A good enough case that I quite literally thank God it's purely academic for me personally. I think I can safely say I'm a veteran of these debates around here, and also think I can safely say that without a good working knowledge of both koine and Hebrew none of us is in a position to definitively state the precise meanings of the language used. Ask around, I'm no liturgical liberal (though I do take issue with treating every word Paul ever wrote as divinely inspired even if it's just a shopping list) but I think it's VERY presumptuous to say, "this statement means x" when it can be interpreted multiple ways. If you're wrong you'll have some serious explaining to do one day.

From what I DO know of the oldest extant texts, the wording is somewhat open to interpretation. I distill it down to two passages I consider critical (we can talk about Paul, but please trust me when I say neither of us wants to do that. ) Acts 15:23-29:

It's paraphrased again in chapter 21, but it's basically the same instructions. Not a lot there, and the tone seems to indicate the Church Fathers were rather liberal in their liturgy as well by the standards of the day. However, one of the few restrictions it affirms is the one against sexual immorality, so case closed, right?

If only. First, there's a margin note; it says "sexual immorality" can also be read as "fornication. " Either way we have the same problem though: It's a strong term with a specific meaning, and we have to figure that out based on a translation from a language no one has actively spoken for centuries. Fortunately it's not a NEW problem, which is where Dr. Strong comes in if you don't have TVoLT on speed dial. The word in question is number 4202 in the Greek lexicon, "porneia" as it would be rendered in English. The Strongs entry for 4202 is:

Note the one thing not specifically mentioned. You can't cheat on your spouse, and you can't sleep with close relatives, but not a word on whether gay sex is automatically fornication.

Joseph Thayer elaborated thus in his later Greek/Hebrew lexicon:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

That's kind of ambiguous itself, but I take it to mean infidelity was so routine then that Christian converts didn't take the prohibition against it seriously, and thus had to be told point blank.

Why, you may ask, am I focusing so closely on this passage? Simple: Because the Apostles were directly asked if and how much of the Law remained incumbent on Gentile Christians, and this was the whole of the answer they and the Holy Spirit gave. Pretty much any time anyone brings up some obscure Old Testament law no longer observed by Christians, you can cite this passage. And this wasn't Paul telling Timothy what do about his tummy ache; it was Church Fathers writing AS Church Fathers (I like to think of Acts as "The Gospel According to the Holy Spirit. " ) If James and Peter are telling me that I don't have to do x to be a Christian, well, I won't say they're wrong, but it's going to be hard to believe they are unless Jesus Himself comes down and says so.

Then we just have to decide what "fornication" means in terms of the Tanakh. No problem. Except there are no instances of the Hebrew word for "fornication" (Hebrew 2181 in Strongs Concordance) in any of those laws dealing with homosexuality. There aren't many of any kind, surprisingly; there are a total of four, which makes them easy enough to import here:


II Ch. 21:11
This is PROBABLY "fornication" in the metaphorical sense of idolatry. Hard to be certain though, because the various Bronze Age fertility cults ensured there was plenty of, er, "overlap. " Again, it's hard to tell from 3000 (or 2500 if you prefer the post-Exilic dating of I&II Chronicles) years and two languages away.
Is. 23:17
Whole thing's a metaphor (possibly including Tyre) and "fornication" is just part of that.
Ez. 16:26
Could go either way, but it sounds like the metaphorical sense of "idolatry" again. If a Jewish guy wanted a hooker I bet he didn't have to go all the way to Egypt to get one.

They're only two verses apart, so I'd be tempted to say they're using the same word the same way--except, interestingly, the last one is actually a different word that's translated as "fornication" (this is why people like Strongs. ) So, logically, the thing to do is look at both:

That's the first one, the one used in all but the last passage, and here's the other:

Note the all important word missing throughout these scriptural citations. You'd think if God finds it SO objectionable He'd be a little more clear about what it is we are never, ever EVER to do. He's pretty clear about what should happen if your ox gets lose and gores somebody, and not really known for mincing words, so why be vague this time?

None of that is a conclusive argument that homosexual sex is fine by God, but it does make it a lot harder to absolutely state it's categorically forbidden. In point of fact, I happen to believe that since the Apostles were asked about the whole of the Law that's what they commented on, so all the sexual practices forbidden in the OT (including gay sex ) fall under that umbrella. As I say, I can see good arguments both ways that don't require liberties with the text (IMHO, the argument against actually requires more liberal reading. ) But I honestly can't say which is the truth of the matter, so I won't try to pretend I'm in a position to make the kind of definitive statement that I don't think possible when the text says so little and much of that little is ambiguous. Personally, I think it's a helluva risk to take (literally) but it's easy for me to say that because refusing that risk costs me nothing (and accepting it would be a far greater imposition. ) It's a matter of personal conviction and liberty of conscience. Most religious matters tend to be, I think, and that's certainly true of Christianity, where ones whole relationship with God stands or falls on whether one CHOOSES to embrace it.