REMEMBERING THE SABBATH

A lot of Christians these days get the law of the Old Testament and the grace of the New Testament confused and muddled together in their minds.  They think that they have to earn God's favor to get to heaven by having enough good works, or mitzvah as the Jews would call them, to outweigh the bad to merit entry to heaven.  This is despite what the New Testament actually says in such places as Romans 3:20 which clearly states: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (KJV). This knowledge should lead us to repentance and accepting Christ's payment for our sins on the cross. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians 3:24-25.

Others think that after Christ saves us, we need good works to keep it.  Galatians 3:3 says: "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" This would clearly indicate that we can't earn it, and we can't keep it by our own deeds/works.  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9; like some will try to do before Him: "Many will say to me  in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23.

With this in mind, we turn toward the 10 Commandments as given in Exodus 20.  Some groups, like the Seventh Day Adventists, believe that you need to keep the commandments to be saved.  This includes the fourth as given in Exodus 20:8: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Deuteronomy 5:12, "Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.")  They believe that this is the day upon which all believers should worship, and only tradition has made Sunday the "Christian Sabbath," and not Saturday; but is this actually the case?  

In Exodus, we have Moses, a Jew, receiving the law from God, and giving it to the children of Israel.  It was not given to Gentiles (non Jews).  Exodus 31:16 & 17 makes this plain regarding the keeping of the Sabbath: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever...."  In Ezekiel 20:12 we read: "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them."

Is there any verse in the New Testament to indicate that the disciples met on the first day of the week, what we now call Sunday?  Yes. John 20:19 says,"The the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews...."  Acts 20:7 says,"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them...." Here we see that between the time described in the book of John, and that described later in the book of Acts, this had become the regular day that they met. And lest we forget who these disciples were, Acts 11:26 says "... And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

JOSEPH AND MARY WERE NOT HOMELESS

This time of year, it becomes popular for some to use the birth of Christ as an example of what it's like to be poor and homeless.  They point to this story when they need an example to bolster some argument over homeless people, whether they be poor and on the street, or immigrants, legal or otherwise, but is this accurate?
In A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS, when Charlie Brown asks Linus what the meaning of Christmas is, Linus gets up on stage and recites the first 14 verses of the second chapter of Luke, from the King James Version.  For our purposes here, we will only read the first 7:

AND it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

We read in verse 4 that Joseph was from Nazareth; so that's where his home was.  But in order to pay his taxes, he had to leave his home, and travel to the city of his birth. After they had arrived and spent some time there, "while they were there" (vs. 6), the time for Jesus' birth had arrived. Joseph obviously sought shelter for the birth but, since "there was no room for them in the inn" (vs. 7), they had to make do with what was available.  This did not make them homeless (they were away from home), it meant that they were without shelter at this time.  Joseph had money for a room, but none was available, as it was first come, first served, and you couldn't exactly call ahead and make reservations.

It's the same if you travel, and either stop for the night somewhere unknown in advance, or arrive at your destination, and something comes up, and you need a room for the night, but all the local hotels are full.  This doesn't make you homeless; you're just without a place to stay that night while you're away from home. Such was the case here.

GOD, GRACE & GAYS

 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6).

(All scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible.)

INTRODUCTION

Many books have been written about homosexuality and what the Bible has to say about it. Those from the Christian side tend to declare it a sin and its practitioners as hopelessly lost and enslaved in vice. Those on the other side try to justify themselves by saying that the Bible needs to be placed in historical context which will show that the prohibitions given are outdated. This effort tends to contextualize scripture into irrelevancy.

Chief amongst the latter are Matthew Vines and Justin Lee. Vines decides to deal with 6 Bible passages/verses that are used to "bash" homosexuals: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, Romans 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9, and I Timothy 1:10, and, it seems more importantly, what others have written about them. Beyond the initial mention, I Timothy 1:10 seems to be ignored while the main focus is on the other 5; at least in their YouTube videos. As we will see, the Bible has a lot more to say on this than just these 6 passages.

WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY?

Listening to most conservative fundamentalist Christians over the past years you would think that homosexuality was the unpardonable sin. This is clearly not the case as Jesus in Matthew 12:31-32 says: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. This is repeated in Mark 3:28-29: Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
What is homosexuality? Put simply, it is the sexual attraction of one sex for other members of the same sex. The term "homosexual" is of relatively recent origin. It was coined by a man in Germany named Karl Kertbeny in 1869, with the term heterosexual following soon thereafter, and appearing in publications the following year: 1870. It is said that he desired a more neutral term than, what he viewed as, the more pejorative term: sodomite; commonly in use at the time. Some then consider the terms "homosexual" and "sodomite" as synonymous because of this, despite the clear difference in actual definition that is given in any dictionary; which is what most people will go by rather than undertaking a thorough study of the etymology of the word. This conflation of the meaning of the two words becomes a real problem when inserted into a text that preceded the creation of the term.  Part of the problem is the use of modern bible versions that tend to omit key details and add modern words to the text. In the NKJV for example, both words are used side by side in I Corinthians 6:9, with an asterisk on the word homosexuals, which they note in the space between verses, that this refers to male homosexuals (the lesbians get a pass, despite the brief mention in Romans 1:26), with the word sodomites following. This would seem to imply that anyone with same sex attraction (homosexuals), regardless of whether it's acted upon or not, is condemned to hell, as well as those who act on it (sodomites). It's essentially a case of the old "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, as even the NKJV would seem to acknowledge a difference in meaning between the two words here. As some Bible believing Christian authors have pointed out, "Things that are different are not the same." That would seem obvious, but more and more lately, the obvious has to be pointed out to people as it tends to get glossed over in the rush to get to the desired end. The problem of conflating the two terms is that those trying to explain homosexuality, who are dealing with it on a personal level, think that they have to justify sodomy in the process, because that is the way everyone thinks that same sex love is going to inevitably be expressed between homosexual men at some point. One is a state of mind though, where an individual is attracted to members of the same sex, and the other is an act most often associated with the former, though not all of them do so by any means; but the assumption is that they do.
Part of a dictionary definition of homosexuality defines it as "a stage in normal psychosexual development occurring during prepuberty in the male and during early adolescence in the female during which libidinal gratification is sought with members of one's own sex." It has also been explained that kids are more homosocial at younger ages, boys only playing with other boys, and girls only playing with other girls. If given more time to mature, like they had back in Genesis 5 (and in the restoration described in Isaiah 65:20: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old...."), perhaps they'd be able to grow out of it. It appears to become fixated at a homoerotic level later, after the hormones kick in, when a child is raised in an environment where one or more of the following are present: a domineering, overbearing or smothering mother, and an absent, weak or distant father, and/or introduction by an older, maybe even abusive, friend or relative; though not always in every case, as each individual, and their circumstances, is different. The absence of an older male role model seems to be the key here. Without the love and leadership of an older, loving man in his life, the boy looks to other older males for that love and affection he's not getting at home. Add hormones to the mix, and the affection sought becomes more physical and even sexual. Without a father in her life, the girl would grow up seeing men as unreliable, unloving, and unable to commit to a wife or a family, so she turns to others of her own gender for comfort and support. Likewise, an abusive father would show that men are unloving, or uncaring beyond their own desires, and, as such, only after one thing: their own satisfaction; however that is attained.  This would indicate that it is largely a result of some form of child abuse and/or neglect. What Jesus said about those who "...offend one of these little ones" (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2) makes His thoughts on that subject crystal clear.
The idea that it is genetic is not proven, but common sense would indicate that, since homosexuals by their very nature (fallen nature at that) do not reproduce, and therefore do not have any offspring to pass any genetic traits onto.  If it were genetic, it would been an extremely recessive trait that should have died out long ago since it's not advantageous to the species. Examples such as genetically identical twins where one is gay and the other straight, would also seem to mitigate against this idea.  It would then appear to be more a result of imperfect child rearing in an equally imperfect and fallen world. The argument that "God made me this way" doesn't hold up for that reason, and the fact that God creates each new individual baby like He created Adam and Eve: innocent and sinless.  Unfortunately, that doesn't last very long. It is quite clear then that is it indeed nurture (or rather, a lack thereof) and not nature, that is the underlying cause. (This is a bit of amateur armchair psychology to be sure, but with evidence and experience from various sources being drawn upon to reach these conclusions.) Exceptions do occur where boys turn out gay with everything at home intact; 2 loving parents involved with their kids, with no outside incidents. Studies into this suggest that the hormone progesterone may have something to do with it, especially in the womb. People can claim that they are "born gay" all they want, but as Christopher Yuan has said, it doesn't matter how you were born, Jesus said, "Ye must be born again." (John 3:7).
Here, the focus is on what the Christian, who finds him or herself gay, can deal with what God says in His Word. His love conquers a multitude of sins, and His blood cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7). THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:1). Is it truly an unforgivable sin, as most Bible believers would seem to say, or is there more to it than that? I Corinthians 6:9-10 is used (like a list of irredeemables) to justify this: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators . . . nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God." If that were the end of the chapter, you might well infer that, but it isn't. The very next verse states: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."  It behooves us to seek out the Mind of God on this subject over the mind of man.
 When trying to understand what the Mind of God is on a topic, we should follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 "...in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."  In so doing, each of us is to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." II Timothy 2:15.  The learning never stops though, and we are warned in Ecclesiastes 1:18: "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow," and Ecclesiastes 12:12 that "...of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." (This would seem to give some credence to the saying, "Ignorance is bliss.")  Even then some end up "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." II Timothy 3:7. Some have turned this last verse into a virtue, believing that the search for truth is the main thing, but to ever be able to lay claim to having found it is the height of hubris. This seems especially true when dealing with the subject of homosexuality.
The word homosexual, or homosexuality, is used mainly in modern versions (CEV, ESV, Good News,  Living Bible, NASB, NEB, NIV, NKJV (as quoted earlier), TEV, WEB, etc., see https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm), which most seem to refer to in place of commentaries. (In a way, I suppose, this is away of finding out what the Bible has to say, in a sense comparing scripture versions with other scripture versions; but remember to take in context of what the whole Bible, or passage, has to say on the subject.)
The Levitical law refers to acts and deeds, not thoughts.  Asking, as some do, what the Bible says about homosexuality, and then referring to Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, which condemns homosexual acts  between men, therefore homosexuality is a sin, is like asking what the Bible says about heterosexuality, and referring to Leviticus 20:10, which condemns adultery, a heterosexual act, therefore making heterosexuality is a sin by that logic. The  inferred act of sodomy is condemned, not one's sexual orientation. Sexuality isn't the sin, it's what you do with it. The act of sodomy is not limited to homosexual men though; bisexual men would also be included, and more likely given the context, as it can be performed on the opposite sex as well (and that would not be "the natural use of the woman" --Romans 1:27 either), thus all such violators could rightly be called sodomites, and in violation of Deuteronomy 23:17: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Most new versions change sodomite to male prostitute.)
The Levitical Law was directed toward Israel, and the sexual laws in chapters 18 and 20 were specifically directed towards men. Incest, adultery, sodomy and bestiality were all mentioned, with women included in adultery and bestiality. Homosexuality and bestiality seem to be frequently lumped together in debates over the topic, most likely because they occur together at the end of the list of sexual offenses here in Leviticus. Israel is repeatedly referred to as "stiffnecked," meaning unwilling to bow the head in obedience, or stubborn (Exodus 32:9, 33:3,5, 34:9), so God was spelling it all out by explicitly banning any sex outside of marriage, whether with any female relative, any other woman, a man, or an animal. Homosexuality was nowhere implied; only an act outside of a heterosexual marriage was, whatever the context of it. If homosexuality were a problem, why were no male relatives mentioned in the verses on incest? Note also the words used to explain this act to Israel to make it clear and in a context that they would understand: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind...." (Lev. 18:22), and "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman...." (Lev. 20:13). It's described in relation to what a man and a woman would do in bed together, implying sexual acts (not jut sodomy) over just two men merely sleeping together as in Luke 17:34 "... in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."  If anything, bisexuality was indicated, as would become a problem later in Gibeah of Benjamin, in Judges 19.
While God knows our hearts, we as Christians are judged for what we do (II Corinthians 5:10). That said, one should keep Hebrews 4:12 in mind, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit . . . and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
THE MIND OF GOD VERSUS THE MIND OF MAN
A better way to phrase the question is, What does the Bible say about sexuality? The Bible clearly assumes a heterosexual world as was intended, even after the fall of man, and far more heterosexual sins are condemned as a result. There are always, it seems, exceptions to the rule, but the exception only proves the rule; else there's nothing to be an exception to. Since homosexuals are reported to comprise only 1-2% of the population (newer stats say 3.8% for males, 5.1% for females), they are a definite minority. Here it is worth noting what Christ said to those who refuse to help the least among us in Matthew 25:45: "...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, ye did it not to me."
 While the Bible's rules on sexuality are quite clear, the modern day worldly attitude is more laissez-faire: "To each his own," or "If it feels good, do it." As Becket Cook wrote in his book, CHANGE OF AFFECTION, on page 115, "It is a gross misunderstanding to believe that anything that feels natural is righteous." (This worldly view is typified by the Wiccan creed, which has a substantial gay following, which states: "An it harm none, do what ye will.")  In any case, this is not in accordance with scripture, and is a very subjective standard. How is anyone to know if it harmed someone else or not, with any certainty, or in what way?  How can anyone possibly know the full ramifications of his or her actions in the future? Even actions with the best of intentions can turn out wrong. It's known as the Law of Unintended Consequences. Deuteronomy 12:8, 25 states: "Ye shall not do...every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." but, "...thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD." In other words, He sets the standard for behavior, not us: morality isn't relative. People chafe at accusations of pedophilia or rape, which are so easily made these days, that a reasoned defense seems to be that it's OK if it's between consenting adults but, as someone once rightly pointed out: "Consenting adults need God's consent too."
In Proverbs 18:2, we are told: "A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself," but then Jeremiah 17:9-10 warns: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." In Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25, He says, "There is a way which/that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  No matter how righteous you may think it is, if it's outside of His will, it's doomed to end in frustration and failure; eventually the ultimate failure: death; which may come sooner, rather than later, if this course of action isn't changed.
Proverbs 30:12-14 starts off: "There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes...." Such a generation existed before, where “…every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 17:6, 21:25; and such a generation exists now. Despite being commanded not to do so (as noted above) in Deuteronomy 12:8, “Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes,” they do. As characters in a popular TV series reboot (Battlestar Galactica) once noted, "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." Other famous quotes remind us that, "The only thing men learn from history, is that men don't learn from history" and "He that will not learn from history, is doomed to repeat it." Right is not relative. Just because it's right in your eyes, doesn't make it right in God's eyes, or anyone else's for that matter. God declares in Isaiah 55:8-9, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Most have approached this subject by reading what others have written on this subject, and forming their opinions based on that as noted earlier. However, the biblical approach is "...not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." I Corinthians 2:13; or, put another way, comparing scripture with scripture; that is, what does the Bible say about the subject in other places (books, chapters and verses). Note that this does not mean comparing Bible versions on the same text, as also noted earlier. The Bible also says in Romans 3:3-4: "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar...." With that in mind, let's take a look at what the Word of God has to say on the subject. 
SODOM 

While most of the focus on Sodom is on events in Genesis 19, the actual story begins back in Genesis 10:19 with the first mention of Sodom: "And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha."

Sodom later comes on the scene in Genesis 13 through 14. In Genesis 13, after coming out of Egypt with all that he had, and with Lot, and all that he had, into the land of Canaan promised to him by God earlier in Genesis 12:7, the land was not able to bear them both and their herds of cattle, so Abram suggested that they separate, so as to avoid conflict between their respective herdmen. Abram let Lot chose where he wanted to go, and Lot chose all the plain of Jordan and "...dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom." (13:11). Verse 13 notes: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (Note the women weren't mentioned.) II Peter 2:7-8 later adds that Lot was, "...vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)"

Later on in Chapter 14, the first war recorded in the Bible erupted. 4 kings of the north made war with 5 kings of the south, namely "...Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah...." and the kings of Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar (verse 2). They had served Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, 12 years and rebelled in the 13th year (verse 4). One could say these northern kings were doing the Lord's work here as they smote some giants in verse 5 (Rephaims, Zuzims, and Emims), as well as the Amalekites and Amorites in verse 6, all of which would later give Israel much grief. They then easily bested the 4 kings of the south, and took everything they had, along with Lot, and left. When word reached Abram about what had happened to Lot, he marshalled his forces and smote them and recovered all that they took.

 Afterward, both the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the most high God, met with Abram. After Melchizedek congratulates Abram on his victory, and blesses him, Abram gave him tithes of all. The king of Sodom offers Abram all the rest of the goods as a reward for freeing them all, but Abram refuses, only asking a portion for those who went with him to the battle. Interestingly, the king of Sodom (the only one of the 5 who were saved to show up to thank Abram) and the king of Salem (Melchizedek) have nothing to say to each other. The only recognition between them seems to be a respectable silence from the king of Sodom while Melchizedek is speaking. No warning is given to the king of Sodom about what is coming years down the road and, as Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

This is a bit curious as He sent a prophet (Jonah) to Nineveh warning them of their impending destruction; and they repented. Later on though, Nahum prophesied of their  ultimate destruction. It's also especially curious given the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:23, And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which had been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. So, why weren't they done in Sodom if that meant they would have repented? II Peter 3:9 (coming shortly after 2:6-8; referenced above) says, "The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should com to repentance."

The reason given comes at the end of Ezekiel 16:50, "...therefore I took them away as I saw good." This echoes the words of Eli to Samuel at the end of I Samuel 3:18, "It is the LORD: let him do what seemeth him good." Further reasoning for this choice is given in II Peter 2:6, "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;" The only consolation, given in Matthew 11:24, is: "But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgement, than for thee." In the end though, none of these cities: Sodom, Nineveh, nor Capernaum survived at all.

After about 14 years, in which Ishmael is conceived, born, reaches 13 years of age, and God changes Abram's name to Abraham and his wife's name from Sarai to Sarah, the focus again shifts back to Sodom, where Lot still dwells, in chapter 18. After meeting with Abraham, God tells him what he is about to do to the cities of the plain: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar. Abraham, who had freed them about 14 years earlier, intercedes on Sodom's behalf and asks God to spare them if he finds at least 10 righteous in the city, having worked down the number from 50.
We have now reached the crux of this story and the events in the city of Sodom, detailed in chapter 19:1-29. The incident described there tells us that God has sent angels to Sodom, where Lot (Abraham's nephew) still lives, to see firsthand whether things are indeed as bad as He has heard. They arrive at Sodom at even and find Lot sitting in the gate of Sodom. This is said to indicate that he held a leadership position within the city. Some say this indicates how much he had become a part of the city. It may also have been a reward falling to him, since he was the reason they were saved by his uncle Abram years before in the war, and his uncle had refused any reward. They may have felt that staying in Abram's good graces by elevating Lot would help spare them any difficulties in the future. As we see later, that wasn't the case. God got Lot out of the way, and dealt with Sodom afterwards.

The main incident in question is in verses 4 and 5.  After eating the evening meal, they are preparing to rest, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter; And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us that we may know them." What was meant by the phrase "know them" is carnal knowledge. It's the same as back in Genesis 4:1, "AND Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived...." and is made plain also in Lot's offering his two daughters "which have not known man" (verse 8) to the mob instead. Here we see the mob rejecting the daughters of Lot, as the men of Gibeah would later reject the daughter of the old man, in favor of the visitors; the new faces in town. Most read into this text that all the men of Sodom were homosexual, which makes no sense: homosexuals don't reproduce; but bisexuals do. Where would the young men have come from? If all were homosexual, God, in his mercy, could have let them die out on their own since they weren't having children. There has never been a population center, like a city, that was ever 100% homosexual.

Sodomy is the namesake sin associated with Sodom: what the men of the city wanted to do to the angels, which appeared as men to them, who were staying with Lot. Some try and say that the sin here was that of Genesis 6:2 in that men wanted to have sex with angels, even though they didn't know they were angels, while others say that it was the fact that they wanted to gang rape them. Either of these would only add to the indictment against Sodom.  The angels tell Lot to take his family and leave before God's judgement falls, lest they be consumed. He tries to warn his sons-in-law (who must have only recently married his daughters as they were still virgins, or Lot had 4 daughters--2 of which were married, the other 2 single, as some speculate), "But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law." (verse 14). They think Lot is just telling tall tales. Lot asks to flee to Zoar, which would be spared on his account, to which they agree. In all the commotion though, he flees to the mountains as he was originally told to do, thus removing any mercy for Zoar. After they leave, Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt (in verse 26) when she looks back towards Sodom, after they were warned not to do so (in verse 17).

The judgment of God takes the form of, what can only be described as a specialized meteorite bombardment: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground." vss. 24-25. (Some attribute this story as the reason stoning was the penalty for sexual sins because God "stoned" Sodom and Gomorrah for those sins.)

[A man named Ron Wyatt (RonWyatt.com) found the actual locations of Sodom and Gomorrah (as well as the site of the Red Sea Crossing), with most of his focus on Gomorrah, and found them in remarkably recognizable conditions as cities after several thousand years, with golf ball size, or smaller, balls of light yellow chalk-like sulfur (brimstone) embedded all over the site. When samples were brought back to a lab and tested, they were revealed to be 95-98% pure sulfur, which is unlike any other sulfur found on earth, which is bright yellow and crystalline (See video here). His story, any follow-up visits by others later (chronicled on YouTube), attest to the reality of these finds. Even a whitish pillar in the area near Sodom, resembling a humanoid form, is called "Lot's Wife."]
Some then try and say, no the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, in that they weren't providing for travelers as was the custom.  While the actions of the natives towards them here were certainly inhospitable, lack of hospitality was hardly the main reason in this case anyway, for the ensuing judgement.  Lot met them at the gate of the city and was quick to offer them all sorts of hospitality, and did so (verses 1-3). Their first impression then would hardly be that Sodom was inhospitable to travelers, if they were going by how they were treated by Lot upon their arrival, (who was not a native after all (as they point out in verse 9). This seems to imply that they were a bit xenophobic, and viewed strangers in their midst as being theirs to do with as they wish.
The text referred to justify inhospitality is Ezekiel 16:49-50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Any inhospitality would seem to be inferred from "neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." There is some justification for this in Proverbs 6:11 and 24:34: "So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth...." This wouldn't be necessarily referring to travelers alone, but their own poor and needy, since "...the poor shall never cease out of the land...." (Deuteronomy 15:11). How many of us see someone sitting or standing on the street corner holding a sign, asking for help that we just ignore when we have the ability to do something?  The "abomination" mentioned at the end though, lines up with the statements of Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination," and 20:13, "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death...." Notice that this is last in the list of iniquities of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50; except in the NIV where it is omitted. Whether this is due to being the least of Sodom's sin problem in relation to all the others, or it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back (or both), is debatable. The former seems to be the case, as it was listed last without any elaboration. The latter would align with the interpretation of Romans 1 as the pathway of the decline of a civilization and culture. In any case, this would indicate that God's priorities and man's priorities differ (see Isaiah 55:8-9 quoted earlier) as man tries to put first what God has put last. Jude 7 does state that all the cities of the plain had a problem with fornication: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The "strange flesh" mentioned here would seem to imply that bestiality was also involved. The men of Sodom weren't just into sodomizing other men, but most likely the women and animals as well.
As to the use of the term abomination, Deuteronomy 22:5 declares cross-dressing an abomination as well: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God," but you don't see them condemning drag queens as vehemently (who actually look more like clowns), or cross-dressers (transvestites) in general with this verse. (They seem to rely more on the word 'effeminate" in I Corinthians 6:9 for that; or did.) Comedians like the late Carol Burnett Show alum Harvey Korman, the late Benny Hill, Eddie Murphy, and even the original Shakespeare Globe Theater actors, who played women's roles as well and dressed the part, would be in  serious trouble if that were the case. In the New Testament, the word abomination is never used explicitly in relation to condemning sexual acts, but to the Antichrist (the "abomination of desolation," Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14), as well as what is "...highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."  (Luke 16:15); with the possible inclusion of such acts in Revelation 21:27, "...neither whatsoever worketh abomination...." The word "abominations" is used twice (Revelation 17:4-5) in reference to the great whore, MYSTERY BABYLON.
Notice the first sin mentioned in the list in Ezekiel: pride. Proverbs 16:18 says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." This seems to fit as both pride and being haughty are both given as the sins of the people of Sodom.  Pride in what exactly?  Pride in their sinful ways evidently. The list of sins given in Romans 1:26-31, which starts with what is termed "vile affections" in verse 26, ends with this in verse 32: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  They not only take pleasure in them that do them, but pride as well. What is the main event of the year in the out-gay community? Pride Month; the month of June (when the Stonewall riots took place), of which the highlight, is a "Pride Parade."
They counter this by saying that, "Gay Pride was not born of a need to celebrate being gay, but our right to exist without persecution." Be that as it may, some parades go well beyond mere affirmation to openly displaying what goes on, and should stay, behind closed doors. After years of protesting that government and religion should stay out of their bedrooms, they now wish to parade their bedrooms down main street labeling it "free speech" or "free expression"; at least in major hubs like San Francisco, with an "in your face" attitude that says "accept this open display of public immorality, or you're a bigot and a homophobe."
(One man, Timothy Kurek, decided to find out for himself what life was like as a gay man, from "coming out" to his family, to living in the gay community for one year. He wrote a book, The Cross in the Closet, describing his experience. He noted with surprise, and some embarrassment, that some of the gay people he encountered were Christians, and knew more than he did about the Bible. His motive for this was noble, but in his attempt to exorcise his inner Pharisee, he failed to see his inner Sadducee filling the void.)
GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN: The Forgotten Story
Another similar occurrence to the events in Sodom, often overlooked, is recorded in the book of Judges. This is actually key to understanding the events in Genesis 19.  In Judges 19, a Levite went to Bethlehem-Judah to retrieve his wayward concubine. Picking up the narrative in verse 14, "And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin. And they turned aside thither to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was  no man that took them into his house to lodging. And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites. And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Wither goest thou? and whence comest thou? And he said unto him, We are passing from Beth-lehem-judah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I ... and there is no man that receiveth me to house. Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of anything." (Judges 19:14-19) If ever there was a lack of hospitality shown to travelers, this was clearly it; and it was even pointed out as such. (It would be easy to see how one would confuse this incident with the one in Sodom, given the similarities, then forget they were two different incidents, and conflate the two as Gibeah clearly had "fulness of bread" e.g., "...there is no want of anything." and "...neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.") Again, as in Sodom, the natives weren't the ones to show any hospitality. The old man, who was there for work, took him into his house and gave him food and lodging.
Then in verse 22, something very similar to the events back in Sodom unfolds once again: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." The old man's solution was similar to Lot's: he offered his daughter, and the man's concubine, to the mob instead. It has been pointed out that this was because the act of sodomy was considered to be so heinous, that offering up women to such a mob was  preferable. Chivalry was dead here, or maybe didn't even exist until after Christ died on the cross. They initially refused, but the man brought his concubine out to them anyway, "... and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." --Judges 19:25.
Here we see one major departure from Sodom: the mob accepting and abusing a woman after initially refusing her and wanting the man. This would more clearly indicate that they (the Benjamites) were bisexual (at least those of the mob) - having an attraction to both sexes, (bisexuality offering a choice where homosexuality does not). Bisexuality seems to be preferred when it comes to men, because "at least you like women." You only have to look at the Church of the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:14-17 to see what God thinks of the middle ground approach: He doesn't like it. The Goldilocks Zone may be fine for planets and porridge, but not with God. 

The men Sodom, at first glance, seemed to only desire the male visitors and not women, and were determined to have their way with them no matter what. However, as we see in Gibeah, they were only interested in the new faces in town. In Sodom, the new faces were both male, but in Gibeah, one was male, the other female. Given this then, it is reasonable to assume that, had the visitors to Sodom both been female, they would have received the same treatment/welcome that the woman in Gibeah received, or that they intended for the male visitors. The Sodomites did not discriminate when it came to who, or even what, received their namesake sin. I'm sure gender, or species ("strange flesh" in Jude 7), didn't matter to them.

Since they had wives and children in Gibeah, they are a clear example of "...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 recompense of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:27). Paul, as a Benjamite, undoubtedly remembered this incident in his tribe's history, when dealing with the Romans. The attitude of the men of Gibeah then, as those of Sodom, seems to reflect that of the men of Afghanistan as reported by our troops and others: Women for children, men for fun; or as more commonly reported: women for children, boys for fun. Dennis Prager, being interviewed by Ben Shapiro, said that this was the case in ancient China as well, and that the Bible (presumably in Song of Solomon and Proverbs 5:18-19 as well) was the first to eroticize heterosexuality.
The end of Gibeah was much the same as Sodom and Gomorrah (all their cities were destroyed), to the point where the tribe of Benjamin was almost exterminated in the battles described in chapters 20 and 21. Unlike Sodom though, the men survived, learned their lesson, and after obtaining wives and rebuilding their cities, in I Samuel, the first king of Israel was chosen from Benjamin: Saul; and the rebuilt city of Gibeah was then known as Gibeah of Saul. It should also be noted that Benjamin, along with Judah, were the only tribes that remained faithful to God after the other 10 revolted in I Kings 12 after the death of Solomon.
THE LAW IN THE OLD TESTAMENT VS. GRACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Many conservative Christians begin in the Old Testament when dealing with the issue of homosexuality. They begin in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) where the act of sodomy is condemned as an abomination, with the death penalty being prescribed for it and other sexual sins in chapter 20. As mentioned before, some conflate the term homosexuality with sodomy because those who commit sodomy are primarily thought to be homosexual, but that doesn't mean that they are the same; they're not. They do this by asking, What does God/the Bible have to say about homosexuality? And then they quote Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. That's like asking, What does God/the Bible have to say about heterosexuality and quoting Leviticus 20:10, which deals with the act of adultery. And, while the death penalty is prescribed for adultery and bestiality as well, what makes sodomy worse, in their minds, is the use of the word abomination in conjunction with it.
 They forget Galatians 3:24-26: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."  (Note that not all mankind are the children of God, only those that have "faith in Christ Jesus.") In Hebrews 7:19 it says, "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." The assumption with some seems to be that they are lost, because no one could possibly be a Christian and have such a problem with sexuality, which is absurd. Some flat out say that, "There is no such thing as a gay Christian." That's like saying there's no such thing as a Christian sinner. Why would anyone say that?  Most likely because of II Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." It's as if they are saying that when you get saved, the old sinful (homosexual) nature is obliterated, and you are a brand new heterosexual as God intended all along; problem solved. Congratulations!  Now get married, have kids, and live happily ever after! When that doesn't happen, then they "weren't really saved," or "they didn't have enough faith."
Some then respond by pointing to examples in the Bible, and throughout history, of people who have done similar things, or worse, as a justification for their own actions. The existence of people living outside of the will of God in Bible times is hardly a justification, or license, for all to do so; rather it is evidence that we are all sinners in need of a Savior.
In the New Testament, things changed radically after the atoning death of Christ on the cross.  "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:4.  "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."  Romans 3:20.
Some point to other laws, which no longer apply today, as reason enough to ignore laws regarding personal behavior. The dietary laws are a case in point. Most seem to think these laws as arbitrary, but what is lost on them, is that they also had the purpose of avoiding almost certain death from food poisoning. This was because of a lack of knowledge of food borne illnesses, that are common to pork and shellfish, due to lack of refrigeration and poor preparation, such as not cooking thoroughly, etc. The consequences are almost unknown to us in modern times with antibiotics and health codes and standards for raising livestock and for preparing and serving food in restaurants. These dietary laws in the Old Testament were abolished in the New Testament.  "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." I Timothy 4:4-5. (See Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15.) The decision about the law as regarding the Gentile believers is summed up in Acts 15:18-20: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." This was referred to again later in Acts 21:25, "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."
Christ even distilled the commandments down to 2 in Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first, and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Take this in the light of what we just read from Acts 15. If you love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul and mind, then you have no problem abstaining from pollutions of idols. If you love your neighbor as yourself, then you won't violate the other "Thou shalt not" commandments, and you won't kill him, steal from him or lie to him. All sexual sins are summed up with the word fornication. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 6:13, "...Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body." If you abstain from fornication, you won't commit adultery, or have any sex outside of marriage (which is between a man and a woman; sadly, you have to say that now to be clear).  The dietary laws are summed up with abstaining from things strangled and from blood.  You will also note that the word "abomination" is absent, and that there is no longer any death penalty (to be executed by man) for any violation of these, but "...the wages of sin is (still) death...." Romans 6:23.
Since God was now dealing with men one on one, in their hearts, the law was spiritualized. Whereas the law said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14), in Matthew 5:28, Jesus said, "...That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (To make this verse applicable here, you could just as easily say that, whosoever looks on a man to lust after him has committed adultery (or fornication), with him already in his heart.) Whereas the law said, "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13), John wrote in I John 3:15, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer."
Paul, "the apostle of the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13), "...appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." (II Timothy 1:11), formerly Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:11; 11:25; 13:9), described as a Pharisee of the Pharisees, who new the law inside and out, having been taught at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was also a Pharisee, and "...a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people...." (Acts 5:34), dealt with this subject in Romans 1:24-27. After refusing to glorify God as God, when they knew it to be so, they lowered Him to their level, or lower (Romans 1:21-23), Paul writes, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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 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 recompense of their error which was meet." Here we have the only reference to lesbianism in the entire Bible in verse 26. Paul seems to be describing bisexuality (implying a choice has been made), rather than homosexuality, by saying they were "leaving the natural use of the woman." Here we might also reference the law, or principle, of first mention in scripture, or the first mention of it by Paul in his epistles, which will define how the subject will be treated thereafter. Note that Paul was "...of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee" (Philippians 3:5), did not use the word "abomination" to describe these men's actions, but "unseemly" and an "error." He knew the Jewish law, and as a Benjamite, most likely had the incident in Gibeah in the back of his mind, as mentioned earlier.. Since it was not considered as an abomination to the Romans, Paul chose another way to describe it as "the apostle of the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13). He described it as "that which is against nature," and "dishonoring their bodies between themselves," as "vile affections," and "unseemly" and an "error." These are relatively mild terms, with the exception of the word vile, in comparison to abomination. The only other verse to use the word unseemly is in I Corinthians 13:5. Speaking of charity, a giving love, starting in verse 4, the Bible says, "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth...." (Someone pointed out that the use of the word "unseemly" here, as in Romans, means it wasn't love, forgetting that in Romans it was clearly labeled as lust.) This would not seem to comport with the attitude prevalent with those that "did what was right in their own eyes." Again, no death penalty administered by man, but only that which may come from "the recompense of their error which was meet." Error can get you killed. Uzzah was killed by God for "his error," made with the best of intentions to be sure, (II Samuel 6:7) of putting "forth his hand to the ark of God" to steady it "for the oxen hook it." (II Samuel 6:6). All the best intentions and well meaning won't save you from the consequences of disobedience. Eve only saw what she believed were the best results to come from eating the forbidden fruit. That belief didn't prevent the fall. 

How should Christians deal with sinners prone to error? James 5:20 says: "Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."  You are to repent, forsake the error of your sin, and get right with God; and you can't  do that very well if you're dead.
This is clearly indicated in I Corinthians 6:9-10, which most seem to quote as a List of Irredeemables by stopping there (the words "abusers of themselves with mankind" at the end of verse 9 being the key here), and not going on to verse 11 which states: "And such were some of you...." Again, a choice is implied here, hearkening back to Romans 1, of which you are to repent of. Sin is a choice to disobey God. If homosexuality is not a choice, as most would agree, then how can you say at the same time that homosexuality is a sin, when sin clearly is a choice? There are a lot of videos on You Tube about "coming out'" that clearly show that this was not a choice they wanted. One is of several Christian young people who absolutely did not want this. You can see it here.

The curious thing about verse 9 is that it divides, what most agree is a homosexual act, into the offending parties. Some modern versions  combine the two into one.

Living Bible   -    homosexuals

Today's English Version    -    homosexual perverts      

Revised Standard Version    -    sexual perverts                 

       New English Bible    -    homosexual perversion 

           English Standard Version     -    men who practice homosexuality

As mentioned at the beginning, these bibles insert a modern word into a text that preceded it by a good millenium. It does not belong there. The combination of the two parties into one also obscures a particular act common at the time: Pederasty. This was a common Roman practice at the time, a practice inherited from the Greeks, where a young, prepubescent boy was given by his parents to an older man to tutor him, and bring him up in the ways of the aristocracy, so the kid had a future. This relationship also involved sex, but once the boy entered puberty, he was becoming a man, and that had to stop. 

The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) puts catamites and sodomites in place of effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind in I Corinthians 6:9. Why doesn't it say catamites and pederasts, which would better fit the historical context, added to the fact that the church at Corinth was known to be the most carnal church in the Roman Empire?

The funny thing about those who use modern versions that combine the two parties in this verse, then resort to the Greek to separate them once again (to clarify the meaning) when teaching on this verse.

The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" used here and in I Timothy 1:10, would also include sodomy with the opposite sex as well since both sexes are commonly referred to in the word mankind (humankind being the modern, updated term). 

What about the Law of First Mention though? In Leviticus, the word mankind is used opposite womankind and woman in the two verses respectively. Canonically, that is correct; but in the book of Job, written before any book of the Pentateuch/Torah, mankind means both sexes (Job 12:10).  
DAVID AND JONATHAN
Does God then completely rule out the possibility of a close and loving relationship between two men expressed physically? Not at all. If you want an example in the Bible of two men who loved each other very much and were very close, you need only look at the relationship between David and Jonathan in the Old Testament. (A modern example of the same names would be that between the Jewish actors David Schwimmer and Jonathan Silverman.) In modern parlance, a very close relationship between two men is called a bromance.
After David's confrontation with Goliath in I Samuel 17, we see Jonathan and David growing close in chapter 18:1, 3-4: "AND it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." Here we see that they loved each other so much, that they made a covenant with each other. Matthew Vines, author of GOD AND THE GAY CHRISTIAN, says that gay couples are just as capable of entering into a "covenant relationship," as straight couples, meaning marriage covenant without using the trigger word marriage. Here we clearly see a "covenant relationship" between two men that isn't marriage, and is reinforced by another covenant with the House of David, but this, apparently, isn't good enough, just as Civil Unions weren't a sufficient "covenant," it had to be marriage. (There are some legal issues involving inheritance issues, etc. behind this as well.) Justin Lee is a good friend of his, and advocates for the same thing in his YouTube videos.
When King Saul (Jonathan's father) grew jealous of David, he wanted to have him killed. I Samuel 19:1-2: AND Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David.
But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David...." After a few failed attempts on David's life, he flees from him. Jonathan determines to find out if his father can be persuaded to allow David to return or not. In I Samuel 20:16-17 we read: "So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David...And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as his own soul." The closeness between David and Jonathan doesn't go unnoticed by Saul. His words to Jonathan later in the chapter in verse 30 seem to indicate his fear that this relationship may be too similar to what existed with the men in Gibeah back in the time of the Judges, not too long ago.  They made arrangements to meet a few days later after Jonathan learns of his father's intentions towards David.  The news isn't good, and after a prearranged sign, the closeness of these two is shown in the intimacy of their final meeting in verse 41: "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." In Acts 20: 37-38, Paul is in a similar situation: And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him, Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship." In the Bible, most of the 48 times the 3 variations of the word kiss (kiss, kissed, and kissing) is mentioned, it's between men, and less than half of that is between family members.  Absalom, "...stole the hearts of the men of Israel" (II Samuel 15:6) away from his father David by taking them each by the hand, when they came "to do him obeisance," and kissing them (II Samuel 15:5) like they were close friends of his, or of the royal family. Who wouldn't be swayed by that? They certainly weren't repulsed by it.
David himself, described by God as "... a man after his own heart...." (I Samuel 13:14, and in Acts 13:22), later described his relationship with Jonathan. After David is established as King over Israel, a man comes and tells him that Saul and Jonathan were dead.  His lament for Jonathan in II Samuel 1:26 shows how much they really loved each other: "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."  This kind of friendship is described by Solomon in the second half of Proverbs 18:24, "...there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." One wonders, had Jonathan lived, given his ever-watchful love for David, would the incident with Bathsheba ever have happened? The sad end to this special friendship almost seems to act as a template for the many subsequent stories of same-sex love and friendship that likewise ended in tragedy.
Seeking to show some kindness to Saul's family for Jonathan's sake (II Samuel 9:1), and honoring the covenants made with him (I Samuel 18:3, and 20:16-17). David learns that "Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet." (9:3) named Mephibosheth. After he is sent for and brought to him, "And David said unto him, Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father's sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually." (vs. 7). His astonished reaction to all this follows in verse 8, and instructions for his care, and that of his family, are given to his servant, and he is set for life, verses 9-13. This shows a deeply caring and passionate love, expressed physically, between two men, within certain boundaries, is not only possible, but God has no problem with it. The problem arises when men aren't content to stay within those boundaries, but are eying the forbidden fruit; and we all know how that worked out for Adam and Eve. 
Most of the current taboos against these types of close relationships between men stem from our Puritan heritage, coupled later with the Victorian era, where other behaviors were presumed to be involved as well. Paul states in I Corinthians 6:12, "All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." The admonition in I Thessalonians 5:22 applies here: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." This would include Psalm 101:3, "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes...." (See no evil), and Ephesians 4:29, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth...." (Speak no evil). Anyone who has personally dealt with this issue, and been wholly in the closet about it, can  testify to being very adept at this.
 SOLOMON: POLYGAMY AND LOVE
Some inevitably point to polygamy in the Old Testament, and to Solomon in particular, to indicate that the standard is somewhat muddled when it comes to marriage. Even though the example was set for all in Genesis, one woman for one man (Adam and Eve), God clearly told Israel regarding a king in Deuteronomy 17:15-20 that "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away...." verse 17.  Solomon clearly violated this. Just because something is recorded in the Bible as occurring, like polygamy, doesn't mean that God approved of it; God recorded the bad as well as the good. With the revelations of the New Testament, we should know better (see the previous paragraph).  "And the time of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men to repent." Acts 17:30.
Also pointed out is that "God is love" (I John 4:8,16), and "love is of God" (I John 4:7). If love is the main reason, and not lust, then it's OK, right?  After all, "Love conquers all" they say.  As we shall see with Solomon, that is not the case when you love the wrong thing.
 In I Kings 11:1-2 we read: "But king Solomon loved many strange women.... Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in to you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave to these in love."  Note that it is recorded here twice that Solomon loved all these women.  Did the fact that Solomon loved them all change God's mind about what he was doing? His intentions were good, just like Uzzah's with the ark, but no, God still disapproved of polygamy, love notwithstanding. Notice the fact that he loved these women was noted twice.  Note also, that God spoke to him personally, twice, about this as well. In I Kings 6:12 and again in I Kings 9:2-9, God warned him what would happen if he pursued the course that he eventually did.
As is recorded in verses 3-4: And he had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.  For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods...."  One of these other gods was Molech (vs. 7), "the abomination of the children of Ammon." The worship of Molech involved infant sacrifice.  In II Kings 23, King Josiah sets about undoing all that Solomon had done, such that in verse 10: "...that no man might make his son or daughter pass through the fire to Molech."  Did you ever stop to think that with 1,000 women, Solomon would have sired a lot of children?  Why no mention of them?  Where did they all go? Most likely sacrificed in the worship of these pagan gods. Baal worship also involved human sacrifice as mentioned in Jeremiah 19:5, "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it unto my mind." This was after the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:20-40, which should have settled the matter of who was actually God. A lot of Christians view abortion as a modern day worship of self in place of Molech or Baal, where the desires of a false god have been replaced by lustful desires for pleasure and convenience. So we see, illustrated here in the life of Solomon, that love of the wrong thing(s), in disobedience to God, does not end well.
MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE
The union of man and woman in marriage becoming one flesh described in Matthew 19:4-6 refers to more than just becoming one during sex.  The children are a product of the DNA (chromosomes) of both biological parents coming together to form one new individual: one flesh, if you will.  Though older individuals are past their reproductive years, or infertile, their getting married is still an example to their grandchildren and the children and grandchildren of others.
Some say biblical morality, particularly in the Old Testament, from which verses condemning sodomy come from, is barbaric. One such case pointed to is in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Some have likened it to forcing a woman to marry her rapist, ignoring the possibility that it was consensual in some, if not most cases. It's basically saying that if she's worth having sex with, then she's worth marrying and taking full responsibility for.  You've already become one in flesh physically; man up and make it official. To many a young man, that alone is a deterrent. It's far better than the honor killing that awaits Muslim women in that situation.  Remember, this was a tribal culture.  Taking away her virginity meant no other man would want her.  In a patriarchal society, who would take care of her then, esp. after her parents were gone?  In this type of society, lineage was also important.  If a man died, his brother became responsible for his brother's wife and family.  If he had no children, his brother became responsible for producing an heir for his brother; something not to be taken lightly as Onan discovered in Genesis 38:6-10, and his father Judah later learned in that same chapter.
Some say, "But that is Old Testament, this is the New Testament" or "I'm a "Red Letter Christian; I believe what Christ said above all the rest." Well, at the start of the book of John; in the first verse it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."  John 1:1-3. In verse 14 we read, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...."  Jesus is the Word; He said it all.  "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."  Psalm 119:89.  "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160.  "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."  Psalm 119:165. 
Going back to Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus said, "...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."  The context here was divorce, but the application can be made to the institution of marriage itself: What God hath joined together in marriage (a man and a woman), let not man ( a judge) put asunder, by saying a man and a man can be joined together, or a woman and a woman, or a man and many women, in unions an earthly judge will call marriage.  This would, in essence, be "Making the word of God of none effect through . . . tradition . . . and many such like things do ye." Mark 7:13.
Many like to say that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, so why make an issue of it?  While it is true that no mention of the subject by Jesus during His incarnation on this Earth is recorded in scripture, that may be due to a couple of factors. 1. It wasn't an issue or focus of His ministry while on Earth. If it came up, He dealt with the individual(s) involved privately. ("A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter." Proverbs 11:13.)
2. It wasn't recorded in scripture. The last verse in John's gospel says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." John 21:25. This implies that He did way more than s recorded in the Bible. Besides that, Jesus had plenty to say about marriage while on Earth, as shown above, and they don't pay much attention to that anymore; so would it really matter to them if He had explicitly mentioned homosexuality?
PAUL & CELIBACY
Paul said in I Corinthians 7:8-9, "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." In other words, it is better to remain celibate than to commit fornication. As Jesus put it in Matthew 19:12, "...there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." 
Many don't want to be gay if it's not what God wants, not to mention what their friends, family, and church wants. They pray long and hard that God would take it away (pray away the gay, as they say), but He doesn't. They're left wondering why, and then assume that's the way God wants them, or even made them, to be.  After all, God could change your heart instantly, right? He is God after all; and Ephesians 3:20 says that He "... is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think...." Yes, He is able, but that doesn't mean He is willing do so in all cases. He does so on occasion, to remind us of His power to do so. Becket Cook is an illustration of this "Damascus Road" type of conversion. His testimony is given in several videos on You Tube, given on The 700 Club, at local churches, lectures, radio interviews, etc., and has written a book about his life leading up to his conversion called A Change of Affection (referenced earlier), and has a website, his own YouTube channel, and Facebook page. His homosexuality didn't disappear, but was greatly reduced in significance in his life.
Paul had a similar situation he described in II Corinthians 12:7-10. In  verse 7, he wrote, "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." In other words, Paul was given a personal problem to keep him from getting a swelled head due to all the new revelations he was receiving from God regarding doctrine after the death of Christ on the cross, as opposed to that before it, in an Old Testament context.  In verses 8 and 9, he says, "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.  And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.  Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of God may rest upon me." How could he, or anyone, do that? He said in Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."  As Jesus Himself said in Matthew 19:26, "...With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."  "...for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5.  This means that you will rely on God more, and His strength will get you through it, if you put your faith and trust in Him. That's how you have to deal with it from a biblical standpoint.
How can this possibly work out? I Corinthians 10:13 explains how: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." God won't tell you to do something that He won't enable you to do. "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations...." II Peter 2:9. "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."  Proverbs 3:5-6. James 1:2-4 adds: "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."
Sometimes though, others with the best of intentions to be sure, see the situation differently; after occasions arise where they think you won't be able to handle it, even though God has gotten you through it all to that point, and they don't know all the facts. They intervene, usually without even discussing it with you, to prevent something from happening they think is in imminent danger of occurring. This is where the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play. Instead of helping, this generally brings about unique circumstances that never would have existed otherwise, that bring about the very thing they sought to prevent. But, as the text says, God is faithful, and will even use this as an illustration of His care for you, and showing that your trust in Him was not in vain, by getting you through it, without anything that is clearly out of bounds, happening. Just confess it to God and get it right with Him, and move on.

As said before, homosexuality is not a choice, but bisexuality offers a choice. (Some think bisexuality is better because at least you like women too, but there is no middle ground with God. Just look at the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-22. In verses 15-16 He says: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold or hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. No one likes cold or hot beverages lukewarm. There is no Goldilocks zone here.) So, if homosexuality is not a choice, then it is not a sin, since sin is a choice: a choice to disobey and do that which you were told not to (in this case), or not do that which you were told to do; commonly referred to as acts of commission  versus acts of omission. If it's not a sin, then what is it? It's a fault. James 5:16 says to "Confess your faults one to another and pray one or another.... The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Galatians 6:2 says: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." We are told to confess our faults to one another so we can pray for each other. If you're gay, that's essentially a command to come out. Don't hold it all in; that's unhealthy. The line in the hymn I Must Tell Jesus comes to mind: "I cannot bear these burdens alone."
Surround yourself with good people: friends, your church family, coworkers, etc. Proverbs 11:13-14 explains: "A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter. Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."  Give yourself to service, whether at your church, your job, volunteer work, etc. "...Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." Galatians 5:16.  Just also remember the admonition of II Corinthians 6:14-17: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers...come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord...."  
You're not unique or odd in this regard. "... no temptation (has) taken you but such as is common to man...."  Others before you have gone through this and felt the same things as you do. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9; "For there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not." Ecclesiastes 7:20.
"And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23.  "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Romans 8:13. This may be your cross to bear; take it up and follow Him; take one day at a time. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28. As you grow older in the Lord, and as the hormones subside, it does get a little easier.
ETERNAL SALVATION
What is lost in all this debate and discussion over this issue is the fact that this is a fallen creation. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” and “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;” Romans 3:23; 5:12.  Romans 3:10-13 basically quotes Psalm 14:1-3 to illustrate the point. Sin is anything that is wrong or against God, from a little white lie or not doing what you should, to murder. Paul’s list of sinners in I Corinthians 6:8-9, (includes idolaters; those who commit idolatry, or worship idols – anything but God, or that comes between you and God, which is spiritual adultery) but the list in Revelation 21:8 also includes more, with the last being “all liars” which includes everyone. This means that we all are in need of a Savior, an innocent who pays the penalty for us IF we realize we fall short (Romans 3:23), and accept Him as such, asking for forgiveness.
Many state that they don’t see it as wrong. Well, no one is in a position to make that call, apart from what God has declared in scripture. We do not set the standard; God does.  He made it all; He gets to set the rules.
God's standard is perfection, which we've fallen way short of (Romans 3:23). Any sin will send a man to hell. Sin against an eternal God demands an eternal punishment. Your eternal soul separated from God, your Creator, whom you were created to fellowship with, for all eternity.  You refused His offer of payment for your sins, now you will be paying for them yourself, FOREVER.  As quoted earlier, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."  But Christ died and took our place, paying the penalty for us.  Accept Him as your Savior, and all your sins are forgiven, past present, and future.  It may be easy to see how He can forgive your past sins, but your future ones?  Where were all your sins when He died?  Your past was still in the future.  Eternity is taken care of on the cross.  Your day to day walk is taken care of day to day. "If I regard  iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me." Psalm 66:18.  Acknowledge your failings, ask for forgiveness of your sins, forsake them and move on. One day at a time.
 "THEREFORE being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."  Romans 3:28.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9; "That no flesh should glory in his presence." I Corinthians 1:29.  In other words, you can't earn or merit it in any way.  Some will try to, but look at what happens: "Many will say to  me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23.  It's God's gift to you, if you will accept it. A gift does no one any good unless it is received. Will you receive Him today if you haven't already?

(Add the article on THE BIBLE AND HAIR LENGTH as an addenda, since most articles/books on this subject seem to include something on that.)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Note: This article was originally written as responses to an online article about a young man's YouTube video, as well as one to the video itself; all of which can be seen in the links provided. I have expanded on it here, and as such, it is subject to further addition and revision. It is an attempt to provide as much scripture as possible to be helpful to those seeking answers on this issue.
Another article on this subject is here.
An Article on the use of the word homosexual in modern versions like the RSV is here.
An Article on loneliness and drug use is here.