Being gay is NOT a sin

Quotes: A1 - "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. -Romans 1:27" A2 - "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. -Leviticus 18:22" A3 - "Seems simple enough, we all sin in numerous ways daily and this is just one more. " A4 - "Is the act of being attracted to someone of your own gender a sin? No, yet lusting for it and acting on it are both sins. It is a twisting of love, just as Zoophilia. " A5 - "Love as I know it in both the bible and in life, is not based on attraction at all, rather choosing to put the other person before yourself no matter what, and to stay with them. This remains a choice constantly chosen again throughout the relationship. " -- (A1) Romans 1:27 Romans is taken from Paul's philosophy on unbridled passion. It was pagan idolatry and temple sex rituals among heterosexuals that was the focus of Paul's issue. Sexual orientation was not even discovered yet, so while same-sex behavior existed (almost exclusively pederasty or prostitution) it had nothing to do with gay people. The idea of homosexuality (exclusively being attracted to and loving the same sex) was not even a present idea to heterosexuals until late 1800 AD. It would nearly be impossible for that to even come across in the Bible. It was merely, as said before, heterosexuals committing temple sex rituals, pagan idolatry and having unbridled passion with other heterosexuals. (A2) Leviticus 18:22 Before I get into my main argument here, I would just like to say that Christians do not follow the Old Testament. If that were the case, we would deliberately be disobeying what it says in the New Testament, as well as making completely immoral choices. So even if Leviticus 18:22 was condemning homosexuals, it would not be considered a sin today. But assuming it were moral and part of the law Christians follow today. here are a few things that would be considered "lawful" and "morally correct": killing all women, plus their sons, who have had sex before marriage (Numbers 31:17-18), (sin) eating any seafood without fins or scales whatsoever (Leviticus 11:9-12), (sin) eating pork (Leviticus 11:7), not being allowed to shave sideburns or the sides of your beard (Leviticus 19:27), KILLING your child if they curse at you (Leviticus 20:9). I believe you get the point. Let me know if you would like more verses, as I would be glad to give them. Now onto my main argument: It does not talk about homosexuality. Nor does Leviticus 20:13. "The Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for 'a man to lie with a man as with a woman' in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East, so far as ancient texts discussed it, had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the points, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much. Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of 'catcher' in such sexual activity. To lie with a man 'as with a woman' pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women. Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons. No one was safe. In the Ancient Near East, male-male sex can also have a religious meaning. Sex as religious devotion is an odd concept for most of us, but it was not so for ancients. The Ancient Near East is a dry place. Agriculture there is a critical, but precarious undertaking. Consequently, agriculture attracted a good deal of religious attention in ancient times. Fertility gods were common, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous (that is, both male and female). Devotees believed that by planting one's seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year. None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act (the 'pitcher,' so to speak) was acting in the very heterosexual role of a male. A man could dominate another man by buggering him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of the female. That was why it was permitted to rape one's enemies at the end of a battle, but not to bugger one's slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. In the second case, you're just taking advantage. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (again, the 'pitcher') is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another, in this case, a man reimagined as part female. So, was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East? Probably. But it is never discussed in the surviving literature. What meaning, then, did the sex acts referred to in Leviticus have? Theoretically, it could have been any of the three: domination, recreation, or cult sex. Most scholars think it was the last of these. This is because of the word used to condemn it: abomination, in Hebrew to'evah. This word is often used in contexts where a religious offense is involved. And this section of Leviticus, known to scholars as the Holiness Code, is all about steering clear of foreign religious and cultural practices. So the Leviticus texts probably forbid engaging in sex with foreign priests' but we cannot be sure. Those texts might forbid the sexual exploitation of male slaves. But we can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. Male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time. A famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, 'Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women' (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean 'I love you. ' It means 'I own you. ' Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean 'I love you. ' To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment. " (A3) You're right, we all sin. However, being homosexual (and acting on such love) is not sinful. (A4) Are you comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality? I think you might want to re-check this. (A5) Attraction is so that we can find someone that we are, well, attracted to, and therefore fall IN love with. Hence dating. You cannot fall in love with someone you feel no attraction for. I love my friends, both male, and female, however, that does not mean I am in love with them. Nor attracted to them. So I agree, love is something you have for another that puts them above yourself, caring and wanting the best for them. However, that is a different love compared to that of with your partner. Not all love is the same. If that were the case, it wouldn't be considered unusual and detestable to be in love with your mother, father, brother or sister. You love them, but you wouldn't be in love with them. (By "in love", I mean being infatuated with a person and wanting to spend the rest of your life with said person) I look forward to your rebuttals/arguments, Con.