The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality

So it's "Greatest Hits" time now in honor of shutting down?

You could say that. This is now my last chance to use this forum to spread this important message.

Well in that case, I don't mind lending a hand (not that I have any particular opinion about what the Bible teaches, if anything, on the matter).

http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/
Excerpt:
"During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight."

Well in that case, I don't mind lending a hand (not that I have any particular opinion about what the Bible teaches, if anything, on the matter).

http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/
Excerpt:
"During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight."
Except no one, including Paul, had any reason to view these acts as non-consensual. Rape was already illegal, and a man forcing himself on another man (or boy, unless his slave) was a crime punishable by death. If this is what Paul was referring to, one must assume - by implication - that the rape of women was perfectly fine - or he would simply have spoken of rape. Back then people did not think of "informed consent": there was no such thing as an age of consent. Indeed, that concept is only a little over 100 years old. A child was seen as every bit as capable of consenting to sex as an adult.

Now, the thing about homosexuality in the ancient world is that it was considered perfectly ok if the active party was considerably senior in age and status - but deeply immoral if they were on equal footing, in which case it was considered that the man had allowed himself to have been made a woman for the duration. So a male citizen sleeping with his slave's 6 year old son was perfectly acceptable - but two adult male citizens sleeping together was not.

So what is Paul condemning? It is hardly mere pederasty, or he would have used the perfectly common word for pederasty. Instead, he uses the word arsenokoites, which is a pretty rare word - at least in surviving documents. The word is a combination of arsen (man) and koitazu (to bring to bed with), and so the reasonable interpretation is that of a man who sleeps with other men. Whether pederast or not.

Some try to say it refers to temple prostitution, but again, if that were the case, he would have spelled it out to avoid confusion.

Also, Jesus condemned all sexual lust which was not directed towards one's spouse, and there were absolutely no provisions made for same-sex marriage. For someone who is that strict when it comes to lust, is it really reasonable to assume he would be ok with homosexuality? He is only barely ok with heterosexuality.

The biggest argument, though: If neither Paul nor the OT condemned homosexuality in general, why is it that it is only today that this meaning has come to light? Why did the early Christians not interpret it this way? It is only reasonable to assume that the closer you get to the source in time, the closer you get to the source's original meaning. And the early Christians - from the time they were in a position to legislate - condemned all homosexual acts. So if the notion that the Bible condemns homosexuality is a wrong interpretation, how come it was thus wrongly interpreted from the inception?

Yes I have never agreed with the "their really about Pedastry" theories. My argument is clear, their about Pagan rituals involving anal sex.

Yes I have never agreed with the "their really about Pedastry" theories. My argument is clear, their about Pagan rituals involving anal sex.
I don't think it is limited to rituals, or Paul would surely have made mention of it. Besides, considering the audience he was speaking to, homosexuality was generally not ritualistic.

Paul did mention it, the entire context of Romans 1 is that he's talking about Paganism.

Pagan customs are not necessarily the same as pagan rituals, though. Indeed, Paul says it is because they turned away from God that God gave them over to "shameful lusts". Whether these desires also happened to be incorporated in pagan worship is neither here nor there - they were still "shameful lusts". It is difficult to place envy and gossip, for example, within a ritual context.