Easy enough to figure out. While gays and lesbians may violate scripture (Leviticus 20:13 paraphrasing: "man shall not lie down with man) Heterosexuals massacre the 10 commandments (No. 7 - "Thou shall not commit adultery"; No. 10 "....thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife") So I ask, in the eyes of God, society and all of Christian teachings (as based upon the "good book", the foundation of which is their decrying of "homosexuality") - which "sins" are more detestable" *gingerly steps off soapbox*

preaching to the choir

*baton at the ready* :)

What they don't tell you in Sunday School That chapter, Leviticus, is for priests; the cohanim. They are required to have special purity laws because they are associated with the relics (the arc, etc.). Moreover, there are two versions of the text, an older one and a newer one, placed right after each other (hence the duplication of some laws). The text was written and revised in an era when Near Eastern religions had temple prostitutes, and a variety of sexual behaviors were incorporated in rituals. It was important for the Jews to "not be like those others." Finally, even for those who are literal-minded, the text condemns anal sex for the passive partner (this is clear in the actual language and lost in English), it does not condemn homosexuals. It's about a behavior, not a person. See for reasonable, and intelligent discussion from a variety of religious perspectives. I've started telling people who assert as Christians that I'm wrong/sinning/evil because I'm queer to come back and talk to me when they can read their scriptures in the languages they're written from manuscript, because otherwise? They don't have a clue.

and the remaining 45 allotted for today

what does "condemning anal sex for the passive partner" actually mean though?

It's pretty common in Near Eastern and Roman law . . . the idea being that female/woman=bad/weak. To be the one receiving a phallus anally, or vaginally, means to be a "woman," and there fore of lower status. Roman law punished the person perceived as "passive" in anal sex, rather than punish or condemn homosexual sex. Manly men fucked; women were fucked. It's more anti-woman, culturally, than anti-homosexual. There are separate names in a number of languages, including Latin, for the "pitcher" and the "catcher" in terms of fellatio and anal sex. Bibliy, there's just the one passing NT reference to lesbians; we were invisible, even then.

What's the reference?

Romans x:x-x: This is the x King James translation, which is a problem in itself, but remember it's archaic language: Romans x:x-x: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." This is hands down the smartest discussion I've seen: Some things to remember: Paul was a Greek Jew, and didn't like women--at all. This is one half of a conversation by letter--we have Paul's response but not the original letter. Also remember the story of Ruth and Naomi--those women loved each other, passionately as women. There are fragments of the marriage contract language embedded in their story, and I'm convinced they were married to each other at least in their own minds. As an antidote to this stuff, I may post a bit of Old Irish I've been working on, wherein lesbian lovemaking is ed "playful mating with a woman," without a pejorative context.

thank you medieva, very sage writing.

means don't be a pillow princess