GAY TRUTH

English: Lot and his daughters flee Sodom, as in Genesis 19:17, illustration from "Sunrays" published 1908 by the Providence Lithograph Company (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The witnesses of the Old Testament and ancient Jewish society have implications for a view of homosexual orientation and behavior that can be described as biblical: 1.      Homosexuality violates the creation order and patterns for male and female roles and for marriage (Genesis 1–2). It arises from the same internal rebellion as did the Fall recorded in Genesis 3 . 2.      Homosexual rape is the only sin described in the events surrounding the fall of Sodom as a special judgment of God ( Genesis 19 ).            3.      That homosexual rape was the sin of Sodom is the only interpretation that fits the larger literary context and structure of the narrative about the covenant God made with Abraham.            4.      Homosexuality is the sin of the incident at Gibeah (Judges 19–20).           

Another approach views Romans 1 from the standpoint of the philosophy of moral argumentation. Pim Pronk concludes that Paul by his use of nature does not refer to the normative creation order but to the social conventions of his day, or to the biologically natural.17 This is consistent with the relationship of theology and morality. The reasoning of the “whole human community,” not revelation or theology, determines the proper human response to homosexuality or any other moral concern.  Theology cannot tell us what God’s will is for us. The exegesis of Romans 1 can affirm that homosexuality is sin in a given time and culture, but it cannot tell us whether this is normative and definitive for people today who read Paul’s statements. This issue is the concern of hermeneutics. Theology is not the epistemological source of the knowledge of good and evil; it exists only to affirm the idea that moral reasoning is God’s will. Moral education, critical thinking, and rational argumentation

The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament . Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality. For example, Boswell ’s attitude appears in his statement, “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.”8 Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior . The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens , “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the beard.9  Thus, Boswe