I’ve been doing some cyber research to respond to the “aresenkoitai” male prostitute or homosexual argument, however, until I’ve gotten sufficient info to post a response, I post the following.
Regardless of what the Bible may or not say regarding homosexuality when science eventually announces the genetic cause(s) of homosexuality, thus, proving that homosexuality is a not a chosen lifestyle, the homophobic religious establishment will have lost all credibility regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality & the loss of salvation for practicing homosexuals.
Science has already shown the ignorance of such Biblical prohibitions such as the ostracization of menstruating women from social contact with the community & their being forbidden from entering a place of worship because they were “unclean.” No priests or ministers today prohibit
menstruating women from attending religious services.
Leviticus 21:17-20 forbids the following from entering the temple to worship or acting as priests:
“...17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken (crushed testicles)...”
Churches now days don’t prohibit drawfs & the blind from from attending religious services.
So, it is with homosexuality when science proves its genetic.
From http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/discuss.htm#amy:
“...Question: Has it been "proven" that homosexuality is a gene (the word "gene" being an intellectual proxy for "an inborn, immutable, biologically determined trait")?
The Answer is: Yes and no, but mostly yes. It's the same "yes" answer to another Question: Do you believe that left- handedness is a "chosen alternative lifestyle" or an inborn neurological orientation that a minority
of people are simply born with?
Answer (obviously): It's genetic. Ah! But here we arrive at the point: Why is left-handedness obviously genetic? The answer -- and it's the identical answer to the homosexuality question-- is simple: Empirical observation. After looking at right and left handers for thousands of years, and clinically and scientifically for the past 60 decades, we know that some people are simply born left-handed (about 7% of all humans, actually) and the rest right-handed. How do we know people are born homosexual? Exactly the same way.
But with homosexuality, people don't want to accept the evidence that they so easily accept with handedness. Because recognizing the empirical reality -- that a minority of people are born left-handed-- doesn't threaten anyone's theology, or anyone's political power-base, or anyone's
morality, or the social and legal status quo. Recognizing the exact same empirical reality when it comes to homosexuality, however, does all the above. So in one case people say "Well, obviously!" and in the other they say "Oh, no, it's not possible."
And because they don't want to believe what's clearly empirically true, they demand "higher proof," proof they can touch, "a gene." Well, guess what: We could ask another question. "Have we found the genes for left-handedness?" That is, can we prove genetically that left-handedness
isn't a chosen lifestyle? The answer is: No. We have no idea where the genes are for left-handedness. But no one disputes that left-handedness is a biological trait, most probably under the control of some genes...
...So far, we can point to one genetic locus, in the 28th region of the q (long) arm of the X chromosome (the NIH study), which has been found to correlate very, very highly with homosexuality in some men. It's only one study, and we haven't found the specific gene or genes in this region having an influence on homosexual orientation. Does environment have any role in creating sexual orientation? As far as we can tell, it doesn't; after more than a century of work, no one has ever-- ever-- come up with any social factor (family life, teachers, media exposure, whatever) that correlates with homosexual orientation. And the trait is quite uniform and well-defined, what scientists call "coherent," particularly in men, so we think there's no environmental factor at all...”
With regards to the genetic origin of homosexual orientation, the homophobic, fundamentalist Christian point of view regarding God & his alleged rejection of homosexuals & their eternal damnation should they not repent & refrain from homosexual activity is like a toy maker who
makes a dozen, apparently, identical windup toy soldiers. He winds them up & watches them march, however, he notices one that seems to be limping, he examines the toy soldier & sees he has made one of its legs shorter than the other. Angrily, he tosses the toy soldier into the flaming
chimney.
Absurd. The toy soldier did not make his own leg shorter.
BTW, Ainea, regarding your data on the transmission of AIDS via oral sex, you failed to identify your source when you said: “...There are only six confirmed cases of HIV being transmitted orally, and in all cases the receptive partner had open sores in their mouths, so you information is
incorrect...”
Are these world wide statistics, continental United States statistics or your neighborhood statistics?
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC)in Atlanta, Ga., from their web page http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/oralsexqa.htm :
“...The Options Project found that 7.8% (8 of 102) of recently infected men who have sex with men in San Francisco were probably infected through oral sex. Most of these men believed that the risk was minimal or non-existent...”
The above information provided by the CDC documents 8 such cases in San Francisco alone, therefore, it’s obvious that it is your information which is incorrect.