Looking at the OT, the laws and concepts are not objective moral laws, but rather cultural laws. First off, only instances of male/male are found throughout the bible. Its is odd that a god would forbid only one sex from a homosexual relationship and not the other. One is an abomination and the other is not?
The word abomination deals with cultural wrongs and not objective moral wrongs. Its used to describe many different circumstances that would not be immoral to us at this moment, but was an "abomination" to them in their culture. Such as eating with Egyptians, eating forbidden foods, ect. Other sex acts are not described in this way, other words are used which specifically mean sexual immorality.
I thought this was an exceptional explanation of what I am trying to say.
In the OT, you can receive capital punishment for things that are just ritualistic and not objectively immoral. Such as touching the ark in the wrong way.Friedman, Richard Elliott; Dolansky, Shawna (2011-06-03). The Bible Now (p. 37). Oxford University Press. wrote:So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts. The question is: is the term t�‘ēb�h an absolute—meaning that an act that is a t�‘ēb�h is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative, meaning that something that is a t�‘ēb�h to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a t�‘ēb�h in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a t�‘ēb�h in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another—in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change?
Elsewhere in the Bible the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they are cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (t�‘ēb�h) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians do not eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (t�‘ēb�h) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and do not find it offensive. See also the story of the exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (t�‘ēb�h) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.
A former student of ours pointed out that right here in the list of laws that we are considering in Leviticus 18, naming acts that are t�‘ēb�h, are some that prohibit actions that the great patriarchs of the Bible had done.69 For example, Abraham marries his half sister Sarah. He says: She is, in fact, my sister, my father’s daughter but not my mother’s daughter, and she became a wife to me. (Gen 20:12) But the law in Leviticus explicitly forbids such relations with a half sister: Your sister’s nudity—your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, born home or born outside—you shall not expose their nudity. (Lev 18:9) So what is not a t�‘ēb�h in the generation of the patriarchs has changed and become one in the generation of Moses. In a somewhat different way, the land itself can change from not being a t�‘ēb�h and can become a t�‘ēb�h as a result of the behavior of its residents on it. The prophet Jeremiah says: You defiled my land, and made my possession into an offensive thing (t�‘ēb�h). (Jer 2:7) An act or an object that is not a t�‘ēb�h can become one, depending on time and circumstances.
None of these things actually make homosexuality objectively immoral.
In the NT, there is not a single greek word that could be translated into homosexuality. The writers based everything upon their vague understanding of sexual orientation, and homosexuality was not introduced until the latter nineteenth century. Plus, none of the 4 gospels actually mention the topic and only a handful of verses do so. It is only mentioned in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11. Obviously this would mean that Jesus never talked about homosexuality and we cannot determine what he actually would have thought of it, indicating that it was a minor issue for the early church.
Two of those three verses only mention homosexuals as "sodomites" in a list along with other behaviors. The 1 Cor 6:9-10 translates it as a male prostitute and one could claim it was a condemnation of prostitution, not homosexuality. There is just no special emphasis, its merely a list. This list is nothing but a shopping list of acts/behaviors that were not accepted by their society/culture at the time. You can find similar lists with other ancient civilizations such as the Mesopotamian, or Egyptian writings. My point is that it was just a stereotypical list of unacceptable behaviors in their culture. As is with many lists, these could have been copied purely for convenience from other sources.
In fact the term used in these two lists may have nothing to do at all with homosexuality.
There is only one verse that explicitly refers to homosexuality, Romans 1:26–27.What the New Testament Says about Homosexuality by William O Walker Jr. wrote:The Greek word translated as “male prostitutes� is the adjective malakoi (plural of malakos). This adjective means “soft,� as in a “soft� bed or a “soft� pillow. When applied to people, it can mean “lazy,� “self-indulgent,� “cowardly,� “lacking in self-control,� and the like. When applied to males, it generally refers to what are commonly regarded as feminine-like “weaknesses:� such men might be regarded as “soft,� “flabby,� “weak,� “cowardly,� “unmanly,� or “effeminate.� But to call a male “effeminate� might or might not carry implications of homosexuality. Sometimes it did, but certainly not always. When it did, it may have referred to the so-called “passive� or “effeminate� partner in the homosexual relationship. But we cannot be at all certain that malakoi refers to homosexuality in First Corinthians 6:9. It may refer to “softness� or even “effeminacy� in some other sense. In any case, the use of the adjective malakoi to describe males should probably be seen not as “homophobic� but rather as essentially “gynophobic.� It reflects a fear of women or at least of woman-like—that is, “soft� or “weak�—behavior on the part of men.
The verses surrounding this though deal with idolatry and shrine prostitution which was common in their day. It is a warning against the gentile practices which were based around the worship of Ashtoreth or Aphrodite. The whole context of this chapter is an argument against idolatry.Romans 1:26-27 - New Revised Standard Version wrote:For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 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.
When you look at the context and what was actually being addressed, you will notice that homosexuality is not forbidden as a sin by the bible.
."
