Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[KCKID]

Well, sundown will be commencing in a couple of hours time ...Friday, September 19, Eastern Australia time. Then the 7th-day Creation Sabbath will commence as per the scriptures. It will end at sundown on Saturday. And, nothing or no one can change the events that occurred at Creation. Not Paul, not Peter, not the Pope, not the Evangelical Church ...no one! It is set and forever in place. Jesus kept the Sabbath. The disciples kept the Sabbath. Even Paul kept the Sabbath. I would presume that ALL those that claim the Bible is God's unchanging word will likewise be honoring the Sabbath Day when it rolls around to their neck of the woods. After all, obedience to God is tantamount to the ideals of Christianity.

Oh, by the way, a word of advice ...whatever you do don't collect sticks to make a fire within this 24-hour period. It could be bad for your health. Remember, God's word does NOT change.

 

[darkshadow]

Well, sundown will be commencing in a couple of hours time ...Friday, September 19, Eastern Australia time. Then the 7th-day Creation Sabbath will commence as per the scriptures. It will end at sundown on Saturday. And, nothing or no one can change the events that occurred at Creation. Not Paul, not Peter, not the Pope, not the Evangelical Church ...no one! It is set and forever in place. Jesus kept the Sabbath. The disciples kept the Sabbath. Even Paul kept the Sabbath. I would presume that ALL those that claim the Bible is God's unchanging word will likewise be honoring the Sabbath Day when it rolls around to their neck of the woods. After all, obedience to God is tantamount to the ideals of Christianity.

Oh, by the way, a word of advice ...whatever you do don't collect sticks to make a fire within this 24-hour period. It could be bad for your health. Remember, God's word does NOT change.

Noted the sarcasm and you are right the Jewish Sabbath does start at sunset our Friday night and end on out Saturday sunset. We can talk about, which we have, the Sabbath not referring to us on another thread if you would like. I would be more then happy too, but not here since it is way off subject.

 

[BigBadWlf]

OK, and so... according to the original languages... all those prisoners of war taken by the Israelites CHOSE to be "indentured servants" for the rest of their lives? Forced to work without pay, against their will? Help me out here?

Only the young virgin women.

The boys were to busy being slaughtered

Virginity is a terribly important requirement to become an “indentured servant”

 

[BigBadWlf]

What prisoners of war please show scripture, I will not guess at what you are saying. In some cases slavery was slavery in the Bible, but with out the verse there is no way of telling.

I believe she is referring to the verses listed here… http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48602925&postcount=314
verses you claimed to have read when you denied any of them had anything to do with rape.
I guess you don’t define forcing a girl to have sex as rape.

 

[darkshadow]

Indeed... except that the translation of Paul's letters is problematic... the word in question is "arsenokoite"... which has been translated in several English Bibles as meaning "homosexual", however, its not quite that clear cut. Martin Luther, for example, thought it meant "masturbator", and a great many Biblical and linguistic scholars agree that the word is not the commonly used Greek term for homosexual.

The word arsenokoites in the Greek as used in the scripture means "one engaging in homosexual acts, a pervert, sexual deviant". Which goes with what I have said before, it is not the being of a homosexual that is the sin, but the act of homosexuality that is the sin. In 1 Timothy 1:10 the word pervert is the same word arsenokoites with the same meanings. Even if it was refering to just man on man sex as some have claimed, does that mean a woman can have any sex she wants. There is nothing in the New Testament telling a woman or man, that its not okay to have sex with an animal, and incest is now open to right? What about pediphiliea no mention directly with the word so its okay? Oh wait I guess you need to marry first so there went the animals, and necrophelia, and I bet you can guess where this is going. All Biblical examples we have of marriage are between a man and a woman just as God planned it. Look at what we learned from what was not there by crossing it with what is there. Its like magic!

 

[darkshadow]

I believe she is referring to the verses listed here… http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48602925&postcount=314
verses you claimed to have read when you denied any of them had anything to do with rape.
I guess you don’t define forcing a girl to have sex as rape.

If you are going to say I said something please say what I acuately said, and not what you wanted to hear. The quote was refering to God condoning rape, where I showed (Post 324 I believe) the meaning of each of the scriptures but I will repost here for you:

The above scriptures in no way have God condoning rape. Lets look at them one by one:
1. Judges 21:10-24 - God is not even speaking in the passage, this is the Israelites who say to steal the women for the tribe of Benjamen. Just because the Israelites do something does not make it from God.
2. Numbers 31:7-18 - The virgin women who were innocent of the indecencies at Peor were spared, as the word "save" in this passage means in the Hebrew language, and taken as wives, and again it is not God speaking but Moses.
3. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Again is speaking as taking of as wives as part of the plunder, rape not mentioned.
4. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - This passage talks about making a woman of war, plunder as in 20:10-14, a wife and even speaks of her having a grieving period for her mother and fathers death. It also speaks about if she wants to go to let her go. That sure sounds like a forced rape to me, "you know you want it, oh you don't okay bye."
5. Judges 5:30 - This again is not God speaking, but Deborah and was a song of victory from war. It is also, in verse 30, not the Isaelites speaking but the mother of there enemy, gloating at what her son "obviously" is doing and keeping him, which he was not because he was dead.
6. Zachariah 14:1-2 You left out verse 3 and on which completes the context. Verse 3 "Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations..." These verses are speakin of Jerusalems fall and the coming of the Messiah. It is one of many Messianic Prophecies of the Bible. He is not condoning the treatment of Jersualem, otherwise he would not step into stop it himself. The verses before are even more important but I'll let you read them yourself.
Rape is mentioned in the Bible in verses like Deuteronomy 22:25-26, "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has commited no sin deserving death." Along with a few other verses in chapter 22. Oh and this is a case of a man raping a woman and it not being okay as you stated.

Now the post this time was regarding slavery which is different then rape, so not sure where you made the connection there, and those are the verses I was wanting.

To answer your question as I have so many times, forcing a girl is rape. (Note the word "is"). The above verses are explained again for you, please read this time.

 

[OllieFranz]

Before I continue the discussion on Romans 1:26-27 that I began yesterday morning*, let me quote the original version of the example Paul borrowed for those verses. Or, rather, to be accurate I will quote how two sources chose to translate Plato's words into English.

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

Whether such matters are to be regarded jestingly or seriously, I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the
intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.
​

Look at how the two samples translate the last phrase. The first is describing people who have already become a slaves to their passions -- people who are caught in the spider's web of addiction. The second describes how they first became addicted by giving into Passion (in this case lust) instead of heeding Reason. Both ideas are in a single Greek phrase, but there is no equivalent English turn of phrase that can convey both meanings, so the translators had to choose.

In Paul's version, we do not have to choose; he clearly and separately expresses both ideas. The idea of addiction as "slavery" or punishment is captured in the phrase "and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." or more precisely "and they are and continue to be receiving into themselves the inevitable consequences of their straying from the ideal path." The idea that Passion or lust unchecked was their undoing is captured in the phrase "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts," echoed again two verses later as "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections."

But I'm getting a little ahead of myself. I want to first examine what Plato said and why, so that we will know what the example ordinarily meant to the Ancient Greeks, and what Paul's readers/listeners would expect from seeing/hearing that example. Then I'll look at the changes that Paul made in the language and phrasing, and how that changes the meaning of the verse.

And now I see that this response is growing even larger than I thought. It is outgrowing a mere "response" and needs to be replanted into its own thread.

*Yes, I promised to post last night. But the site wasa apparently down when I tried to post this response. I tried for two hours to access the site and upload this response.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The fact is, is that the verse is talking about adulterous consentual sex, and not rape.

Indeed, that IS what that verse is talking about.

And how does it tell you to determine if sex was consentual or not?

"If she screamed, its rape, if she didn't scream, it was consentual, and therefore she should be put to death"

Right? With me so far?

OK, so, the problem is that there are a great many situations where a person can be raped, and NOT scream out, some of which I gave examples for.

Now, my point is this... if you use the Bible, and claim it is literal, or inerrant, or covers all situations adequately... according to the Bible, a 14 year old found having sex with her step father who did not scream out, is deemed to have consented, right?

And should therefore be put to death, right?

Which ignores the myriad reasons why a 14 year old who has been suffering abuse for many years is allowing herself to be raped without screaming out. But Biblically, she consents.

And that is NOT just.

 

[brightmorningstar]

TO Olliefranz,

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

Here is the error, the reason God made woman for man was to procreate not to have pleasure. Contrary to nature in Romans 1 means according to what God has created and ordained which is man and woman. Paul having received his revelation from Jesus Christ and having been an expert in the law would have known this and is conveying this. Those who are mislead by the pleasure element don’t have or haven’t got that grounding in Jesus Christ.
One could get sexual pleasure in all kinds of ways.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

TO Olliefranz,
Here is the error, the reason God made woman for man was to procreate not to have pleasure. Contrary to nature in Romans 1 means according to what God has created and ordained which is man and woman. Paul having received his revelation from Jesus Christ and having been an expert in the law would have known this and is conveying this. Those who are mislead by the pleasure element don’t have or haven’t got that grounding in Jesus Christ.
One could get sexual pleasure in all kinds of ways.

*wonders how often BMS has sex for pleasure rather than for procreation, and also wonders if infertile couples, being unable to have children a la' "God's purpose" should be condemned.*

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Anyway, as Homer says "For here in the boudoir, the gourmand metamorphosizes into the voluptuary!".

Ladies and germs, she-who-must-be-obeyed summons, so I'm off. Have a pleasant evening all.

 

[Polycarp1]

The word arsenokoites in the Greek as used in the scripture means "one engaging in homosexual acts, a pervert, sexual deviant". Which goes with what I have said before, it is not the being of a homosexual that is the sin, but the act of homosexuality that is the sin. In 1 Timothy 1:10 the word pervert is the same word arsenokoites with the same meanings. Even if it was refering to just man on man sex as some have claimed, does that mean a woman can have any sex she wants. There is nothing in the New Testament telling a woman or man, that its not okay to have sex with an animal, and incest is now open to right? What about pediphiliea no mention directly with the word so its okay? Oh wait I guess you need to marry first so there went the animals, and necrophelia, and I bet you can guess where this is going. All Biblical examples we have of marriage are between a man and a woman just as God planned it. Look at what we learned from what was not there by crossing it with what is there. Its like magic!

And you know this how?

I'm not being sarcastic or argumentative -- I believe it dos have something to do with same-sex acts, as well. But let's cover a few facts:

1. Greek language was rife with terms for homosexual behaviors -- Socrates, Plato, Aristophanes, the Ganymede myth, were all hundreds of years in place at the time Paul wrote.

2. Paul uses none of those terms; he coins a new one. And he coins it from the roots arseno- and koit-, the terms that evoke the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22.

3. Leviticus 18 is a series of commandments regarding sexual and sex-related practices of the Canaanites from which the Children of Israel are to keep themselves apart.

4. Corinth, the location of the church to which this letter was written, was a wide-open port city, one infamous even in those days for its licentiousness. There's an old line that, "if it exists, you can buy it there" of such communities -- Corinth was the first to be described that way. In particular, there was a thriving 'underground' industry, to which the city government turned as blind eye, in the hiring out of enslaved boys as catamites for prostitution. Many competent scholars think that arsenokaites references those who hired them for bed partners, in much the way that priests of Astarte among the Canaanites hired themselves out as 'sacred prostitutes' in Ba'alite fertility rites.

As for your other parallels, I can cheerfully say that if you suggested my (M+F) marriage was equivalent to necrophilia or bestiality, I'd be reporting you to the moderators as having been intentionally offensive. It's a measure of the courtesy and restraint of our gay Christian members that they have not done so. I have frankly been in real life situations where suggesting that of someone else's marriage would be construed as asking for a punch in the mouth. Of course, on the Internet, you can be just as offensive as you choose without consequence. Nobody is going to judge you for it.

Except God.

 

[Polycarp1]

TO Olliefranz,
Here is the error, the reason God made woman for man was to procreate not to have pleasure. Contrary to nature in Romans 1 means according to what God has created and ordained which is man and woman. Paul having received his revelation from Jesus Christ and having been an expert in the law would have known this and is conveying this. Those who are mislead by the pleasure element don’t have or haven’t got that grounding in Jesus Christ.
One could get sexual pleasure in all kinds of ways.

How fortunate it is that the God who loves us and who counseled us to take delight in our husbands or wives did not ask your advice before creating us as sexual persons.

 

[OllieFranz]

TO Olliefranz,
Here is the error, the reason God made woman for man was to procreate not to have pleasure. Contrary to nature in Romans 1 means according to what God has created and ordained which is man and woman. Paul having received his revelation from Jesus Christ and having been an expert in the law would have known this and is conveying this. Those who are mislead by the pleasure element don’t have or haven’t got that grounding in Jesus Christ.
One could get sexual pleasure in all kinds of ways.

I'm not sure what the point of this post was. The only mention of "pleasure" was in one of two translations of Plato's observation. The phrase used is "slavery to pleasure" (addiction). The other translation renders the phrase "unbridled lust." In either case, it is clear that Plato is calling the situation "para physis," that is, sin.

And no (before you ask), I am not elevating Plato to equal status with the Bible, but the fact is that Paul did reference his example. Paul did change much of the language, and this changes the meaning, a point I already brought up and promised to examine in detail (albeit in the spin-off thread). In other words, Plato made some valid points, but did not hit the mark completely. But understanding what Plato got right, and what he got wrong helps us to understand Paul's teachings

 

[Markus6]

TO Olliefranz,
Here is the error, the reason God made woman for man was to procreate not to have pleasure.

Well no, God created woman as a "suitable helper" as it says in Genesis. There was no mention of procreation.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, sundown will be commencing in a couple of hours time ...Friday, September 19, Eastern Australia time. Then the 7th-day Creation Sabbath will commence as per the scriptures. It will end at sundown on Saturday. And, nothing or no one can change the events that occurred at Creation. Not Paul, not Peter, not the Pope, not the Evangelical Church ...no one! It is set and forever in place. Jesus kept the Sabbath. The disciples kept the Sabbath. Even Paul kept the Sabbath. I would presume that ALL those that claim the Bible is God's unchanging word will likewise be honoring the Sabbath Day when it rolls around to their neck of the woods. After all, obedience to God is tantamount to the ideals of Christianity.

Oh, by the way, a word of advice ...whatever you do don't collect sticks to make a fire within this 24-hour period. It could be bad for your health. Remember, God's word does NOT change.

This is waaaaaay off topic, but I think it deserves answering.

First, according to the traditional Jewish understanding of the Sabbath, it itself was part of the original Creation, and was a day of rest and refreshment from one's daily labor in which God was thanked for the good things in one's life. The specific Sabbath Laws of the later Torah books were for the Jews alone, part of what marked them as the Chosen People. And the concept that the Sabbath is the appropriate time for exerting oneself to 'religious calesthenics' is a modern (post-Reformation) add-on.

Second, as Christianity spread beyond the first, predominantly-Jewish churches into the Gentile world, a distinction was drawn that is preserved in other languages than English and which is clearly consonant with Biblical injunctions. The First Day is kept, not as a substitute Sabbath, but as the 'little Easter,' the weekly commemoration of the Resurrection (as well as of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, also on the First Day). It is "the Lord's [Jesus's] Day." Spanish will exemplify this: Saturday is Sabado [Sabbath]; Sunday is Domingo [Lord's]. Only in English do we get this silliness that God gets one day a week, and the confusion of Sabbath with Lord's Day.

And notice that the purpose of the Sabbath is rest, not exertion to sho God how pious you are. The Lord who loves us knows we need rest from our labors, and so He commanded it. Even the most observant of Orthodox Jews make clear that it is not "Sabbath-breaking" to do what is necessary e.g., to save a life on the Sabbath.

When the showing of love to God turns into a set of rules one must follow, the whole point has been lost. However, as Jesus made clear to the Pharisees, the idea that one can set up arduous demands on others while rationalizing loopholes for oneself is a common human failing -- and a sinful one. This whole thread bears witness to that fact.

 

[Dogbean]

It's not that I think the Bible is untrustworthy, per se, its just that I don't think it is litrally accurate or God's direct word. I agree with Paul, it IS all good for instruction and correction... but just like the parables, just because they are useful doesn't make them true or accurate.

If God wanted us to blindly follow the Bible, he wouldn't have given us the tools to analyse it more deeply than a first impression reading

With respect, EP2, I think this is a common copout used by people who want to say they are Christians but want to live in sexual sin. This "interpretation" issue never comes up with the ten commandments, with loving your neighbor, etc. I can understand that these issues come up when you analyze something, but I really don't buy the claim that the Bible is that unreliable. You don't dig into other passages that way, and I think it's a real stretch to justify homosexual sex. I respect the effort you are going through to try to justify yourself but it's wrong.

Now keep in mind I am in no way doubting your salvation. People who accept Christ go through a sanctification period, where God cleans up their lives and conforms them to the image of Christ. It can take years to deal with sin in your life. I have a very hard time believing that gay sex is part of the image of Christ.

 

[Polycarp1]

Tackleberry and others, no Christian is saying that the Bible is "unreliable." (I started to say "nobody" but I believe it's fair to allow non-Christian members their doubts for now, until they become convinced.)

Rather, IMO, what is being said is that understanding God's full purposes as set forth in Scripture takes study. Just as we need to know what Old Testament passage Matthew or Paul is referencing to grasp the full purport of what they're teaching, or to grasp the significance of that passage in the historical books where someone lays his hand on the thigh of another in order to solemnize an oath in the ancient Hebrew way, we need to know the customs and thought patterns of the time and place to understand what is being said. There are portions of Scripture where Job or the Psalmist long for God's judgment. From our perspective of being convicted and condemned for our sins but for Christ's Atonement, they make no sense. But from the Jewish perspective of a civil case where the speaker believes that God will adjudge him righteous and his accusers to have made false accusations, to seek God's righteous judgment makes sense. Like you, I believe that unrepentant arsenokaites will have no place in the Kingdom. But from my own researches and not depending on a facile translation, I do not believe that the people who strive to live a Christian life with a beloved partner of the same sex are whom Paul was condemning.

And you are so right about the sanctification period. We are all going through that, I believe. For some of us, it's dealing with deep-seated sinful attitudes. For others, it's the sense of self-righteousness, that they're "good" in God's eyes through their own efforts, and not saved by His grace. The latter can be the hardest sin of all to rid oneself of.

 

[BigBadWlf]

And you know this how?

I'm not being sarcastic or argumentative -- I believe it dos have something to do with same-sex acts, as well. But let's cover a few facts:

And that is a major point in the discussion about Christianities condemnation of homosexuality.

It is largely based on the translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside… the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

So put all together "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

 

[Dogbean]

And that is a major point in the discussion about Christianities condemnation of homosexuality.

It is largely based on the translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside… the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

So put all together "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

This is a really weak arguement, and you know it. It's a real stretch, sounding like it's coming from a sinner who wants to use the Bible to justify his sin.