Can you respond to this video on homosexuality and the Bible? http://www.upworthy.com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say?g=2&c=bl3
I understand the arguments, but I definitely disagree with the conclusion of this person. First of all, he tries to use Ezekiel 16:49 to try to “prove” that sex between men is not sinful. This is not a good argument at all. It is true that Ezekiel identifies some of the sins of Sodom, and that the average reader might be surprised to see that their pride and lack of concern for the needy are some of the sins of Sodom. However, the Ezekiel passage does NOT say that these were the only sins of Sodom. The passage in Ezekiel was given to shock the Jews into seeing that social injustice is very sinful in God’s eyes. It certainly is NOT saying that sexual relations with members of the same sex is not sinful. I would say that if Genesis 19:3-5 is not “proof” that homosexuality, per se, is sinful, although clearly their desire to have sex with the angels was sinful, proving that the Ezekiel passage is not about the only sins of Sodom.
The Leviticus 18 passage does clearly state that sexual relationships between the same gender are outlawed. Even the person in the video admits this. Then he uses bad logic to say that the entire Mosaic Law was cancelled by the death of Jesus, therefore homosexual relations are acceptable. He says that Leviticus treats homosexuality as equal to eating pork. This simply is not true. Eating pork is treated as something which made the Jews unclean-it is not called an abomination. This is NOT the same as how he describes sex between same-sex partners. God did not prescribe the death penalty for eating pork. In fact, all forms of sexual behavior described in Leviticus 20 are sinful, regardless of whether one is under the covenant of Moses or not. It is listed with sex with another man’s wife, sex with an animal and sex with a daughter-in-law. This person’s analysis of the Leviticus 20 scripture is simply bad interpretation. Hebrews 8:13 does not cancel out the fact that same-gender sex is called an abomination in Leviticus 20.
As for Romans 1:26-28, it clearly treats sexual contact between members of the same sex as “unnatural”. “Men committed indecent acts with other men.” The person in the video claims that Paul is only talking about lust. This is certainly NOT a correct analysis of this passage as it discusses “indecent acts”! His explanation of this was convoluted and really did not make sense at all, in my opinion. His comparison of this to the passage about hair on women is, again, not good scriptural analysis. Then he simply ignores the other two passages as irrelevant. He argues that, in the context, Greek and Roman homosexuality was usually between an older dominant and a younger less dominant person, so this passage in Romans 1:20 is not talking about committed loving relationships between the same sex. I definitely to not see this distinction being made in Romans 1:20. It labels both sexual attraction (lust) between the same gender and sexual activity between the same gender as unnatural and, obviously, wrong and sinful.
I believe that for a person to feel attracted to a member of the same sex, which is lust, is no more sinful than for a person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Lust is lust and homosexual lust is no more sinful that heterosexual lust. I agree with the person in the video on this subject. I agree that the Bible does condemn lust and that it does not necessarily point out lust toward the same or the opposite sex as being more or less sinful. Here the man is correct in his treatment in my opinion.
However, when he says that the Bible does not even address sexual orientation, this is clearly not true. When he says that it is OK for people of the same gender to have sex with one another, this is clearly not true. In my opinion, this is wishful thinking being read into scripture. This is eisegesis, not exegesis (reading into not out of scripture). The only kind of sexual relationship ever anticipated in the Bible is that between a man and a woman in a committed marriage relationship. This person did nothing to disprove this truth. Genesis 2-3 clearly points out that man was made for woman and woman for man. The Bible clearly describes “natural relationships” as between a man and a woman in Romans 1, but by implication everywhere in scripture. I am sorry, but I definitely cannot agree with this person’s very poor interpretation of scripture when he concludes that it is OK for a man to have sexual relationships with a man or a woman with a woman.
Having said that, I do agree that, as a rule, conservative Christians (and I count myself among them) have overly demonized homosexual relationships. I believe that they should spend more time preaching against heterosexual sins, as these clearly are more prevalent. To zero in on homosexual relationships when sinful heterosexual relationships are accepted everywhere in our society is to miss the mark, in my opinion. Sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, sex with a married person, pornography, lust (to the same or opposite sex), these are far more prevalent, yet most churches say little about this. I do think that the unbalanced teaching in some conservative groups where they demonize and go after homosexual behavior in particular is unbalanced. However, to say that the Bible anticipates and condones marriage between members of the same sex is simply wrong.