Homosexuals are not still condemned in the Bible

I sadly know of a few Christians who support the death penalty for homosexuals after an uninformed reading of Leviticus, so it was probably wise to include it. I’m also grateful that you cited sources this time, because I was unsure of what to say at some points in Round 2. You provide us with a quote from Professor Mary Tolbert, in which she talks about every homosexual act involving a “penetrator” and “penetrated”.But don’t we have the same dynamic today? Is there not usually a “dominant” and “submissive” partner for all acts of intercourse, gay or straight? I’m drawing from a very limited pool of knowledge about gay culture, so bear with me please. For a gay relationship, I suppose the roles could be interchangeable, but everyone has a preference right? That’s why we have “bears” and “twinks” - gay men with varying degrees of masculinity. It seems to me that Dr. Tolbert was trying to say that sodomy (excuse the word) really hasn’t changed that much since ancient times, and perhaps that we still live in the culture of “dominance and submission” that she mentioned.She also mentions, or is misquoted to say, that male-on-male sex in Biblical times was 100% rape. This is impossible, and I can give you evidence why it’s impossible from the Bible itself. Throughout the books of 1 and 2 Kings, you will see mention, varying in wording by translation, of “male temple prostitutes”. These are the qedeshim in the Hebrew tongue, and are hated and reviled by the writers. They were exclusively gay prostitutes, which I can back up with evidence later if you wish [1]. This was a major oversight on Dr. Tolbert’s part, unless that quote was pulled out of context. The fact that men would pay money to engage in sex with other men basically destroys that rape theory. Also, I found something on Yahoo Answers that looks a little familiar: https://answers.yahoo.com...Forgive me, that was a long, strange tangent. But I believe Pro’s point was that no actual gay relationships existed for the Bible to criticize, which is false. On to A2. From what I read, I hope that Pro’s not saying that homosexuality doesn’t exist unless the exact English word “homosexual” is used. I was about to type up my reasoning, but actually, one of your sources does it for me.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.”Whoops. Don’t worry, I’ve made that exact same mistake before of pasting a source and reading it afterwards only to find it argues against me. 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, and there’s no reason why this couldn’t happen in the B.C. times too. And as I’ve made clear, the Bible talks about same-sex attraction quite explicitly. It makes no mention of any emotional LGBT love stories, but why would a book coming out of an ultra-homophobic society do such a thing?I’m aware of the faulty and flawed translation known as the King James, which renders “ox” as “unicorn” (Job 39:9-10). “Abusers of themselves unto mankind” doesn’t really get the point across, and as you admit, the word “homosexual” was not invented yet. 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.You go on to ask me to search for historical examples of girl-on-girl love. Rather than do that, I’ll reiterate something I said last round. If I can prove to you that the Bible condemns ANY homosexuals, then I am the victor. If the title of this debate referred not to “homosexuals” but “ALL homosexuals”, that wouldn’t be the case. However, lesbians are condemned too by implication. I can’t think of any steamy Sapphic episodes in the Bible, but I’ll stick to what I said.And that concludes Round 3. Back to you, Pro!Sources:1. http://dyneslines.blogspot.com...2. https://carm.org...