• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have concluded that there is nothing sinful about homosexual relationships that are either marriages, civil unions or simply living together in a committed and monogamous way until marriage becomes available.

I was questioning the whole "Christian" attitude toward homosexuals and decided to do a study.

My goal was to read every Biblical scripture that seemed to relate to homosexuality........

The one thing I would do differently was that I would read it strictly and steadfastly from the point of view of......

1. A gay man in a committed and monogamous lifetime union with another gay man.

and

2. A lesbian in the same type of relationship with another lesbian.

The revelation that came from this was startling in its power.

One can find NO condemnation in any of the Bible mentions of homosexuality.

All references are to promiscuous behavior, including prostitution and rape.

Now, of course, there is the single Leviticus reference that may or may not refer to sex with the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes.

That ref (which comes in two places in Leviticus, listing offense and penalty) if it were to be used as a condemnation of ALL homosexuality......would have two problems....

1. It stands alone.

and

2. It does not mention lesbians.

So I do not find it compelling as a blanket condemnation.

Now, there is one remaining argument. One could (and many do) also argue that there is a grand pattern of only male/female sexual relationships that is present throughout the Bible and from this alone we should come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong.

I acknowledge that argument.......I just see it as FAR from conclusive, because chaste, monogamous homosexual relationships probably were simply NOT MENTIONED because they were rare and also........similar to today......people shy away from discussing them at all.......out of weakness and fear.

In addition, some argue that logic and common sense show us that men's and women's bodies were physically constructed to have sex with each other and make babies.....so a man with a man or a woman with a woman is wrong from a purely functional standpoint.

An argument that becomes problematic when those who use it engage in heterosexual oral sex or other forms of pleasure that do not follow that strict "physically appropriate and functional" pattern and, as a side note, do not produce babies.

And, last of all, Ezekiel (Chapter 16) is quite clear in announcing that the sin of Sodom was gluttony, love of wealth and neglect of the poor........why announce such a thing unless the homosexual rape and promiscuity mentioned elsewhere were minor things compared to the horrible offenses of gluttony, love of wealth and neglect of the poor?

Most people still think of a Sodomite as a homosexual.

How unjust.

According to Ezekiel, a Sodomite would be someone who lived well while neglecting and oppressing the poor.

So do most conservative Americans qualify?

 
Reactions: Mustaphile
I will admit, you bring some good points to the table. And, I see that the arguements from your side are strong. However, in respect to Ezekiel's words, the sexual immoral acts that God frowned upon in Sodom could be included with verse 50 of Ezekiel's Chapter 16... "They were haughty and did DETESTABLE things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Now, granted, these detestable things may not have included homosexual acts, but coupled with God's peoples' law against homosexual acts, the readers in Ezekiel's time would have acknowledged it as being so.

Yes, Ezekiel's words focus on not helping the poor and needy, as well as the phrase above, but why bring up what may be a sin in the eyes of God to those who are not practicing these specific sins (assuming they are sins)? To do so would give the Jewish people pride in their ability to avoid such a specific sin, when the intent of the writing is to bring them to shame.

Other than this piece from Ezekiel, I will say, you have given a good arguement. God bless.
 
Upvote 0

puriteen18

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2003
458
19
40
Alabama
✟703.00
Faith
Anglican
You forgot a passage in Romans

Romans 1 (KJV)
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly
, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


... and this verse from I Cor., which I have included many translations to show that it indeed speaks of the practice of homosexuality, since the some of the earlier translations try to be discreet.

I Corithians 6.9
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

(Geneva)
9 Knowe yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers

(Bishops Bible)
9 Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceaued: neither fornicatours, nor idolatours, nor adulterers, nor weaklinges, nor abusers of them selues with mankinde,

(New KJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites
___________________________________________

Please, don't mistake me; I am not one of those false sheep who hate homosexuals. I have homosexual and bisexual friends and one relative. However, they all know where I stand on this issue. I believe it is a sin; the Bible certainly teaches that it is. I believe it to be the same as any other sexual sin.

As for your speaking of the 'natural argument' against the practice, I agree that any who hold that position should abstain from unatural sexual acts themselves, which is exactly what I believe we all should do.

I believe that the Bible teaches that sex has two purposes: 1)the union between one man and his one wife, that they may be one in the flesh, and 2) children. I believe that what does not acomplish these two are not fit.

But every man must choose for himself what he thinks is right. This does not mean that there is no absolute truth; it only means that we are given the choice.
 
Reactions: Perceivence
Upvote 0
I'm not used to getting such friendly responses from those in disagreement.

Puriteen, I'll give you some of my thoughts on the verses you mention soon, you may be surprised at what happens when you try hard (as I did) to look at it without any preconceived ideas.

Back soon.

 
Upvote 0
About Homosexuality.

The first of these two is quite easy to understand when taken in full context and simply refers to promiscuous homosexuality along with a host of other sin including heterosexual promiscuity.

Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;
21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.

22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools;
23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,

25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, {Or [God-hated]} insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,

31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
..........

Rozzi Sez:

So......men with men, women with women in an orgy of sin of every kind imaginable. Clearly dealing with wanton promiscuous sex, at least some of it homosexual.

Note that the Bible says "EVERY kind of wickedness."

Let us not forget that these words mean that this orgy must then INCLUDE heterosexual promiscuity as well.

Interesting that there are three levels here......

1. Allusion to the sin of all humankind.

2. Allusion to the sin of the Israelites when Aaron made the golden calf for them.

3. A more veiled allusion to the Roman Empire with its extravagant feasts, orgies and idol worship (those who by their wickedness suppress the truth). Here Paul cautiously takes a shot at the Romans who would interfere with his preaching of the Gospel.

We can be sure of one thing......this passage has NO application to homosexuals living in a monogamous lifetime covenant relationship or marriage.

Now on to the Corinthians.......This, along with the very similar 1 Timothy 1:10 passage, is less clear and will likely always be somewhat cryptic.

It uses the Greek word arsenokoites, which is often translated as "sodomite."

To stay unbiased, do not forget that the story of Sodom spoke ONLY of rape as a homosexual act.....so a Sodomite would be a rapist if one wanted to go by that.

Also keep in mind that Ezekiel 16 leaves no doubt that the PRIMARY sin of Sodom was rich living while ignoring the needs of the poor.

Scholars differ on the meaning of arsenokoites. I have read both sides and the significant thing is that there is NOT a conclusive answer.

For what it's worth, the latest NIV Bible renders the Corinthians passage thus:

"""7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (NRSV translates it "Sodomites.)

10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."""
.......

Rozzi sez:

The NIV translators (a reputable and respected group) decided upon "offending homosexual" as the best translation of Paul's words. They could not in good conscience go with simply "homosexual" or "Sodomite."

Others have simply translated it as homosexual or "Sodomite." That is less than satisfactory because the meaning of the word is not clear....Paul's intent is not clear....AND by doing so you condemn ALL homosexuals in every circumstance of life.......an act that almost everybody agrees is ridiculous.

Again, the worst "sexual" sin you can come up with for "Sodomite" is rapist--as that is the ONLY homosexual act mentioned in the Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom (and rape, whether homo or heterosexual, is an act of violence.....not sex).

The NIV renders the 1 Tim 1:10 usage of arsenokoites as ... not "homosexual offenders" but "perverts" instead.

So......what are we left with here? In my way of thinking, homosexuals who take up a loving, committed and monogamous "marriage" relationship are neither perverts nor rapists nor homosexual offenders.....they are simply people of a different sexual orientation.

Love of neighbor dictates that we treat them with respect and give them their dignity and their own opportunity to make their own decision.

There is no Biblical justification for condemning them.

I realize that some of you use other versions of the Bible, even including the archaic, confusing and inaccurate King James.....but the NIV and the NRSV are among the very latest and very best work by modern scholars.

 
Upvote 0

puriteen18

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2003
458
19
40
Alabama
✟703.00
Faith
Anglican
I fully agree that all types of sexual promiscuity is wrong.

Not to sound like a jerk or anything, but I find your response is unsatisfactory.

Here's that verse from Romans again.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly


Here the men have left the natural use of the woman, and lusted after other men. It seems to me that this could only mean that they forsook sex in the natural way with a woman to fulfill thier desires with other men.

It also seems to me that if the regulation on the sin fo homosexuality had changed in the New Covenant, that the change would have been documented in the Scriptures just as the eating of clean and unclean animals.

PS. I'd also like to thank you for not jumping down my back for holding to the traditional view. Just because post-moderns say that they are tolerant of all people certainly does not mean that they are. They are, for the most part, not at all tolerant of Biblical inerrantists. They might as well say the truth, that they don't mind being tolerant of anyone except people who take their religion seriously and follow it in a historical manner.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

You might as well argue that they'd have assumed that the people of Sodom ate shellfish; that was detestable too.

There is no way to reason from the general to the specific that makes any sense.
 
Upvote 0
You don't sound like a jerk, you sound like a lot of people who haven't quite understood this scripture yet.

You say:
Here the men have left the natural use of the woman, and lusted after other men. It seems to me that this could only mean that they forsook sex in the natural way with a woman to fulfill thier desires with other men.

Rozzi sez:

Actually, the full context here (which I did give you) would lead you to believe that ALL kinds of promiscuous sex were going on.......so "natural" sex was not forsaken, but was a part of an orgy including every imaginable kind of sex.

Also, I'm not clear on what your question is on the OT. Let's not go deeply into the OT until we're done with the current discussion.

(Or were you going to end by simply saying, "unsatisfactory?")

Usually people state WHY?

Then we can move on to the remaining Bible verses on homosexuality.

 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Part of the problem is that several of the words could be ambiguous. Do we mean "natural to everything" or "natural to these people"? Is it possible that the description of some things as "natural" was Paul's personal understanding, rather than God's? Does the passage even apply at all except as a discussion of people who are turning from God?

I personally would not think the passage as a whole could be meaningfully used when discussing the actions or beliefs of people who are actively seeking God, as opposed to people who have openly turned their backs on the entire concept of faith.
 
Upvote 0

La Bonita Zorilla

Diana's Quiver Bearer
Mar 25, 2003
2,303
76
51
New York
Visit site
✟2,855.00
Faith
Methodist
Rozzi: excellent comments. Those of the other view are being civil, which is a welcome upgrade, too.

The usual pattern is the anti-gay crowd makes an obsession of this issue. One can easily refute Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians, but after you do, they throw in Genesis 3, "so therefore a man shall cleave to his wife..." ignoring many others besides LGBTs don't marry in the usual form.

Context is always important. We are not a Bronze Age civilization surrounded by hostile neighbors for whom orgies are regular occurrances. Our challenge is more to live together rather than to persevere against foes such as that.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
To Puriteen: In the context Paul is using this, he's suggesting, first, that the natural world bears witness to God's reality and righteousness (Rom 1:20), but some people turned from the Creator to worship some element of the creation idolatrously (Rom 1:23) and turned to a hedonistic lifestyle (Rom 1:28-31) which included turning away from their heterosexual desires to burn with homosexual lust (Rom 1:26-27). And, be it noted, that those among the Christians in Rome who judge them are judged with the same judgment (Rom 2:1-2).

To read this as a condemnation of those who discover in themselves a desire for the same sex as they reach puberty, as the majority of today's gay people do, is to pervert the precise intent of the teaching. Paul is condemning a lifestyle lived for "kicks" and not focused on God and His will. He is not indicting those who bear the burden of a non-standard sexual orientation, but those who engage in sexual immorality, including gay sex, for new and different pleasures when the old ones have grown boring, as part of a self-gratifying lifestyle.

Undoubtedly a small proportion of today's gay people do in fact live such a lifestyle -- the so-called "gay lifestyle" that gets condemned in every such thread. But to suggest that that constitutes a blanket condemnation of all gay people is to twist the clear reading of Scripture out of shape.
 
Upvote 0
Puriteen said:
It was unsatisfactory because you say that it is not talking about men leaveing natural sex, but that is exactly what the verse says.

Now, you either have to deny that the word 'natural' belongs there or you have to agree with me.

Rozzi sez:

I may have a third option. I agree that it is talking about promiscuous homosexual sex, but it also says that EVERY kind of sin was done by these evil people, including promiscuous heterosexual sex.

If you read the entire passage in context rather than just a couple of verses, you get the picture of a horribly fallen group of people who rejected God and engaged in EVERY form of sin and rebellion possible.

Now tell me how that could possibly apply to Bill and Jim, two solid citizens who attend church on Sunday, who run an antique shop and are raising two beautiful adopted children in a loving and caring home?

Even if one insists that it applies to Bill and Jim (which I deem highly illogical) then one would also say it applies to ALL......ALL human beings equally.

Which would make it useless for condemning one small group like homosexuals.

Does this make my premise more satisfactory to you, or are you at least willing to consider it?

Remember, you have to throw out old and automatic responses and really look at it carefully as though YOU were a homosexual in a caring, committed and monogamous relationship with another homosexual.

Would you then see Romans 1 as condemning you?

 
Upvote 0

Perceivence

Defend.
Sep 7, 2003
1,012
96
London, UK
Visit site
✟16,654.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/homosex.htm said:



Comments?
 
Upvote 0
Perceivance said:
By compounding the two words into one, arsenokoites, Paul has created a word that covers any form of homosexual activity.

Well Percy, if that were true........it would be very, very convenient.

After all, the heart of this debate is the attempt by FundaGelicals to find a way to "cover any form of homosexual activity."

But the Bible never does that anywhere else and to claim that this one snippet does it and validates that bigotry would be truly unwise.

What your quote is....... is wishful speculation by an author who has nothing to back it up other than the fact that Paul was a learned man. That is a wishful backup that mirrors the wishful thinking. We have no reason to believe the speculation is true.

As I said before, the scholars disagree about the meaning of arsenokoites and probably always will. We need to move beyond that by looking at the larger context and the larger context clearly moves us AWAY from condemning ALL homosexual activity.

The Bible clearly condemns promiscuity, rape, and prostitution. It is notable that these are condemned for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 
Upvote 0

puriteen18

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2003
458
19
40
Alabama
✟703.00
Faith
Anglican
I read it again and again, but each time I am made more and more certain that it is not speaking of what you say it speaks.

The verse says women have left men for women, and that men have left women for men. It does not say that men left their singular spouse to go after orgies. For orgies are sin whether with a company of one's own sex or not.

And again the verse says "man with man". It is singular. It seems if it were talking of orgies it would say "man with men", or "men with men".

I do not condemn any; only God is judge. I do not hate. I have no 'phobia' of them. I love them.

I love the "Bill and Jim" of which you speak. And I see, from the Bible that their souls are in danger. I have a burden that they might know Christ.

Now do they not know Christ because they are homosexuals? NO, they are slaves unto sin because they do not know Christ. They practice a lifestyle of sin.

Sex is to be between one man and one women, within the holy covenant of Christian marriage. It is for the physical and spiritual union of the husband and wife, and for procreation of children that might be raised and nutured in the wisdom of God's Word.

"Bill and Jim" are evermore sinking down to their destruction, just as the unmarried "Bob and Jane" who, though not married, are good people. And the Church is just letting them go. No warning, nothing. And why? Because we do not want to offend, and we do not want to seem to be uncivilized, backwood, superstisious, religious bumkins. We want to have the open mind; we want to please this world. We want to say "Look at us, what nice and loving people we are."

But there is no love in that. If we indeed see a life of a person who does not adhere to the commands of God and allow that person to continue doing so, and change our doctrine, I tell you the punishment will never change. We may say it is not sin, but the LORD will judge in righteousness, and shall cast the wicked into hell.Remeber the verse I quoted from I Corithians: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Those who practice homosexuality as a lifestyle, which includes monogamous "BIll and Jim", are going straight down into the pit and none of their goodness, or their own righteousness will save them. It is not by works.

Now, what am I saying? That if they give up their relationship and follow strictly the Law of God they shall be saved? No, not at all. Reform does not equall salvation.

Salvation is not the product of following the Law; Salvation is nothing less than the supernatural grace of God upon the wicked and the dead that they may be a new creature, and live a new life unto Him and to His Glory.

A new creature, the desire to run after the pleasures of the flesh is sickening to the converted child. True, the Christian will sin, but he will be utterly disgusted by his deeds, nothing will please Him except God have mercy and be with him.

Homosexuals, drunkards, those who sleep around, the religiously moral person who secretly entertains sin, the conservative 'Christian' who keeps the Law almost perfectly and yet has no passion or consuming love for God and God alone, all these are doomed to suffer the wrath of Jehovah.

It's not of works, or gay people becoming straight; it is about God and the greatest miracle: that Christ would take the fullness of our iniquity upon Himself and clothe us, dirty that we are, in His shining righteousness.

Works will never result in salvation, as the Pharisees taught, and incidentaly you teach, but true salvation does and will result in works, which is a fruit of true conversion.

And not because we are able to do good, but because we are weak and unable, and the LORD works through us His own goodness, seeing that we have nothing to give or are able to give.

You teach that as long as someone is a good person, or does this, or does that, that they will be saved. This is exactly the same doctrine of the Pharisees, of "liberal Christianity", of "conservative Christianity". It is all legalism. Just because you don't have many rules to follow doesn't mean that your not a legalist. All it takes is to say that they are alright because of this or that.

That is why I will strive never to proclaim to a homosexual that he must change his life or go to hell. I will proclaim that he is a sinner by birth, and that it is evident in his deeds. I will teach that he has no hope, except to throw himself on Jesus Christ and plead that God would save him. I will teach that if he trusts in himself to keep the Law and do self-reform, that he trusts in his own power and shall no slower fall in perdition. All his confidence must be in Christ. It must be of Christ and Christ alone.


Now you may ask me why I even bother to hold that homosexuality is a sin, if I know that no reform will bring salvation.

My answer is this: We must proclaim what sin is. As a Church we must do this. For how will men know that they are sinners, unless we say that what they do is sin. And how can a man be convicted, unless he knows he is a sinner. And how can a man plead salvation, excepting he see a need for it from conviction.

It is by the foolishness of preaching that God has chosen to draw men unto Himself.

I Corinthians 1.21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


They must know that they are utterly wicked, and in every way helpless to do anything about it. As we all must know.

Remember Jesus came to heal the sick. The healthy need no physican.

As the Church we are telling many within us and outside of us, that they are okay. They need not be saved. They are good enough, as they are.

That is the definition of a Pharisee; that men can and should do it on they're own.

If a man knows not that he is a sinner, how could I ask him to come to Christ? There is no point. If he have no sin, he is in no need of a Saviour.

I will now ask of you the favour you have asked fo me: that you would seek what the Bible says without any bias in your opinion. Can you really say that God allows the homodexual practice as a holy life?

Will you say nothing, but encourage the Bill and Jim unto their condemnation?

Remember, God will judge in righteousness, and unless we have upon us the righteousness of Christ to cover and atone for our sins, we shall surely be dammned.

Pray, seek the truth, follow in the narrow way. If you do this, the world will mock and hate.

Dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me.
 
Upvote 0

Perceivence

Defend.
Sep 7, 2003
1,012
96
London, UK
Visit site
✟16,654.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It seems awfully likely to me...and it seems as if it's more than just speculation, too. The explanation makes absolute sense...using my limited understanding and capacity, I see nothing wrong with it.

Rocinante said:
As I said before, the scholars disagree about the meaning of arsenokoites and probably always will.
People can't agree with what they don't want to.

Rocinante said:
We need to move beyond that by looking at the larger context and the larger context clearly moves us AWAY from condemning ALL homosexual activity.
Heh.

I've tried rereading the passages using a liberal mind but I always feel as if I'm both fooling myself and missing the scripture's intent.
 
Upvote 0
puriteen18 said:
I read it again and again, but each time I am made more and more certain that it is not speaking of what you say it speaks.
puriteen18 said:
The verse says women have left men for women,


It does?

"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural..."

Where does it say this? I think you are influenced by the next verse. I think you are reading a personal conclusion into the text. "natural" is the usual problem here. What is meant by "unnatural"? It does not mean, as some assume, unnatural as might be used in terms of procreation. It means what this person would ordinarily not do. So, the unnatural intercourse could be any form of intercourse that these women did not ordinarily take part in. If the missionary position, for instance, were normal; then any other position would be “unnatural.” Reading lesbianism into this is allowing the next verse to influence your reading.

 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.