The most common Bible passage used to the denigrate homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22
King James Version
You shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Revised Standard Version
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
The most common counter argument for debunking this and other passages from Leviticus is the inability to translate the true meaning of the passages. The word "abomination" translates in Hebrew "to become unclean" and does not refer to sexual relations. The context of this passage refers to fertility rituals and social health practices that were commonly practiced by the Canaanites.
The second argument is that the passages of Leviticus relate to purity laws of cleanliness including identifying animals that can and cannot be eaten (such as shellfish which were unclean due to the pollutants from sewerage in the water where they lived). Other "unclean" practices include sex with a women during her menstrual cycle and wearing cloth of two fibers.
Leviticus is part of the Mosaic Laws in the Bible which are all but ignored in modern society and according to the Bible itself were rescinded by Jesus himself. Anyone familiar with the famous Dr Laura Letter will know many of these laws:
Planting Two Crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19)
Wearing Garments made of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19)
Contact with a female during her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24)
Touching the Skin of a Dead Pig (Leviticus 11:6-8)
Male having a haircut - especially having the hair around the temples cut (Leviticus 19:27)
Wearing glasses or afflicted with pimples, acne or excema etc. (Leviticus 21:20)
Being a Homosexual (Leviticus 18:22)
Curse, Blaspheme or otherwise take the lords name in vain (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Eat Shellfish (inclusive of prawns, crabs, lobster etc) (Leviticus 11:10)
The third argument for debunking the anti gay Bible is the context in which the modern versions have been written and the use of language and meaning. The two most common versions of the Bible in current circulation are the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version.
Anyone who has studied language understands that there is an inability to translate directly from one language to another. Idiomatic expressions (an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up) are contextual and make no sense from one language to another but they make perfect sense in their original language.
Each version of the Bible uses the contextual language of the day to "interpret" the meaning of the Bible, and as shown above there is much confusion on just what the actual meaning of a word or passage actually is.
Just like the language of Shakespeare is difficult to contextually translate in today's language, without actually understanding the contextual meaning of the writing the meaning cannot be understood.
Thanks for the post, please do not get me wrong. I am not antigay, I believe in love the sinner not the sin. There are a few scriptures that you brought that i will take a look at.
There are definitely equivalents, though. For instance, in Italian the idiomatic expression
'fra l'incudine e martello' literally means between the hammer and the anvil, which even on it's own would convey what it was intented to convey.
If you were to translate into English, you would most probably use the phrase 'between a rock and a hard place.'
The science and art of translation is found in knowing each language so intimately, that finding the equivalents doesn't often present a problem. And, I think the translators of the Bible were people who did know each language intimately.
Jesus did not rescind them all. He insisted on many being continued. One of them was to continue the role of sex within marriage.
There is a context to Jesus' response to the laws of the OT. The context has to do with their purpose in setting up the theocratic nation of Israel. For Jews, Jesus did not abolish the Law. In fact, He observed it, as did His disciples. However, Jesus fulfilled the Law by becoming a light to the Gentiles and bringing salvation to all men. To the Gentiles He still taught the truth of G-d's wisdom to men. One of those truths is almost shared by Robinson in the article - the fact that sex is meant to create a bond between a man and a woman for a lifetime. That isn't some preference of G-d's that was turned into a law. That is a fact of our nature. Nothing changes it, nor the fact that violation of the law is sin. All that changes is the forgiveness for the sin has been accomplished at the cross.
Shalom.