "Men interested in dominance had no desire for the men themselves". I"m sorry? From what I understand, a gay fellow can enjoy being "dominated" while still keeping an emotional bond with his dominator" Since you couldn't piece together what I meant, I will explain a bit more. As I have been saying basically this entire time, heterosexual men were only interested in dominance among the penetrated. When I said that the men interested in dominance had no desire for the men themselves, I was explicitly (apparently not clearly enough) referring to heterosexual men who had sex with boys or raped other men (or induced to pagan temple sex rituals). Pure dominance was the interest that heterosexual men had towards others. However GAY men, of course, most likely had an emotional connection and bond with their partners, seen as they were actually attracted to them. "It makes no mention of any emotional LGBT love stories" Actually, that is quite untrue. Though MANY Christians refuse to believe the relationship between Jonathan and David was a romantic one, the words used were clearly that of a love story. Source: http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org... It's shown even more clearly that people refuse to accept this as that of true love when people changed a verse, in some versions the Bible, from "he kissed" to "he shook hands with". It's quite sad. Source: http://www.nairaland.com... "Other translations have a different ending to the verse: ", and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV) ", and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible) "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible) "They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language) "They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible) "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version) "Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible) ", and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version) The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. " "If you wish to argue that the KJV is superior, I would remind you not only of the unicorn thing, but that it was last updated in 1611. The NIV was last updated in 2011." The most previous point just helps further the case that as time goes on, the Bible becomes more and more warped. "However, lesbians are condemned too by implication." One thing I forgot to go back to (which I was planning on doing) was your reference to Matthew. Jesus was answering a question about divorce. This is a verse that MANY tend to overlook to fit the anti-homosexual stance on the Bible. I'm sure your intent wasn't to completely ignore what it began to say, but to help further your case. However, like I said, it was based on divorce. "Matthew 19:3-12 provides an interesting perspective into gay marriage as Jesus intended His disciples to understand it. Jesus' answer to the question about "divorce for any cause" is more fully recorded by Matthew than by Mark. In Matthew, Jesus lists three excep-tions to the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm ("all men cannot receive this saying")." "19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven"t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"[a] 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." http://www.gaychristian101.com... Over-all sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org... https://serendipitydodah.files.wordpress.com... https://www.stopbibleabuse.org... http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org... http://www.gaychristian101.com...