How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[jessedance]

Plumbers call the ends of their pipes male and female. a male end fits into a female end of another pipe. try uniting a male end pipe with another male end pipe, massive leak. males with males and females with females can't have natural , normal sex, they got to use vibrators or use the wrong hole, or something else as wierd. the penis wasnt made to fit in the back door, god didn't intend for women to have sex with vibrators, oral sex is not normal sex. my pastor says its ok if you like it but i disagree here I think its a perversion. well thats my opinion. thats the way I see it. I know homosexuals see it different but I would say its a blindness the devil puts over thier eyes so they can't see the truth i just explained

 

[- DRA -]

Previously posted by: - DRA -

I have a question about how you determine that some homosexuality falls within the realm of the word "fornication," but some does not. How do you determine which does, and which doesn't?

Roz sez:

Now Denny......I have answered that in the initial post and at least five or six times in the course of this thread.

I'll assume you are joking.

Previously posted by: - DRA -

Roz,

Please don't assume I'm joking, because I'm not. In your original post, you told us how you view the monogamous homosexual couple - - whether married or waiting for marriage - - as being acceptable to God. I am looking for evidence that God accepts sexual activity BEFORE marriage - - either from the hetero or homosexual couple. This Scriptural evidence wasn't in the original post - - your views were there - - but not the Scriptural support.

I haven't looked through all the posts . . . but I will! If you have given the evidence that I'm looking for, fine - - I will consider it and comment if necessary. But, if not, I will be back looking for what you must have (1 Pet. 4:11a, Col. 3:17).

. . . Denny

Roz,

Okay. I have reviewed all the postS up to the present time. I did NOT find what I was looking for. What is that? From my previous post: "I am looking for evidence that God accepts sexual activity BEFORE marriage - - either from the hetero or homosexual couple. This Scriptural evidence wasn't in the original post - - your views were there - - but NOT the Scriptural support." I now have examined ALL your posts and determined that you have NOT provided any evidence at all to support your view.

I want to make some observations about your ORIGINAL POST that started this thread:
1.) You tell us what you concluded, but do NOT tell us how you reached that conclusion. Considering 1 Pet. 4:11a & Col. 3:17, you should not be offended because you are asked which Scriptures led you to make the conclusions you have drawn. If you cannot produce those Scriptures, it will not be hard to make a determination about the source of the authority you use to promote your thinking. Jesus discusses the two sources of authority in Matthew 21:23-27 - - spiritual matters originate either from heaven (from God) . . . or from men.
2.) You tell how you conducted your study. You studied the subject from a biased viewpoint - - from the viewpoint of one who was already engaging in homosexual activity . . . but you didn't stop there. You included more. You clearly stated the angles you were studying this issue from:
"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."
This reveals that you have already assumed some things before you got started:
a) that there is a difference in homosexual activity between those who are committed to each other and those who are not
b) that there is a difference in homosexual activity between those who are monogamous and those who have multiple partners
c) that there is a difference in homosexual activity between those who are committed for a lifetime and those who are not
As I look at the way you approached your study, it becomes obvious that you started off with assumptions that you did NOT offer Scriptural evidence for . . . and have not offered any evidence for throughout this thread. I am not one bit surprised that you reached the conclusions that you did from your study, because I clearly see how you entered the study - - with your conclusion drawn before the study began.
3.) You tell us how you view the passages in Leviticus that list the offense and penalty for homosexual actions - - "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." How many times did God have to tell Noah to build the ark? Wasn't ONE command enough for Noah to obey God? Likewise, how many prohibitions would the Israelites need to understand that they weren't to engage in certain activities? If ONE is not the magic number, what is that number? True, the passage does not specifically mention lesbianism. Have you considered other Scriptures before making any conclusions? Consider Matt. 19:3-12. Jesus states the only reason that a man can divorce a woman and please God. He does not give any reasons for a woman to divorce a man? So, how do handle this passage? Are you consistent with the way you handle the passages in Leviticus? Also, look at 1 Tim. 2:9. Woman are told to adorn themselves in modest apparel. Men are not told this. So, what how would you handle this passage? Would the passage and the principle not also apply to men? Is your reasoning consistent with how you handle the passages in Leviticus?
4.) You tell us that you see that there is a pattern of male and female sexual relations throughout the Bible:
"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."
You acknowledge the pattern, but insert your speculation why there is NO Scriptural evidence to support your premise. Is God afraid to address an issue? Was God afraid to say that a lifestyle He accepts was really okay? Is that a credible line of reasoning?
5.) You tell us what you concluded from Ezekial 16 - - "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." Now, this prompts a question: Did you harmonize your understanding of Ezekial 16:49-50 with other passages that also discuss Sodom? Specifically, you seem to have forgotten what Jude 7 says about Sodom and Gomorrah. It elaborates on what Ezekial call an "abomination" in 16:50.

To conclude this post, I was not joking when I asked how you determine that some homosexuality falls within the realm of the word "fornication," but some does not. How do you determine which does, and which doesn't? I have reviewed all your posts (and others) and find that you have not done this. Nor have I found that anyone has even discussed the word "fornication" in any detail - - other than to say how ambiguous it is. Perhaps, it is about time that we spend some time with the word, its meaning, and the places in Scripture where it appears!

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Freud,

1 Cor. 7:1-5 does NOT say that a couple needs state approval to have sex. It says that they need to be husband and wife to have sex and be pleasing in God's view. Jesus also taught about God's law on marriage in Matt. 19:3-12.

Marriage rules differ among societies. Today, in the U.S., there are certain legal requirements that accompany marriage. Romans 13:1-7 says that we should obey the government . . . as long as their regulations do not violate God's i.e. Dan. 3 & Dan. 6.

Married couples have a responsibility to each other sexually (1 Cor. 7:1-5). I don't know the circumstances of the couples you are alluding to. But I do know what God said about the matter. If they decide to abstain, it needs to be by mutual agreement.

. . . Denny

This sounds like equivocating. You say that state approval is not what matters, as long as a couple are husband and wife. This doesn't make sense. What is the distinction between the two? Isn't it the government who decides who is married and who is not? And in my state a heterosexual couple living together for six months is considered married by common law. Even sooner if they represent themselves as Mr and Mrs in any way. So a couple could go to the Holiday Inn, sign in as Mr. and Mrs., would be considered legally married by the state and meet the requirements of your proof text, and have all the sex they want. That meets the letter of your requirement, but hardly sounds moral.

Look at 1 Cor. 7:1-5. How does one avoid fornication or sexual immorality? Each man has his own wife, and each woman has her own husband (vs. 2). That is God's way. A man has sex with his wife. He does NOT have sex with her, and later make her his wife. That is NOT God's way. Anything other than God's way needs to be repented of. There is no Scriptural evidence to support that living together before marriage and engaging in sexual relations is acceptable to God. The common law marriage regulations that exist here in the States do not supersede God's rules regarding sexual activity. Where governmental regulations are in place regarding marriage, these regulations must be obeyed (Rom. 13:1-7).

 

[- DRA -]

I'm not sure how we do it, but given that we're both using computers, we'd better find a way, no?

Hmm. So, in cases such as "international computer networks", what should we do?

One option would be attempt to reason as best we can from what we do know.

You miss the point. You're assuming that we are allowed to create and use these media at all. The Bible never discusses the moral implications of an electrical grid. We simply assume it doesn't have any.

I think that I can establish authority for the need for a person to be able to communicate with another. I think that is why God gave us voices and speech. I also can determine that God allows us to use other means of communication, such as writing. I have no reason to suspect that other means of communication (TV, radio, computer, telephone, telegraph, etc.) are not acceptable to God - - they are in violation of no commands or principles I am familiar with. Do you know of any?

On the other hand, the topic of discussion is homosexuality. The Bible is NOT silent on this issue. Jesus taught about marriage (Matt. 19:1-12). Paul taught about avoiding "fornication" (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Homosexuality is condemned (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9).

I believe we do, but I think they are not all written down.
Yup.

If you truly believe that Gods gives us all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), and they are not all written down . . . then WHERE ARE THEY?

And it is through that leading that I have come to my current positions on these issues.

I want to be careful here and not put words into your mouth. So, are you saying that the things you are promoting came from another source than the Bible?

I find that there are occasional people whom the Bible didn't mention. The Bible talks about people possessed by demons, but it never mentions mental disorders. What authority can I have from the Bible for any position I form on how to deal charitably with a friend who suffers from clinical depression? This is not "sadness". I cannot console my friend and make the problem go away. I must learn how to deal with these people using the principles the Bible teaches, and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide me into dealing with them correctly.

I trust that the Bible has the answers I seek. For instance, have you considered 1 Cor. 10:13? This passage says multitudes about self-pity and many things that we allow to depress us.

With that in mind, I have studied and prayed and read material on the subject for years, and sought out gay Christians to seek understanding of their views, and their experience of God. From this I have reached the following conclusions:

1. The Bible is silent on the question of what we mean today when we talk about "homosexuality".
2. There are gay people who are in sexual relationships who show every fruit of the Spirit named in Scripture.
3. These people are trod upon and outcast, and as a result, if we don't succeed in driving them off quickly, we shall never be rid of them at all, because they understand the need for a God whose love is unconditional more deeply than most straight people ever will.
4. As a corollary to 3, the greatest temptation to sin these people offer me is a temptation to envy the depth of their faith.
5. Whatever I do must be based on the general principles I can find in the Bible, and the leading of the Spirit.

Many people argue that homosexuality is "a disorder". This may be. If it is, how then shall I deal with people afflicted by it? What is the most compassionate way to deal with these people? One way would be to try to help them find the best life available to them. If they cannot happily marry someone with whom they could have children, perhaps they can find a happy life with someone with whom they can't have children. I see this as not especially different from a female friend who's had a hysterectomy. She can still seek emotional support and fulfillment, even though she can never have a procreative union.

Have you considered using 1 Cor. 6:9-10? These passages reveal the consequences of unrighteous behavior - - including homosexuality. Pay special attention to verse 11 - - "And such were some of you." What caused the Corinthians to turn their lives around and stop doing these things? Look at the last part of verse 11 to consider what the Lord can do if we allow Him to work in our lives. Do you ever show homosexuals this passage?

I see no basis for trying to prevent people from doing something unless I can show how it is harmful to others. If I believe it to be sinful, then I shouldn't do it. Romans 14 teaches me that I may find that there are things which are not sinful for me, but are sinful for other people. Perhaps my leading against a given action is a personal scruple, to protect me against something that would harm me; people who lack this scruple may be stronger than me, not weaker.

Look closely at Romans 14. The matters under discussion are matters of indifference with God. It really doesn't matter to Him if people eat meat, or only vegetables; keep a particular day, or not; what matters is that we don't not bind those areas of indifference on others and cause them to violate their conscience. What you have to do is show how that homosexuality fits into the context of things that God is indifferent about. I do not see indifference on God's part regarding things that he has condemned (Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

For me to find a basis for general prohibition, I would need to become convinced that this issue was actually addressed by the Bible, and I have found the case for this to be too weak for me to base a judgment upon it. I know gay people who have strong convictions against homosexual activity, and gay people who have no such convictions. I will support both to the best of my ability, trying to help them find the best path to walk.

Then you should be warned of the consequences of such support i.e. Rom.1:32, 2 John 9-11.

I believe that God will lead them where He needs them; my job, here, is to not close the door on them, or try to drive them away from Him.

I do feel a leading to try to encourage people who have no convictions against homosexual sex to nonetheless practice it with the same care and consideration I believe heterosexual people should exercise; monogamy and commitment are fundamentally good ideas. I do not believe that the reasons for committed relationships go away the moment you take childbearing out of the picture. On the other hand, I see no productive results coming from condemnation and hostility. The main thing promiscuous people end up needing seems to be compassion and emotional support as they try to get their lives in order.

It seems to me that too much focus is placed on trying to do the Holy Spirit's work, and convict people of their sins, and too little focus is placed on trying to help people get into a place in their lives where they will be ready to listen.

Once again, I appeal to 1 Cor. 6:9-11. That passage tells us what the right motivation can do for ungodly living. I do not favor hostility or condemnation. Nor do I favor calling something "acceptable" that God has condemned. That is where you and I differ. I firmly believe that I cannot speak about spiritual matters where God has not spoken about them (1 Pet. 4:11a). But, on the other hand, when God has spoken about a matter, I must say what He said about it. I make no apologies for that. If it is true, as I believe it is, that homosexuality is wrong in any fashion, then it is not me condemning the action, but God Himself. And if that is true, then I do NOT offer the homosexual any benefit at all unless I tell them how God views their behavior. That is my position. I don't need to lie on your couch and seek your approval for such. What I need, if I can wrong, is for you to show how that is so from the Scriptures. Nothing less will suffice.

 

[- DRA -]

What is "gopherwood"? This term does not correspond to any know type of wood today that I am aware of.

Sigmund,

Why don't you lie down on the couch? Yes, that's it. Now, go ahead and take your shoes off if it will help you relax. See, that is much better, isn't it?
Good. I thought that would help.

Now, let's see if we can make just a little sense of the story about Noah and that big boat . . . the Bible calls it an ark. God was terribly displeased with men in those days. He told Noah what He was planning. He was planning on destroying the wicked people. He told Noah to prepare an ark of gopherwood. He also gave Noah other instructions about building the ark. Noah went out and did all that God commanded him. He knew exactly what God meant when He said gopherwood. Noah used gopherwood. While we may not know today exactly what gopherwood was back in Noah's day, that is beside the point. God knew what it was. And Noah knew what is was. From this simple story we should learn that we should follow God's commands. When we have the faith and reverence for God like Noah did, we will realize that we must obey what God says. I am fully confident that if God wanted you to build Him an ark today, He would select a type of wood that you would recognize. I wouldn't worry any more about this matter.

Yes, now is a good time to put your shoes back on. Be sure to lace them up before leaving. Yes, that's it. The knots look nice. You did a good job tying them. Oh, by the way, you can read the Bible story about Noah building the ark in Genesis chapter 6, and of Noah's faith and reverence for God in Heb. 11:7.

What's that, Sigmund? No, our discussion we just finished was NOT a dream. You are still having those dreams, aren't you? Okay, lie back down . . .

. . . Denny

 

[Philo]

I'm sure gopherwood only refers to wood that floats.

 

[- DRA -]

Not necessarily. If Paul was implying that all males are naturally relationship oriented towards females, then that would be one thing. It is also an incorrect implication though. Besides, the text really has nothing to do with relationships, but sex for idolatrous purposes.

Lee,

It's good to see that you also moved over from the creation thread.

God, through Paul, is implying that males are attracted to females. That is why when men who burn in their lust for other men are "leaving the natural use of the woman" (NKJV - Rom. 1:27). God has provided a way for sexual release for the man - - he should have his own wife (1 Cor. 7:2). The man that cannot control his passion needs to marry a wife (1 Cor. 7:9).

I am analyzing your reasoning about the sex acts that are being condemned - - whether or not they are only those involved with idolatry. That is your reasoning, correct? I think it is. If so, then does the complete list of sins from Rom. 1:26-31 also just apply when they are involved with idolatry. For instance, would regular ole "wickedness" (vs. 29) be okay, but wicked associated with idolatry not be okay? And, then there is "covetousness" (also in verse 29), with the same question attached? Now, jump down to verse 30. How about "haters of God?" Are regular ole everyday haters okay, but only those who hate God and are associated with idolatry condemned? As you might imagine, I see some flaws in your reasoning.

. . . Denny

 

[seebs]

I think that I can establish authority for the need for a person to be able to communicate with another. I think that is why God gave us voices and speech. I also can determine that God allows us to use other means of communication, such as writing. I have no reason to suspect that other means of communication (TV, radio, computer, telephone, telegraph, etc.) are not acceptable to God - - they are in violation of no commands or principles I am familiar with. Do you know of any?

Here you are going from "we need to do a general thing" to assuming that all specific ways of doing it are permitted unless excluded.

On the other hand, the topic of discussion is homosexuality. The Bible is NOT silent on this issue.

I think this is the point at which we part ways. I do not believe that the Bible ever once refers to homosexuality. I am familiar, intimately, with the passages you cite, and I have studied them in multiple translations and looked up all the words in the original languages. I have studied and prayed, and come to a different conclusion than you have.

At this point, I don't think anything past this matters. We disagree on what the Bible says. I don't see any reasonable expectation that there's any point in discussing it; I've gone over this at length with many people, and I've come to recognize that there is enough ambiguity that people who hold positions different from my own are generally honest seekers of truth who have come to different conclusions than I have.

If you truly believe that Gods gives us all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), and they are not all written down . . . then WHERE ARE THEY?

We are led directly by the Spirit, as we always have been.

I want to be careful here and not put words into your mouth. So, are you saying that the things you are promoting came from another source than the Bible?

Well, I dunno. Are you one of the people who thinks the Bible is the Word? If so, then no, they came from the Bible, in its incarnation as the Living Word. If you agree that the Bible is a book, and it is Jesus that is the Living Word, then yes, they came from another source than the Bible.

Look closely at Romans 14. The matters under discussion are matters of indifference with God.

This seems to me to betray a very foundational misunderstanding both of God and of Romans 14.

It really doesn't matter to Him if people eat meat, or only vegetables; keep a particular day, or not;

Read in context. Meat offered to idols. Think about it.

As to keeping a particular day... Isn't that one of the ten commandments? The fundamental rules everyone cites as the basis of all Christian morality?

And yet, in Romans 14, we find that we may, if we wish, simply ignore it.

Likewise, what makes you think that any matter is one of indifference to God? Every aspect of creation, every molecule, is judged by Him. He does not miss the sparrow's fall; why should we assume that He doesn't care about the things we do?

what matters is that we don't not bind those areas of indifference on others and cause them to violate their conscience.

Indeed.

What you have to do is show how that homosexuality fits into the context of things that God is indifferent about. I do not see indifference on God's part regarding things that he has condemned (Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

I don't either. I just don't accept prooftexting as a valid way to learn what God wants. Your argument depends on one and two verse sound bites. Mine reconciles the whole of the Biblical text on the issue, including all the verses that people like to ignore because they hurt "the cause".

Once again, I appeal to 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

Yes, you do. Over and over, because the translation you favor makes it support your position.

But, on the other hand, when God has spoken about a matter, I must say what He said about it. I make no apologies for that.

I tend to agree, but I caution you to be very careful about the difference between "God says X" and "I believe that God says X".

If you would genuinely like to understand my position, you would do well to start by recognizing that I also believe I am reporting on God's will, as revealed through Scripture, read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I am mistaken. If I am, I will be in very good company; I do not believe a single Christian will ever live who does not make at least one error in understanding. However, I think you should allow for the possibility that my position is not simply arbitrary or willful, but the result of long and careful study and prayer.

 

[leecappella]

Puriteen said:

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?

Very good example. I did this when I was younger reading Romans and, at first, my conclusion was a condemning one. However, as I looked closely at the text, I soon realized that this is not me. It is, admittedly, very condemning at a face value glance though.

 

[leecappella]

...I think not that I am the one reading a personal conclusion into the text.

You should stop trying to do what you think is good according to you own opinions, and read the text.

No matter what men give allowance for, God will judge. Have you not even enough concern for them to doubt yourself one moment?

This is good just as long as you've looked yourself in the mirror or in your heart and applied the very same statements to yourself.

 

[leecappella]

dear keithylishus, consider this verse.

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,


Will you too claim that it is just a bad translation?

What here refers to homosexuals?

 

[leecappella]

What is a homosexual?

Someone who is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex.

As Christians we are not to be sexually attracted to anyone. Not saying that it doesn't happen, it does indeed, but this is exactly why we need Christ.

Lust (sexual attraction without action) is a sin. Christ Jesus teaches us this. It is in the red ink.

What is a homosexual? It is someone who is relationship oriented towards the same sex. It is equivalent to what a heterosexual is. The only difference is the object of one's affections.

 

[leecappella]

If the Bible does not condemn it; if your Greek sholarship is true, then why has it been the practice of the Chruch to speak against it for 2,000 years?

For if there was nothing wrong with it, and we know it was practiced alot in Rome and Greece, then it seems that the Church would not speak against it.

Why did slavery exist for as long as it did? Why do some people still use the bible to justify opposing interracial marriages? This is not a good question you've asked. Just because a majority may feel a certain way about something or someone does not automatically make the majority correct, does it? Be sure to ask Jesus that one!

 

[leecappella]

ALL heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sin
All homosexuals acts are sin...period.

Where specifically does the bible call all homosexual acts a sin regardless of context?

 

[leecappella]

....(In fact, I don't believe he even mentioned the homosexual sex as it pertains to worshipping the idols.)

Look up 'abomination' as many of you like to reference. It is a term that, in context, means idolatry. Hello!? Why do you think 1Kings 14:24 refers to sodomites (ie. male cult temple prostitutes) and the 'abominations' that they did. That is, the idolatries that they did, which was to prostitute themselves for idolatrous purposes.

 

[leecappella]

It is clear that DETESTABLE did not include homosexual acts. For a list of what is detestable, see Proverbs 6:16-19. There are six detestable things, even seven that the Lord hates. Homosexuality is not in the list.

I will have to disagree here. Context is what is vital when determining the definition of a word.

 

[leecappella]

Amen and Amen!

Translation: Amen and amen because I agree, I agree!

(This is the kind of statement we all tend to say when something that we agree with is said by someone else. It justifies, for us, what we believe. Just wanted to make sure you all understood. It does not make what was agreed with 'gospel'. It just means that what was said is reciprocated by a listener. God could in fact disagree with what was said by one fallible human and agreed with by another fallible human.)

 

[leecappella]

Does it tempt to lust, to have a sexual desire toward? Then it is not fit for the child of God.

Many heterosexuals date and have feelings of lust and sexual desire for the opposite sex. They may realize that lust is not godly and not act on it, but that does not, I'm sure you would agree, make 'it' unfit for them. That is, considering what your 'it' is defined as.

 

[leecappella]

So we should give up the Bible and follow this new revelation that God gave to you?

You know, that might be the very same question some folks asked who used and still use the bible to justify slavery, racism, opposition to women preachers, etc.

 

[- DRA -]

Neither is directly supported or opposed, I think, in the NT. I would point out that I think bestiality is condemned in the OT, but homosexuality isn't. Yes, I know the verses you might cite; I interpret them differently.

However, I believe that the two commandments Jesus gives us are enough to see ways in which we might distinguish between these things.

I do not understand how you differentiate between Lev. 18:22 and verse 23. Nor do I understand how you differentiate between Lev. 20:13 and verses 15-16. Weren't both activities forbidden and worthy of death?

Why wouldn't both homosexuality and beastiality fall within the realm of the word "fornication" in the N.T.?
Strong's lexicon defines "porneia" as:
1.) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2.) metaph. the worship of idols
a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
This Greek word appears 26x in the KJV.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words defines "porneia" as:
1.) illicit sexual intercourse (Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20,29; 21:35; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13,18; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21). In the plural in 1 Cor. 7:2; Matt. 5:32; 19:9. It includes adultery in Matt. 5:32; 19:9, but is distinguished from it in Matt. 15:19
2.) metaphorically, of the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith (Rev. 2:21?; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2)

How do you define the word "porneia?"

I don't see this as very likely. If it happens, though, my argument will work fine. My argument is that the prerequisite for sex is consent, as well as mutual respect, love, and commitment, and this cannot be formed with animals.

Where is the passage (or passages) of Scripture that says the things you mentioned are prerequisites for sex? I read in 1 Cor. 7:2 that a man avoids fornication by "having" his wife. A man should have consent from his wife for sex, and he should have a mutual respect, love, and commitment for her (Eph. 5:22-33). I believe that you are promoting some sex is okay outside of marriage. That is what I disagree with. I am looking for your Scriptural evidence for this conclusion. Where is it?

I haven't been ordered to build an ark.

Seriously, it is not clear at all to me that all people are being commanded to do a specific thing. Noah was under specific, explicit, direct orders. You're comparing this to contexts in which we see general, sweeping statements, which we already know have many exceptions. People who are physically incapable of reproducing with their loved ones can nonetheless form valid marriages, and pursue sex in its unitive aspect even if there is no possibility of procreation. This seems to me to be a sound basic principle.

Look at 1 Cor. 6:18a & 7:2. The Corinthians were commanded to flee "fornication." To avoid it, they were to "have" their own spouse. That is a command. It is not a suggestion or wishful thinking - - it is a command! Why do you feel that you and others do not need to obey this command?