i did not write this, i take no credit for it, i stumbled across it in the comment section of this piece So you won't forget [link] by Dawitch [link]

(which by the way even for yaoi which i'm not a HUGE fan of was cute)
the credit belongs to merkavah12 ([link])
not hte credit is given where credit is due, read on.


Actually there is no support for homophobia present in the Bible. That's right, you heard correctly: there are NO passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuals.

For one, Homosexuality as we understand it today (as a sexual orientation) did not become part of the global lexicon or consciousness until the 19th century. The ancient civilizations (especially the Greeks) did not see homosexuality as a lifestyle, but as a sexual act within the confines of what were mostly heterosexual relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now on to Leviticus 18:22 (the one which was mentioned previously), perhaps one of the most frequently misunderstood/misused passages in the Bible. While the translations are many, the word "lay" is also synonymous with to "know" (as in to have knowledge of a person's intimate self via sexual relations). The problem with these two words? They both have double meanings. Both words can mean either consensual sex or non-consensual sex (i.e Rape).
Now historically a common tactic of armies of the time was to rape their enemies, both women and men. The idea was simple: rape the men to break their spirit.

You must understand that the Hebrews of this time were understandably xenophobic and suffering such indignations did not help matters. This is where Leviticus comes in. Leviticus is essentially a book of law and conduct for the Hebrews and its main thrust involves rather heated criticism of the practices of their less than friendly neighbors for the purpose of warning the people of what may occur in dealing with them.
Not to mention the fact that some theologians postulate that this passage was directed at those in military service (warning them not to use their enemies rather distasteful tactic).

The point is this: Leviticus is not referring to an an an act of love, but an act of war. This is because the concept of loving relationships (outside of legal prescriptions) irregardless of sexual preference was a subject beyond the scope of a law book.

There is also the matter of the wording used to describe "man" in the passage. The Hebrew word for non-specific male (ANY male in general) is "ish". The word for non-specific female is "ishshah". If the passage was referring to cases of males laying with other males as they would women (as in general homosexual relations) than only those two terms would appear.

But there are three terms there: Ish, ishshah, and (this is the important part), another term for male, zakhar .

"Zakhar" refers to a very specific kind of male. Males referred to using this word or those set aside for religious purposes. It should then come as no surprise that the term was used primarily to refer to male priests.

Here's where it comes full circle: Many of the neighbors of the Israelites (especially the worshipers of Baal) would prostitute their male priests in order to raise funds for their temples.

Since Leviticus warns against accepting the money of prostitutes into the the temple, it is also possible that this passage warns against priests prostituting themselves just like their pagan neighbors.

See? Not a word of condemnation.