Maybe Romans? "Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (1:26-27) I say maybe Romans because in context we discover that what is really going on is that God handed down a horrible punishment on a group of straight people. The verses above start out with 'Because of this God gave them over..." Before that we have: exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator,” The real sin, the homosexual sex par is a punishment not the sin. What this means - what it really means is that God caused straight men and women to 'lust' for one another. Imagine being a straight person who identifies with being straight - yet is forced to want homosexual sex - without the pleasure, without the love without the real desire of person, just the mad sex drive that can not be satisfied any other way. Can one imagine the horror of being driven to do something they are not wanting to do? When one considered the outcry and disgust people have for gays and lesbians imagine how they would feel if suddenly without control they are 'burning in lust' for people of the same gender while holding on to the disgust they feel toward such. ---------- More on the subject in general ----- The "gay condemnations" are not targeting gays. They are in reality targeting straights. it is unnatural for straight people to be attracted to the same gender. it is not right for a straight man to lay down with a straight man as he would a woman. Remember that during the time of those admonishments the pagan nations did all manner of things - homosexual sex was sold in temple, was used as a way to dominate others (Men raping men was a common way to dominate) Rarely was it in the context of love or relationships. Further many rites within the pagan religions included straight men having sex with other straight men due to the fertility gods or the weather or something - The affront to God? Not the sex - the worship of other Gods and the practices that those "gods" required for X. Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah is not a morality tale on homosexuality. Where the focus is men wanting to 'know; the visitors - it should read "the townsmen wanted to rape (dominate) the visitors" Which makes more sense when we considered that Lot offers up his daughter. No straight person living in a homosexual community would offer their daughter to homosexual men - they would know that that would be pointless. And the bible does not address the love and commitment that two men can have for one another it is inferred through out the bible in several stories - however the 'doctrine' (which is the interpretation and official take on how we should read the bible) has made it clear that we should not read those stories and think of two men or two women in love with each other. Such as the story of Johnathan and David, Two men deeply in love hugging and kissing and a father who is all upset that his son is spending way too much time with another man. If this was a straight friendship between two men why is the father so upset? Oh yes the Church has a nice pat answer but the answer does not really fit human nature. The easiest and most logical reason is that because the father knew that D & J were having a homosexual affair. Or the Roman military man who came to Jesus to ask for help with his slave. Mind back then the Roman slave was an object - not a person, for a Roman to care so much for a slave to ask Jesus for help is an expression of deep love. Add to that that in those days the relationship would most likely have been a homosexual one - Yet Jesus said nothing, and went and cured the sick slave. Even the part about the eunuchs. Where the word homosexuality is placed in the modern translation of the bible, it is by no means based upon the many words the Greeks had for homosexual sex or homosexual love. The NT was written in Greek - It would have been easy for Paul to use well known words to describe homosexuality. Instead he 'invents' a word for those passages. Paul was trying to get an idea across, but not the one we have. Most likely it has more to do with temple prostitution and the worship of gods via sex (homosexual or otherwise). For which there was no Greek Word.

The translation of the Bible into English uses "man" to describe a person singularly. Greek has gender neutral pronouns, but we don't in the English language, so singular defaults to "man." It doesn't necessarily mean male. I'd have to see the actual passage in the original Greek context to translate it properly.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with Athrael's answer. He got the verses right (Romans 1:26-27), but I can't agree with his interpretation of that verses. When I see that God "gave them over," I don't see that has Him forcing strait people to become homosexual. God does not cause people to sin. He allows people to sin. If a people sin too much then He withdraws His Spirit and abandons them to the lusts of their hearts. Thus the people lose the ability to repent because they stop feeling guilty for their sins an have no desire to change. This is what happened to the people that Paul was talking about. It was not that God caused them to become homosexual; it was that they had steeped themselves and their society in that lifestyle to the point that they no longer could feel the influence of God telling them that it is wrong.

Not lesbianism specifically but all type of sex outside of marriage. Here are some Scriptures that teach about premarital sex: Exodus 22:16-17: An man had to marry the woman with whom he had premarital sex, if the father approved of the marriage, or pay a high price. Deuteronomy 22:13-21: Premarital sex is viewed as evil and a disgraceful thing. Proverbs 5:15-21: A man is to be a virgin when he takes his wife. In addition to these Scriptures, there are over 30 other verses in the Old Testament speaking about a "virgin" or "virgins." Virginity was highly cherished as the standard for God's people. In the New Testament we don't have verses describing the act of premarital sex and its consequences like we do in Exodus or Deuteronomy. It is clear, however, that virginity is still the standard for unmarried Christians and that sex outside the context of marriage is still considered sin. 1 Corinthians 7:7:28,34,36-38: Virginity is assumed for unmarried women just as in the Old Testament. Virginity is still the standard for God's people in the New Covenant. 1 Corinthians 6:16-18: Sexual intimacy "unites" you with your spouse. Outside of marriage this is called "sexual immorality." 1 Corinthians 7:1-2: Marriage is recommended avoid sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9: Premarital sex isn't an option for dealing with lust. Marriage is once again recommended avoid sexual immorality. Ephesians 5:31: Paul is affirming the Old Testament standard of uniting in flesh only with your spouse. One fleshness is to happen when a man is "united to his wife." 1 Thessalonians 4:2-8: "Acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable" or you are in sexual immorality. Sexual sin harms others besides those who engage in it. Premarital sex "cheats" the future spouse by robbing him or her of the virginity that ought to be brought to marriage. Hebrews 13:4: It is a pure marriage bed or you are an "adulterer" or "sexually immoral." 1 Timothy 5:2: As a Christian man, if you are not married to her, then she is your sister whom you must treat "with absolute purity." 2 Corinthians 11:2: Although this passage is talking about Christ and His people, it uses the analogy of a Christian man receiving his bride "as a pure virgin." Virginity was the ideal. Premarital sex was viewed as sexual immorality - just as in the Old Testament. With love in Christ.

I am not aware of any scriptures that specifically indicate God's displeasure about women who lie with women. You would have to use your brains in this respect and know "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander". Any sex outside of marriage is forbidden and marriage between two members of the same sex was not in God's plan.

If God was a man, do you really think he would object to lesbians? I can see him now, On his cloud, beer in one hand, Kleenex in the other as he puts on Lesbian licking college sluts VI in the DVD.

I think President Bartlet has a good take on whether we should give a hoot or not what Leviticus says: . . .

for me, man includes ALL HUMANS, to try and say women and women are okay, but man and man are not is absurd...God made Eve for Adam, woman FOR man... man shall not lie with animals either, and that does not mean women can, but man can't..... our faults lie in our "reasoning" to justify our actions

In Romans it is talking about unnatural..yes it would be unnatural for a heterosexual to be in homosexual relation..but it is not unnatural for homosexuals to be homosexuals..for a homosexual to be in heterosexual is unnatural for them..in bibical times Paul didnt understand sexuality