Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

"Given that animals regularly engage in homosexual behavior are you willing to revise your definition of what is natural and what is not? I mean, if it's done in nature, how can it be unnatural?"To add to the "natural vs unnatural" question, I did my MS work on hermaphroditic shrimp. These shrimp (Lysmata wurdemanni), when mature, are simultaneous hermaphrodites. More significantly, they are all females that retain male reproductive capabilities. While this species lives in large mixed social groups, many congeners form permanent female-female pair bonds (both fertilizing the other as necessary). In all members of the genus individuals start as male only, then grow into a female simultaneous hermaphrodite (called protandric simultaneous hermaphroditism). What this means is that "heterosexual" sex is possible in this species (males are present, at least for 1/4 of their lifespan) just not very common. So unlike certain lizzards which are all female, these shrimp have a choice and yet "choose" to copulate with other females. I guess that must really get under God's skin.Another great example of "natural" homosexuality can be found in acanthocephalans (unique phyum of parasites, mainly on fishes). Some of these use "homosexual rape" to further their own reproductive success. Males of this species, following copulation, secrete a cement plug which prevents other males from copulating with the female. However, when a male encounters another male, they battle and the loser gets "raped". The loser also get his copulatory apparatus cemented shut. Obviously it can be seen why this behavior has a distinct selective advantage.The whole question of natural vs unnatural sex falls apart under scrutiny. The problem is equating sex with reproduction (this point has been made, I know). Natural selection requires that a trait confer selective advantage to the bearer. In humans as well as many other animals sexual behavior is an integral part of social life and therefore carries selective advantages beyond reproduction. If reproductive were the only goal, human females would not have cryptic ovulation. Homosexuality could be an ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy) provided the behavior conferred a selective advantage to relatives (the child-rearing argument, for one). While the ultimate causes in humans are probably much more complex (and varied) than this, there is an example in one species of mongoose (it's been awhile, I don't remember the ref) that has homosexual male offspring (something like 1/4) that never leave home and help rear offspring. The paper I read said something like twice as many offspring survived in households with a heterosexual pair and a homosexual pair were living. Obviously not exactly comparable to humans, but it shows how a trait that causes a fraction of the population to be non-reproductive can persist in mammals.I have really appreciated the great criticsms of Xian homophobia. I can't wait until one of my relatives throws out a biblical justification for their intolerance on this subject. It is amazing how some of these people mine the Bible for the most vague statements to support their position of hatred but ignore or class as "figurative" those things they are or do (second marriages, eating shrimp, to name a few that have been brought up here).

quote:

---

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

---

Which is clearly why Peter referred to Lot as a "Righteous man". It is clearly more moral to have your daughters gang-raped than risk two strangers under your roof being solicited by "that kind". I think this story tell much more about the concept of morality at the time on the Hebrew end. Daughters were a property, like your home or your donkey (I would have used the Biblical ass but was afraid it would have been taken wrong in this context). Lot showed his righteousness by offering a valuable property to the mob and protecting strangers under his roof. While this is despicable, I think it tells a whole lot (no pun...) about the Bible in perspective. If, as the literalists claim, the Bible is the perfect model of morality then the morality it contains should be universal in nature. The Genesis view of women is not one held today by even conservative Christians (not that they view women as equals, but they wouldn't offer their daughter's virginity as an appeasement to protect a stranger, although maybe to secure a slot on TBN). It shows us that the Bible in each passage reflects the cultural ideology of the people at the time each portion was written.With this point I feel it doesn't matter if Leviticus was condemming homosexuality or male temple prostitution. What really matters is that words written for that time and for those people are being used to decide legal policy in my country now. As an aside, and treat this as anectdotal (I heard it from a friend who is a theologist, but I don't know his sources; maybe someone out there knows more of this?), that there were groups in the 1st century that were pure homosexual Christians who had mixed the Christ cult with Greek Aristotlean concepts of pure love only between men. If true it may explain Paul's beef with homosexuality.

quote:

---

I have little doubdt that the incident at Lots house was not out of character for the Sodomites, thus Lot probably knew very well what would happen to him should he try and resist.

---

This brings up a really good point about Lot and the nature of Sodom. If I lived in a city where walking out my door invited the chance of anal gang-rape, I would seriously consider moving. Zealout: Are you implying that this was an everyday occurrence for Lot? Just seems amazing to me. "Yep, moved out to the suburbs of Sodom. Living downtown was such a pain in the ass"I don't recall the details, but didn't Lot argue repeatedly for the cities to be spared? Seems a bit funny to me. If I lived somewhere where rapist mobs prowled the streets I would be pretty excited to hear it would be destroyed Yahweh-style. Hell, I've wished such destruction on neighborhoods I have lived in and none have been as bad as Sodom seems to have been. (BTW, I am referring to the rape aspect, not the homosexuality. Rape of either gender is truly an abomination and one oddly pretty much ignored by the Bible).I see the conclusion to be limited to a small number of possibilities:1) Sodom had excellent ethnic foods ("The Thai district is wonderful if you can deal with the constant anal rape")2) Lot, as one of the few survivors and the only one to record his tale, was a complete lier and was covering up his mistakes ("No I wasn't smoking in bed again, God..., er, hated the Sodomites and burned the city to the ground")3) The righteous Lot didn't consider roving mobs of sodomite rapists to be such a bad thing, thus calling into question his righteousness (again) or what the story was supposed to mean.4) The OT is a collection of anectdotal mismatched myths, historical records, and poetry from a wide variety of of related ethnic groups occupying the Middle East written over a period of at least a millenia and therefore is a fascinating archaeological tool but of no value in dictating morality for today.Personally I choose #4, although #1 also has merit (I seem to recall that Lot loved sweet basil curries)