There is “man will not lie with man…” in one part, and there is the whole nuking a city cause its full of gays in another. (Sodom)
Are there any other references?
You may find this site helpful: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
In particular, that page’s first link lists the Bible passages most commonly cited as condemning homosexuality.
There’s not that many of them, from what I’ve heard there’s three main references to homosexuality. Most of my knowledge on this just comes from the article ‘Homosexuality in the Bible’ on Wikipedia and from what I’ve heard before. The first reference is in Leviticus which you mention (it’s actually two separate references):
The second and third are in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and Romans respectively,
Apparently there’s arguments against all of them: with regard to Leviticus there’s the classic argument that Jesus superseded most of the Old Testament laws and so they no longer apply, including the law about homosexuals. In the Corinthians case the word used for ‘homosexuals’ can supposedly mean ‘homosexual prostitutes’ or ‘traders of homosexual prostitutes’ instead, so that it doesn’t actually condemn homosexuality. In the Romans passage it’s been argued that the writer isn’t condemning homosexuals but only heterosexuals who switch over to homosexuality. Both of those explanations sound pretty desperate; I think it’s quite clear, unfortunately, that in both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality is explicitly condemned (although not by Jesus or the Gospels).
One other passage which probably doesn’t refer to homosexuality but is interesting nonetheless is in Kings:
‘Oh… you’ve walked in on me. Well it’s not what it looks like! He was, er, dead, you see. By lying on him I’ve warmed him back to life… it’s a miracle!’ 
Oh and with regard to Sodom, it’s not at all clear that it was destroyed because the people in the city were homosexual. The Sodomites were described as being immoral; when strangers come to Lot’s house they demand that they’re send outside so they can ‘meet’ them; Lot tries to send his daughters out to be raped instead. But a lot of commentators have argued, fairly plausibly, that the sin here is not showing enough respect for strangers spending the night in the city, rather than homosexuality. There’s certainly never any other mention of sexual immorality in the chapter, and the idea of ‘sodomy’ being another word for anal sex wasn’t introduced until ages further along in history. Ezekiel later in the Bible says:
My understanding is it’s a violation of the 1st commandment, which is the most important one according to Jesus, which stated briefly is Love God above all
Here is man slipping away from placing God first, and the consequences:
This refers to those who put God in a position which He is not first in their life.
But:
[quote=“The_Great_Philosopher, post:3, topic:489128”]
When one follows Jesus, he dedicated his life to the Lord, the Lord gets to use his body, and whatever he does God will turn for the good. As such I can see a case be made for having a homosexual relationship if the intent is to serve God in reaching the lost. But the desire to serve God must be first, not the lust.
This is the freedom from the law that Jesus offers, as everything is permissible must mean what it says.
Re:
I’ve experienced this personally, it is not sexual, but Love of God flowing through one person to another that can call the soul back into the body.
You’re right that the New Testament does condemn homosexuality, but few people look at the passages in context.
In Romans, other signs of immorality listed along with homosexuality include lying and disobeying your parents. Furthermore, the very next verses (2:1-2) after these condemnations, Paul says “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”
In Corinthians, the previous context discourages lawsuits between believers, ending with “Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong and you do this to your brothers.” It follows with a section on how everything may be permissible, but it is not necessary good for you, with particular emphasis on sexual immorality of all kinds.
So it’s wrong, but not more wrong than whatever it is you’re doing.
You’ve brought a dead body back to life? Or been brought back to life yourself? Either way that’s quite a feat. Perhaps you’re a prophet like Elisha?
Acts 15 states that all sexual immorality is forbidden, but doesn’t specify what that means specifically.
For arguments that, for instance, stoning homosexuals actually referred to homosexual acts in the Temple, I think you would need to look back in history to see how the earliest churches interpreted it. That homosexuality has been popularly deemed sinful until modern day by Christianity, for as far as I am aware, I would generally assume that the church understood these phrases to be banning homosexuality, but it could indeed have been a misreading that grew in popularity.
Homosexuality and religion - Wikipedia More info
There is also a story in the New Testament of Jesus affirming a gay couple, told in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, and referred to in the Communion section of every Mass.
This is the story of the Roman Centurion whose young lover is sick and dying, and so the centurion goes to Jesus asking him to intercede. Jesus offers to go to the centurion’s house to heal him, but the centurion says there is no need, “simply say the word, and he shall be healed”. Jesus then praises the faith of this centurion, and says he should be seen as an example by others. And of course, he heals the centurion’s sick lover.
Unlike modern fundamentalist preachers, Jesus doesn’t say that the sickness is “God’s punishment” on this gay couple; he just heals the sick one so they can continue their relationship. Jesus never says any words condemning gay people, just his actions here in healing them. And they say actions speak louder than words,.
“Young lover”? Which translation are you using??
Can you provide a cite for this? I looked at the Matthew passage in all the English language versions available on BibleGateway.com and nearly all refer to the centurion and his servant or slave. One says “young man”, another one or two say “child”. None say “lover”, that I saw.
Note, I am not a biblical scholar, nor do I know Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc, so I am not familiar with the overtones of the exact vocabulary used in the original.
beaten to the comment again
The literall term used is pais, literally “boy,” which was common parlance for “servant” as in the Old South, and also leads to the reading tbonham gave.
The term used in the Greek is pais, which means “boy”. The thing is, in ancient Greek, you can use the word to refer to an actual boy (with no sexual content involved), to a slave, or to a boy that you’re schtupping. So, recently, some gay friendly theologians have interpreted it the third way.
In fact, as your Ezekiel quote shows, it’s either not the cause, or one of the “iniquities” allluded to at the end of the quote – not even significant enough to be enumerated like the selfishness and love of luxury at the expense of others.
Matthew uses pais, with the meanings Captain Amazing gave (except that the first one is generally used for ‘my boy’, i.e. a son).
Luke uses entimos doulos, which is translated to ‘honored servant’ or ‘special servant’. (and servant/slave are interchangeable here). And then when talking about other servants/slaves (“when I tell my slave to do something…”) Luke uses just doulos (‘servant/slave’), but when talking about this specific sick person he uses pais (‘boy’).
So between Matthew and Luke, we can see that the young man the centurion asks Jesus to heal is:
- not literally his son.
- not just a servant/slave like others in the household.
So that would seem to leave the third meaning of the term as the most likely one.
Except not neccesarily, which is the problem. Look at Luke 12:45
In that case, the special servant who’s singled out in the parable is just doulos, while “the menservants and maidservants” in general are paidas amd paidiskas. So it’s not neccesarly true that pais means that (and it’s been suggested that it’s the other way around…that pais is used to describe a low ranking slave. Or, the two words could just be synonyms. It’s one of those things that’s still debated.
Except that the consensus among Jewish scholars for centuries has been that Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed for the sin of being without kindness. There are Jewish folktales that show just how cruel to strangers these people were. The average rabbi regards homosexuality as a sin, but not the sin that two cities were destroyed for.
From Romans 1 24-32 and Eph 4 18-20 is sexually immorality and homosexuality is a result of hardening of the heart and darkening of understanding (living outside the will of God) causes the perversions. It IMHO is a way to deal with cruelty imposed on a person, lust is a stand in for the true love these people are seeking. A way of dealing of living in a world that appears to show them no love.