The Bible and Homosexuality

[teapot_tall_and_yummy]

Sorry bout that last entry - kind of a repeat, dunno what happened there. Can I have that deleted please?

 

[Pah]

...
Finally, I can tell you are one of those who think homosexuals are born, not made, and cannot help themselves. If you want to continue believing that myth that homosexual activists want you to believe so they can achieve discrete and insular minority status before the law, fine; if you want you eyes opened, click here:

http://www.narth.com/

I followed your link from Narth to the synopsis of the Spitzer study which is the basis of justifying "reparative therapy"

Position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States state that there is no scientific evidence that a homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy, often referred to as “reparative therapy.” This study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual can, with some form of reparative therapy, become predominantly heterosexual [pah: i.e., bisexual]. The participants were 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) who reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years. They were interviewed by telephone, using a structured interview that assessed same sex attraction, fantasy, yearning, and overt homosexual behavior. On all measures, the year prior to the therapy was compared to the year before the interview. The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year. Reports of complete change were uncommon. Female participants reported significantly more change than did male participants. Either some gay men and lesbians, following reparative therapy, actually change their predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation or some gay men and women construct elaborate self-deceptive narratives (or even lie) in which they claim to have changed their sexual orientation, or both. For many reasons, it is concluded that the participants' self-reports were, by-and-large, credible and that few elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.

Source: Archives of Sexual Behavior

Added emphasis is mine.
That is a far cry from the picture you would paint of all homosexuals.

I think you will find support for that view in my thread Sexual Orientation, A Scientific Review, 2004[\url]

 

[Pah]

Those people were inspired by God. Say all you want the fact is people do twist
the law to make homosexuality exceptable when its not. The wwjd, What I do know is that the lord would never condone such behavior.

I won't comment on the inerrancy of the "inspired Word of God" but I will point out that, unless you have that same 'inspiration" your reading of God's Word is fallible.

 

[quick]

Quick, how do you know that homosexuality is not inborn? How can you be so sure that you know what made me a lesbian better than I do myself? Not that you will believe me, but I made no choice to be a lesbian, it's just who I am. And I can accept that and live my life happily or I can deny it and pretend to be something I'm not.

And I want to be happy.

What I do know is that no study to date has shown homosexuality to be inbred and congenital. If not, then it can be controlled--maybe not easily, maybe not 100% of the time, but it can be addressed.

Let's take this out of the realm of homosexuality. For years, we have debated the causes of alcoholism. A clear genetic link has been discussed, but in recent years that has been generally discredited. It is known that children of alcoholics have a greater tendency to become alcoholics than children of non-alcoholics, which provides circumstantial evidence of some congenital link--but only circumstantial. The concensus today seems to be that this result is caused by growing up in an alcoholic environment.

Now, why can't an alcoholic say, "I want to drink. I don't care what people say. If it corrodes my liver, its my business, etc., and it makes me happy to drink." Well, they can. Yet, because we generally agree today that alcoholism is morally and pragmatically wrong, we try to stop alcoholics--and by no means are we even close to 100% successful, not by a long shot. We try to stop it regardless of the cause--genetic, environmental, sunspots, etc.--because we believe it harmful and wrong.

The only difference with homosexuality is our society is gradually deciding homosexuality is acceptable and is therefore trying to find new ways to justify the practice of homosexuality; hence the attack on Christian religion and its constitutional document so as to make this possible.

If homosexuality is wrong--wrong because the God-breathed Word says so--then whether any individual sinner, or even an entire society, says it's a good thing does not make it so. If this is a difficult conclusion, so be it. People have tried to argue for centuries that criminal behavior such as murder is inbred or congenital. It certainly exists in each generation; so, do we let murder go because some people want to murder and may be born that way?

As an aside, I get a real kick out of those who argue that there was no word from "homosexuality", or a functional equivalent, in these ancient languages. Consider this--if homosexuality is inbred and congenital, as most of you argue, then it is reasonable to assume this has always been so, at least during recorded history. If so, then it is further logical to assume that each language would have a word to describe that which is intrinsic to a small but clearly discernable portion of each generation of each society. I mean, would any language in the world not have a word for "infant", for example? Of course not. So, either homosexuality is a very new phenomenon, in which event it is hardly possible that it is genetic unless we had a "gay mutation" that spread around the world into all races and nations in the relatively few generations that have lived since the birth of Christ (someone posted above that the Greek of Paul's day had not a word for "homosexuality"), or it is a learned behavior caused by certain environmental factors--like being molested or sexually engaged in childhood or adolescence, for example. Hmmm....

In any event, if it's wrong, its wrong, whether we in 2004 change our minds about it, or not. That said, it is STILL just another sin, and sin can be forgiven. It's just that the battle today is not whether we should have the right to sin, but rather, whether homosexuality is a sin at all. As I like to say to friends, in the recent past, people indeed broke the rules, sometimes with glee, but they knew what the rules were; today, we're trying to destroy the rules altogether.

Homosexuality is indeed rebellious--to God, to traditional moral values, and to traditional society. As unrepentent but fallen and sinful man is intrinsically rebellious against God, and as this rebelliousness is growing quickly today in many ways as the world lunges toward final judgment, it is no surprise that this sexual rebellion, both hetero and homo, is growing rapidly as well. Bestiality, incest, S&M, torture--all have shown significant growth, along with a huge jump in pornography. In fact, pornography tends to make one jaded, and one looks for new and better thrills. The young homosexual may simply enjoy casual oral sex in the back of a car, but then may graduate to "golden showers" as his other activities grow stale and repetitive. Even young heterosexuals have said that seeing porn has prompted them to try bi-sexual experiences. It's just one big party.

We are on a difficult road, and since sex was a wonderful gift from God, so majestic, wonderful and passionate in its proper context, it is a shame especially painful to see its correct place distorted in our society.

 

[Pah]

What I do know is that no study to date has shown homosexuality to be inbred and congenital. If not, then it can be controlled--maybe not easily, maybe not 100% of the time, but it can be addressed.

I must be on quick's "ignore" for I have linked to just those studies that he/she denies.

There remains the question of why "control" is required. It is not a disease nor a phsycological affliction. It is amply demonstrated, within God's creation, that it is a normal, natural, evolutionary sexual orientation. Sheep do it, primates do it, even Flipper does it.- why is it considered "sin" and why must society be forced to accept the individual morality, not necessarily God's morality and definetly not a universal Christian morality, of an exclusive group of Christians.

Quick made analogies to alcohol. I should not have to mention that the 18th Amendment, brought about by the fanatical zeal of temparate Christians, was repealed. Christianity had failed in its attempt to remake society in its own image.

 

[teapot_tall_and_yummy]

All righty then quick.......

As for society gradually accepting homosexuality... just remember it took society almost as long to accept women as competent enough to vote. Just because society accepts it does not mean its wrong. cause thats pretty ridiculous.

"few generations that have lived since the birth of Christ" that was 2000 years ago. thats a devil load of generations if ya ask me.

oh and by the way, murdering someone is a choice. homosexuality is not. pretty straighforward.

we're gonna get this straight... homosexuality... LIKE HETEROSEXUALITY is not a choice. it is not a 'learned' behavior. Im going to go ahead and assume your male. Something tells me you don't have a lot of control over what causes you to have an erection. just cause there is no study to prove anything doesnt mean its a learned behavior that is inflicted on anyone.

as for the thing about rules... rules are written down by man. so don't define things according to the divine using rules. cause they are MANS rules.

In regards to it being rebellioius to traditional society... do you know how many things have ever been 'rebellious' to traditional society? just about everything that is socially acceptable now was once rebellious. so thats really a weak argument there.

 

[quick]

SEE CAPS
What I do know is that no study to date has shown homosexuality to be inbred and congenital. If not, then it can be controlled--maybe not easily, maybe not 100% of the time, but it can be addressed.

I must be on quick's "ignore" for I have linked to just those studies that he/she denies. NO--AND I KEEP UP WITH THE STUDIES; THERE IS STILL NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HOMOSEUXALITY IS CONGENITAL

There remains the question of why "control" is required. It is not a disease nor a phsycological affliction. It is amply demonstrated, within God's creation, that it is a normal, natural, evolutionary sexual orientation. Sheep do it, primates do it, even Flipper does it.- why is it considered "sin" and why must society be forced to accept the individual morality, not necessarily God's morality and definetly not a universal Christian morality, of an exclusive group of Christians. LIKE I SAID IN MY LONG POST, WE HAVE DECIDED GAY IS OKAY, AND WE ARE NOW WORKING BACKWARD TO FIND THE "SCIENCE".

Quick made analogies to alcohol. I should not have to mention that the 18th Amendment, brought about by the fanatical zeal of temparate Christians, was repealed. Christianity had failed in its attempt to remake society in its own image.

I LIKE A DRINK; I WAS TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOLISM, BUT MAYBE YOU DIDN'T READ THE POST CAREFULLY. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE TO PROHIBIT DRINKNING--JESUS DRANK. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VERSES ABOUT DRUNKENESS, HOWEVER, AND HOW DEBILITATING IT IS.

CHRISTIANS, IF SINCERE, COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THEIR IMAGE; WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH GOD'S WORD.

 

[quick]

SEE CAPS EMBEDDED IN THE QUOTE AND BELOW

All righty then quick.......

As for society gradually accepting homosexuality... just remember it took society almost as long to accept women as competent enough to vote. Just because society accepts it does not mean its wrong. cause thats pretty ridiculous. NO, THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY MAKES IT WRONG. IF WE BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY RULES IN ALL THINGS, WE ARE IN TROUBLE. DIDN'T THE MAJORITY AT LEAST TACITLY GO ALONG WITH HITLER'S FINAL SOLUTION? IF THERE IS NO TRANSCENDANT RIGHT AND WRONG, LIFE WILL BE UNBEARABLE VERY SOON. WE HAVE A CONCEPT OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE CREATOR IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. I HOPE WE REMEMBER THE SOURCE OF THOSE RIGHTS--AND IT ISN'T THE "MAJORITY".

"few generations that have lived since the birth of Christ" that was 2000 years ago. thats a devil load of generations if ya ask me.

oh and by the way, murdering someone is a choice. homosexuality is not. pretty straighforward.

we're gonna get this straight... homosexuality... LIKE HETEROSEXUALITY is not a choice. it is not a 'learned' behavior. Im going to go ahead and assume your male. Something tells me you don't have a lot of control over what causes you to have an erection. just cause there is no study to prove anything doesnt mean its a learned behavior that is inflicted on anyone. I MAY GET STIMULATED, BUT HOW I ACT UPON THAT STIMULATION--AHH, THERE'S THE QUESTION. IF I HAD TO SCREW SOMEONE EVERYTIME I SAW AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN, I'D BE IN PRISON FOREVER. MORALITY, AT ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL, IS DOING WHAT ONE OUGHT TO DO, AND HAS A DUTY TO DO, NOT WHAT ONE'S BASE URGES TEMPT THEM TO DO. I HOPE WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THAT DUTY, ALTHOUGH FROM YOUR POST, I GUESS YOU ARE OF THE "IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT" SCHOOL.

as for the thing about rules... rules are written down by man. so don't define things according to the divine using rules. cause they are MANS rules. NO--I BELIEVE SCRIPTURE TO BE GOD BREATHED. AS PAUL WRITES IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 AND 17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "


In regards to it being rebellioius to traditional society... do you know how many things have ever been 'rebellious' to traditional society? just about everything that is socially acceptable now was once rebellious. so thats really a weak argument there. BUT, IF CERTAIN SOCIAL RULES ARE FROM SCRIPTURE, THEN THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CHANGE

I AM FINISHED WITH THIS THREAD. IT WAS A GOOD DEBATE. IF, HOWEVER, YOU DISCOUNT THE WORD OF GOD AS JUST SOME STUFF COBBLED TOGETHER BY A FEW SHEPHERDS IN THEIR OFF-HOURS, THEN, OF COURSE, IT IS NOT PERSUASIVE. I CAN ONLY PRAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WOULD GIVE YOU EYES TO SEE AND EARS TO HEAR. GOD BLESS YOU.

 

[Pah]

SEE CAPS
What I do know is that no study to date has shown homosexuality to be inbred and congenital. If not, then it can be controlled--maybe not easily, maybe not 100% of the time, but it can be addressed.

I must be on quick's "ignore" for I have linked to just those studies that he/she denies. NO--AND I KEEP UP WITH THE STUDIES; THERE IS STILL NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HOMOSEUXALITY IS CONGENITAL

There remains the question of why "control" is required. It is not a disease nor a phsycological affliction. It is amply demonstrated, within God's creation, that it is a normal, natural, evolutionary sexual orientation. Sheep do it, primates do it, even Flipper does it.- why is it considered "sin" and why must society be forced to accept the individual morality, not necessarily God's morality and definetly not a universal Christian morality, of an exclusive group of Christians. LIKE I SAID IN MY LONG POST, WE HAVE DECIDED GAY IS OKAY, AND WE ARE NOW WORKING BACKWARD TO FIND THE "SCIENCE".

Quick made analogies to alcohol. I should not have to mention that the 18th Amendment, brought about by the fanatical zeal of temparate Christians, was repealed. Christianity had failed in its attempt to remake society in its own image.

I LIKE A DRINK; I WAS TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOLISM, BUT MAYBE YOU DIDN'T READ THE POST CAREFULLY. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE TO PROHIBIT DRINKNING--JESUS DRANK. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VERSES ABOUT DRUNKENESS, HOWEVER, AND HOW DEBILITATING IT IS.

CHRISTIANS, IF SINCERE, COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THEIR IMAGE; WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH GOD'S WORD.

I wonder why you are yelling at me?

1. D. Swaab and M. Hofman, 1995, Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus in relation to gender and sexual orientation, Trends in Neuroscience 18:264-70; D. Swaab, L. Gooren, and M. Hofman, 1995, Brain research, gender, and sexual orientation,]. Homosexuality 28:283-301; D. Swaab and M. Hofman, 1990, An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men, Brain Res. 537:141-48.

2. This difference is manifest from ten to thirty years of age. See: D. Swaab,199 5, Development of the human hypothalamus, Neurochemical Research 5:5̊9-19, esp. fig. 4.

3. Results based on a comparison of brains from eighteen homosexual males between twenty-two and seventy-four years of age who died of AIDS with the brains of ten heterosexual males between twenty-five and forty-three years of age who also died of AIDS. See: Swaab, Gooren, and Hofman, 1995, Brain research, gender, and sexual orientation, esp. fig. 3.

4. See: S. LeVay, 1991, A difference in hypothalamic structure between hetero
sexual and homosexual men, Science 253:1034-37, esp. fig. 2.

5. D. McFadden and E. Pasanen, 1998, Comparison of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-e,yoked otoacoustic emissions, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 95:2709-13.'

6. D. McFadden, E. Pasanen, and N. Callaway, 1998, Changes in otoacoustic emissions in a transsexual male during treatment with estrogen, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104:1555-58.

Six studies of congenital expression from the opening post in Sexual Orientation, A Scientific Review, 2004[/color

Can you explain why you think the weight of these various studies does not offer conclusive evidence for a congentital beginning of homosexuality.

Can you explain why the study by V. Geist, 1971 Mountain Sheep: A study in Behavior and Evolution, University of Chicago Press, 1984 and J. Berger, 1985 Instances of female-like behavior in a male ungulate, Anim. Behav. does not meet the criteria of conclusiveness. And further explain why the individual studies by C. Hulet, Bailliere-Tindall, E. Price, and L. Katz on domestic sheep should not be joined with that to show the inbred qualities of homosexuality. These domestic sheep studies , some commissioned by Congress, had a purpose of understanding the homosexuality so it could be removed iin breeding.

"WE HAVE DECIDED GAY IS OKAY, AND WE ARE NOW WORKING BACKWARD TO FIND THE 'SCIENCE' ". This does not answer my question - "why is it considered "sin" and why must society be forced to accept the individual morality, not necessarily God's morality and definetly not a universal Christian morality, of an exclusive group of Christians?."

So many Christians seem to abandon the discussion whenever this is asked.

I merely replied to your mention of alcohol with another analogy

I fully appreciate and respect the individual Christian's focus on God's Word. My only hope is that you get it right. I am fully open to discuss any explanation but, so far, none has been forthcoming. I, for one, have not discounted God's as Word, as yet, but only the evidence of multiple Christian interpretations of it. I am focusing on interpretation.

 

[Lightkeeper]

SEE CAPS EMBEDDED IN THE QUOTE AND BELOW

All righty then quick.......

As for society gradually accepting homosexuality... just remember it took society almost as long to accept women as competent enough to vote. Just because society accepts it does not mean its wrong. cause thats pretty ridiculous. NO, THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY MAKES IT WRONG. IF WE BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY RULES IN ALL THINGS, WE ARE IN TROUBLE. DIDN'T THE MAJORITY AT LEAST TACITLY GO ALONG WITH HITLER'S FINAL SOLUTION? IF THERE IS NO TRANSCENDANT RIGHT AND WRONG, LIFE WILL BE UNBEARABLE VERY SOON. WE HAVE A CONCEPT OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE CREATOR IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. I HOPE WE REMEMBER THE SOURCE OF THOSE RIGHTS--AND IT ISN'T THE "MAJORITY".

"few generations that have lived since the birth of Christ" that was 2000 years ago. thats a devil load of generations if ya ask me.

oh and by the way, murdering someone is a choice. homosexuality is not. pretty straighforward.

we're gonna get this straight... homosexuality... LIKE HETEROSEXUALITY is not a choice. it is not a 'learned' behavior. Im going to go ahead and assume your male. Something tells me you don't have a lot of control over what causes you to have an erection. just cause there is no study to prove anything doesnt mean its a learned behavior that is inflicted on anyone. I MAY GET STIMULATED, BUT HOW I ACT UPON THAT STIMULATION--AHH, THERE'S THE QUESTION. IF I HAD TO SCREW SOMEONE EVERYTIME I SAW AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN, I'D BE IN PRISON FOREVER. MORALITY, AT ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL, IS DOING WHAT ONE OUGHT TO DO, AND HAS A DUTY TO DO, NOT WHAT ONE'S BASE URGES TEMPT THEM TO DO. I HOPE WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THAT DUTY, ALTHOUGH FROM YOUR POST, I GUESS YOU ARE OF THE "IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT" SCHOOL.

as for the thing about rules... rules are written down by man. so don't define things according to the divine using rules. cause they are MANS rules. NO--I BELIEVE SCRIPTURE TO BE GOD BREATHED. AS PAUL WRITES IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 AND 17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "


In regards to it being rebellioius to traditional society... do you know how many things have ever been 'rebellious' to traditional society? just about everything that is socially acceptable now was once rebellious. so thats really a weak argument there. BUT, IF CERTAIN SOCIAL RULES ARE FROM SCRIPTURE, THEN THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CHANGE

I AM FINISHED WITH THIS THREAD. IT WAS A GOOD DEBATE. IF, HOWEVER, YOU DISCOUNT THE WORD OF GOD AS JUST SOME STUFF COBBLED TOGETHER BY A FEW SHEPHERDS IN THEIR OFF-HOURS, THEN, OF COURSE, IT IS NOT PERSUASIVE. I CAN ONLY PRAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WOULD GIVE YOU EYES TO SEE AND EARS TO HEAR. GOD BLESS YOU.

****MOD POST****

please tone it down and no proselytizing.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

How unfortunate, quick. Christianity has no bastion for its defense now on this forum (at least not to my knowledge). But, I do not blaim you for leaving the discussion. I couldn't take it for two days. It is amazing how those that say they tolerant are actually the most intolerant of all.

 

[Pah]

How unfortunate, quick. Christianity has no bastion for its defense now on this forum (at least not to my knowledge). But, I do not blaim you for leaving the discussion. I couldn't take it for two days. It is amazing how those that say they tolerant are actually the most intolerant of all.

Your greatest defense is the truth. All you need to do is answer the question posed.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

We (Christians) have presented what we believe to be the truth. You refuse to hear our answers with open minds.

 

[Pah]

We (Christians) have presented what we believe to be the truth. You refuse to hear our answers with open minds.

I have heard your answers and I have read/heard the answers of other Christians that differ from yours.

I have even read the verses in context and read commentary from both sides.

All I have asked is why your answer should be believed inopposition to other Christians. You seem to avoid that question.

 

[Green Gaia]

***MOD POST***


Let's debate the TOPIC, please. Not each others intentions. This is a debate, not a forum to convert others. Let's keep that in mind please.


Thank You.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

pah- "All I have asked is why your answer should be believed inopposition to other Christians. You seem to avoid that question."

Do you make reference to the Episcapol church? I know that there are those in the Christian church that are for homosexual marriage. All of them throw the Bible out the window. Of course, they are quick to announce the "Jesus loves all people" verses in the Bible as basis for their acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed, God does call us to love all people in the world and I am not for attacking the gay community violently (in word or action). What I do find a problem with is a forum thread that is directed at homosexuality and the Bible with a conclusion being that homosexuality didn't exist in Biblical times so the Bible can't speak on it. Put simply, I believe in the literal translation of the Bible and I believe that God is not unclear about what is and is not sin. The opposition to the literal translation of scripture, uses science and studies to explain homosexuality and why it should be accepted. Bring Holy Scripture forward that says that homosexuality is ok and I will believe it. I believe that quick has already presented scriptural evidence and backing intellectual support for the fact that scripture expressly views homosexuality as immoral and wrong.

 

[Bastet]

LCMS ~ I don't recall anyone saying that homosexuality didn't exist in Biblical times. I do, however, seem to remember more than one comment about the specific word of the time for homosexual (since the specific word "homosexual" did not exist), being conspicuously absent from the original text. It's the interpretation of the word that was used, that is being debated here...your 'literal translation', doesn't appear to actually be literal...

 

[anders]

How true, Bastet.

In my opinion as a full-time professional translator since 1987, there can't even be such a thing as a "literal" translation. Even for the most neutral technical text, the translator can't avoid giving it a personal touch, influenced by her/his personal views, opinons and experiences, the era in which it is written, current knowledge etc. etc.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Sorry, translation is the wrong word. Interpretation is the one I had in mind.

 

[Pah]

I believe in the literal interpretation [translation replaced] of the Bible and I believe that God is not unclear about what is and is not sin. The opposition to the literal interpretation [translation replaced] of scripture, uses science and studies to explain homosexuality and why it should be accepted. Bring Holy Scripture forward that says that homosexuality is ok and I will believe it. I believe that quick has already presented scriptural evidence and backing intellectual support for the fact that scripture expressly views homosexuality as immoral and wrong.

The problem of justifying a literal interpretation is shown by anders comments regarding translation. The evidence for that lies in the numerous versions of the English Bible. I also seem to remember a commision that identified 8000+ "mistranslations" that had impact (whatever it was they considered "impact")

There is also the factor of inerrancy when the translation is not at risk. Inerrancy has several meanings from "Fully inerrant" to "fit for teaching" I believe that one site listed about 8 differert degrees of inerrancy.

The establishement of the canon of the Bible is a third factor. The choosing of what went into the forming various documents into a cohesive Bible may have left out some of God's Word and added works of man - there is evidence that this is so.

Jews recognized the problem and established commentaries that have as much application to morality and God's law as the original work. There is no counterpart being taught in Christian semenary.

The Bible is full of literary devices (parabale being one of them) that are not meant to be taken literally but a truth is to be found in the telling

The science of the Bible is a slice of the time in which it was written and remains static. Science grows in scope and veracity.

Finally, a personal note - I was taught that the commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". Today you will find many versions with "murder" replacing "kill". The moral scope of that one change is tremendous. ("shalt" probably has an impact as well).