That was quite an academic analysis of key Bible texts used by fundamentalists against gays and lesbians. While the fundamentalists’ position on gays and lesbians is clear, Mormons are not great supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians. And, in California, it was the Mormons who put their money on the line in order to take away the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.

Stephen.

“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded the house.”
Note the wording, all the men from every part of the city. Every single man. Looking at this rationally, is it possible for every single man to have been homosexual? Not if the society was that of a continuing population, which it was.
Now we arrive at the most famous indication used by fundamentalists to show that God destroyed the city due to their homosexual tendencies.

“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Genesis 19:5 (KJV)
Other translations suggest “know them carnally”, or “have sex with them”. Here is where a literal reading of the Bible would fail one.
What we know of Jewish history and culture tells us how important it was that a guest who arrived at your door to be welcomed in and nurtured. The mob that formed at Lot’s door, were those of a society who has since attempted to abolish this law because they felt that should they harbour every guest, the guests would desire their riches.
We can understand now, why they wanted to two guests to come out of the house. Lot was adhering to Jewish custom, but going against what the mob desired. What is the significance of the mob “wanting to know them carnally”? (if we use that translation). Most likely the same significance raping your enemies had in ancient warfare, homosexual gang rape. It was a sign of dominance, and a great humiliation for the other party involved. We see this type of rape occur throughout history, time and time again.

One might still read this as being a passage outlining the immoralities of homosexuality, but it is not. Yes the mob from Sodom wanted to rape Lot’s guests, but rape (in original context and as used in Hebrew) does not outline sexual desire, it is (as it has been through much of history) to humiliate and establish dominance over another person.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not one that outlines the immorality of homosexuality, but rather God’s displeasure with the abandonment of Jewish custom and the blatant selfishness of those from Sodom, and their inability to be humble towards guests.
Some may argue that in Ezekiel 16:49,60 the term abomination refers to the homosexual acts of Sodom:

“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me. Therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”
The word abomination is also used in the bible to refer to things such as lying, making evil plans, murder and so on. To suggest that in this specific context it referred to homosexuality, is not founded in reason.
Some people still reject that Sodom and Gomorrah is an occurrence in which hospitality is the key issue, but look at what Christ himself said:

“But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Luke 10:10-12
Does this not further validate that Sodom and Gomorrah was indeed punished on the grounds of inhospitality, rather than homosexuality (as falsely inferred).
At this point, people often exclaim that I should read Jude 7, so I do:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (KJV)
I assume they are pointing to the word fornication and inferring homosexual relationships from this, clearly that inference is unfounded.

We can now move on to Leviticus. We must first understand that Leviticus contains what is known as the “Holiness Code”. These were laws which outlined how the Israelites were to keep themselves in good standing with God.
The classic verse we receive from Leviticus is 18:22:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; It is an abomination.”
However, looking a bit deeper we begin to ask ourselves why?
Let us first identify the usage of the term “abomination”. The Hebrew word from which this is translated is “toevah”, which means impurity, uncleanness, or that which is culturally or socially taboo. ”Abomination” is usually used to denote idolatry or furthermore the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, as we see in Ezekiel.
Is this significant? Very much so, especially when you realize that in Hebrew there exists the word “Zimah” which literally means “what is wrong in itself”. If homosexual activities were immoral in and of themselves, why wasn’t the word that would have conveyed that used, but rather a word which conveys a social taboo used in its place?
In the Greek translations, “toevah” is translated over as “bdelygma”, meaning ritual offence. Why would this be used instead of a word like “anomia”, which literally means “a sin”.
Remember, these laws are part of the “Holiness Code”. Just as eating pork was, sewing two types of seeds together and wearing certain combinations of clothing. These were all abominations, but were they not inherently immoral.
Eating pork was a cultural taboo, yes, but it is not explicitly identified as an inherently immoral action.
So why was homosexuality classified as a cultural taboo? There are several possible reasons, the intermixing of the male and female roles, the inability to procreate, etc. But we are not in a position to infer that it is due to the inherent immorality of the action because that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Furthermore, we must look at the fact that the “sexual immorality” listed in Leviticus refers specifically to cult-worship of Molech. It is evident from the passage Lev 18:21, of which the aforementioned passage is headed by, that the sexual immorality mentioned is that of the actions of pagan worshippers. When we read the entire passage, from 18:21 onward, we see:

21And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
The passage 22 and 23, clearly refer to the manner in which pagan worship was conducted in the said culture. Homosexual activity as worship to Molech is wrong, comitted, loving homosexual relationships are not specified. Even if we are to grant that it is not just as worship to Molech, but rather homosexual relationships in general are “abominations” (or culturally taboo), it is not established that they are inherently immoral actions. And as such, they cannot be classified as sexual immorality.
We’ve now dealt with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the passage in Leviticus, now we may move on to the passage in Romans:

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:24-27 (KJV)
The general message that Paul tries to convey in Romans 1 is that the righteousness of God is necessary due to the fact that all human beings have sinned.
However, fundamentalists seem to take this passage to be making reference to homosexual acts and explicitly defining them as immoral. Since we have so far established that the Bible has done no such thing elsewhere, this is in many ways the “last chance” for the Bible to outline homosexuality as inherently immoral. Let us use some critical thinking here:
Paul speaks of women and men turning to that which is unnatural, this is clear. Now, if we are to state that Paul’s passage refers explicitly to homosexuals we have to define homosexuality as being unnatural. To do this, we would have to look at heterosexuality and state that it is the natural way, and since homosexuality deviates from that, it is therefore unnatural.
While it is true that only heterosexual relationships can produce offspring, does this entail it is more natural than homosexuality? No, that is simply fallacious reasoning. We would committing the naturalistic fallacy if we attempt to argue a moral precept from an empirical state (arguing from IS to OUGHT).
Under which criteria would one define homosexuality as being unnatural? Seemingly a heterosexual might say so, but wouldn’t the homosexual be justified in classifying the heterosexual as unnatural? What are we to extrapolate then?
This type of reasoning also falsely supposes that it is a choice to be homosexual, when in actuality we have all the evidence to the contrary. Homosexuality is indeed a natural phenomenon, and we witness it elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Essentially, this analysis (from whom I have since forgotten), outlines my position:

“To apply Paul’s rhetoric passionately, directing implications at others, however misconceived those concerns may be, setting yourself up as judge and moral arbiter, falls into Paul’s rhetorical trap. To do so engages dishonourable passion, risking arrogant religiosity and reproach. God judges all persons, regardless of outward appearance, by the things of the heart (Prov. 16:1; Romans 2:16). Paul teaches us that those things are known through hope and faith and not by directing passionate censure at others.”
Let us not forget that Paul may very well be speaking from his own position on the issue, as it is evident there is no declaration regarding homosexuality prior. As is such, this reference surely can be disposed of as we do with references slavery, polygamy, rape and the supression of women.

Due to the lack of homosexual reference prior, it seems we are quite able to read Paul’s passage as meaning the lustful desire between those of the same sex, which would be condemed on the grounds of their lust, not their homosexuality.

Paul’s epistle, as I’ve stated before, outlines clear predispositions regarding the term ‘natural’. When Paul says that these people are going against their nature, he surely cannot be referring to homosexuals as we now know it is indeed, not a choice. It would be whiggishness to criticize Paul for this, but it does outline a need for contextual study over a superficial reading. Armed with this new knowledge we are challenged to interpret what is meant by natural. Paul may very well mean that unnatural sexual acts are prohibited, however it is not explicitly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is one such unnatural act. Just as it is natural for a heterosexual man to want a woman, so to is it natural that a homosexual man want another man. We see this throughout mammals, there is no violation of nature involved.

However, many interpretations lead to Paul referring to pedophelia in this passage and such would be an example of an unnatural act, wherein children are not ‘meant’ for that which they are being used. Some interpret the “men…with other men” portion to be a translation of the original Greek word for “pederasty” which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children.

Of course, this is based on that passage alone. We must not forget the importance of contextualizing when analyzing.

1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
This is clearly a reference to the pagan worship at the time, and now we see…

1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Criticism of homosexual acts? Not quite, to quote David W. Shelton:

But when it’s put back in its context, we get a clearer picture of what Paul is doing. He’s talking about the dirtiest, the slimiest, and the most far-from-God so that he might fully illustrate the perfect grace that is in the cross of Christ. And what could possibly be more wicked, or more depraved than a bunch of Jews who rejected their God and became temple prostitutes?
Finally, Paul closes with:

1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
This passage does not deal with homosexual relationships at all. The only sexual expression that’s dealt with here (as in Leviticus) is within the context of pagan sex-related or other fertility rituals. This is precisely why context is of grave importance!

Lastly, we arrive at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) which states:

“9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
There is a very big problem in equating effeminate to homosexual. As I have already stated there was certainly a cultural issue with men who acted as women, and women who acted as men. It was considered wrong for a man, whom has been favored in being a man, to act like a woman and vice versa. However, this does not explicitly define homosexuality nor does it hold homosexuality as prime criteria.

My above points to the character of Paul still apply as well.

The Greek terms translated over to effeminate (or in some translations ‘homosexual’) are “arsenokoites” and “malakoi”. “aresenokoites” refers to exploitative sex (not necessarily homosexual), and “malakoi” refers to sex in excess, and overindulgence.

With that said, the passage fails to condemn homosexuality as well. We are also beginning to see the problem with translation.

In conclusion, it should be clear now that superficial and literal readings of the Bible are no substitute for an academic, rational analysis. This applies to both theists and atheists alike, we should be engaging our faculties of reason when reading the Bible (and all texts for that matter), not suspending them.

And this:
http://thehoot.net/articles/7056

Maybe it will help clear it up.

My big fear is that, somewhere down the road, there WILL BE a couple who will try to force SOME church, maybe not mine, but SOME church that does NOT believe in “gay marriage”, to marry them anyway. In all sincerity, would you support such a move? A gay couple? I know that there are some who will feel that they must support this some-time-in-the-future couple, even tho they totally disagree with them. And others who will feel “hey it’s about time”.

I hope you can understand people’s fears. Not phobia, but real fear. Really, we need to work together on this, your side, our side, stop all the fighting, and get down to business, so to speak.

But when it comes to what my government allows me to do and rights my government grants me, those rights need to be exactly the same as the rights granted you. The way my partner and I pay our taxes should be exactly the same as the way you and your partner pay yours. The way my partner and I are treated in public should be the same as you and your partner. Over 1,000 of those rights are granted through civil marriage.

Everyone should be allowed to gain those rights the same way. Either through marriage for all – or no civil marriage for anyone.

Religious marriage? Don’t care. My religion marries two adults, same sex or opposite sex, as long as both are Jewish. Your religion. Don’t care. Don’t want to perform religious marriage? Fine. Great. Those who don’t agree? Worship elsewhere.

Now, Linda, you answer me a question. My religion does perform same sex marriage. Those marriages are not recognized by the government. How is that not interfering with my religious rights and recognizing separation of church (or synagogue) and state?