Tom Kent

Some of the author's logic troubles me. Firstly the claim that the Bible says absolutely zilch about the existence or experience of homosexual people on planet earth. Zilch? What about Leviticus 18 where it refers to sex between men, by basically making an analogy to heterosexual sex? That’s not saying zilch. That’s saying there is a similarity between men having sex with each other, and heterosexual sex. That’s what analogies do. And analogies say more than zilch. And Romans 1 indicates that homosexuals existed. That chapter refers to men lusting after men. That’s homosexuality (or a variant such as bisexuality, but it still falls under the broader homosexual umbrella). I really don’t see how it’s possible to claim that the Bible says absolutely zilch about the existence or experience of homosexual people. It even mentions key homosexual experiences; lust and sex. I also feel that some of the author's claims go beyond the evidence. Sometimes quite obviously so. EG when he claims that in Romans 1, the author is specifically addressing idolatrous, lust-driven, destructive sexual practices. How does he know the author of Romans is addressing destructive practises? I don’t see Romans saying that. I see the author of Romans saying in verse 26 that “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.” IE not just any lust, but lust of a shameful type. And “the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” IE relations with women was natural, but lust for one another was not. I don’t see it saying that the men chose a destructive type of relationship with men? Another example of Joel going beyond the evidence, is his claim that 1 Corinthians/1 Timothy is condemning prostitution and the use of young boys for sexual pleasure, rather than homosexual pracise. Yet Joel also makes the claim that The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes (malokos) may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men. One moment Joel is talking of “boys or young men” and the next moment he prefers the reference to only be about “young boys”? Another example of going beyond the evidence, is Joel's claim that St Paul most likely didn’t know of romantic relationships between males. Sure I suppose it’s possible he didn’t know. But the evidence shows contemporary Jewish discussion about the idea of relationship between men. Josephus wrote about that in the context of marriage. And even the arts of the time made reference to romantic relationships between men (Symposium).