# What parts of the Bible ban homosexuality? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128 "2009-03-11T21:02:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/21 "2009-03-12T12:59:47Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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,. This is complete and utter hogwash. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/22 "2009-03-12T13:08:48Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > This is complete and utter hogwash. It’s not hogwash; as has been discussed already, it simply relies on an interpretation of a couple of ambiguous Greek words as ‘partner’ rather than boy, son, slave or servant. It sounds like a big stretch to me but it’s not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/23 "2009-03-12T13:08:57Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > This is complete and utter hogwash. Amen- The gay reading on this actually has Christ affirming a pederastic relatonship. Hogwash is a mild term for it. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/24 "2009-03-12T13:14:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* The Great Philosopher said \*\* It’s not hogwash; as has been discussed already, it simply relies on an interpretation of a couple of ambiguous Greek words as ‘partner’ rather than boy, son, slave or servant. It sounds like a big stretch to me but it’s not impossible. > [@FriarTed](#): > > Amen- The gay reading on this actually has Christ affirming a pederastic relatonship. > > Hogwash is a mild term for it. You are right. I was being _kind_ when I said hogwash. Before you play the fundie card, let me assure you that if I was absolutely convinced that Christ had nothing against homosexuality, and gay myself ,I’d still be offended by this tripe. It’s intellectually dishonest. It’s not a “stretch”; it’s a “stench.” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/25 "2009-03-12T13:26:39Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > 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. [I don’t think that’s clear at all.](http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702) It’s certainly not how Jude understood that passage, for he described the Sodomites as going after “strange flesh.” Furthermore, there is absolutely no mention of inhospitality as a capital crime in the Old Testament, or even as a severe sin. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was condemned quite strenuously. One might disagree with these prohibitions against homosexuality, but I think that’s beside the point. The point is that dismissing their offense as mere inhospitality requires a strained reading of the text – both the immediate passage and the greater context. It also requires inserting a harsh condemnation of inhospitality that is not echoed anywhere by any of the Biblical writers. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/26 "2009-03-12T16:07:46Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > You’re right that the New Testament does condemn homosexuality, but few people look at the passages in context. > > ." > > 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. Yes, and dudes should read Cor in full “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” So drunkards get the same road to damnation, as well as most of Wall Street. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/27 "2009-03-12T16:08:52Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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. We don’t know if it was a gay couple, and I believe that’s part of the intent. It is obvious from the scripture that the centurion is a sinner as he said “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof.”, but we are all sinners, even Simon/Peter said something similar "“Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” Luke 5:8x. I don’t believe it matters what the sin is, Jesus comes to help the sinner, whatever that sin may be. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/28 "2009-03-12T16:35:06Z")
The two passages the OP cites are the only passages in the Hebrew Scripture that I am aware of which are commonly taken to refer to homosexuality. In the case of Sodom, this is clearly erroneous from the point of view of traditional Jewish interpretation. [Here](http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246615/jewish/The-Destruction-of-Sodom.htm) is an account of the destruction of Sodom from an Orthodox Jewish source; although this source does feel that Judaism unequivocally forbids homosexuality based on the Leviticus cites, you will note that it is not even mentioned in their Sodom story. Although Christian interpretations may differ, Jews (who did, after all, _write_ the text!) have always believed that Sodom was destroyed for its cruelty (going well beyond mere “inhospitality”) to strangers and the poor (note that this account bolsters this charge with several other folk tales of outrageous, though non-sexual, Sodomite behavior that didn’t make it into the Bible). As for the Leviticus cites, their plain, and traditionally understood, meaning is clearly to forbid homosexuality (at least male homosexuality, though traditional Jewish law extends the proscription to lesbianism as well). Liberal theologian Rabbi Arthur Waskow argues [here](http://www.shalomctr.org/node/525) that this prohibition should no longer apply in our time. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/29 "2009-03-12T16:54:40Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > [I don’t think that’s clear at all.](http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702) It’s certainly not how Jude understood that passage, for he described the Sodomites as going after “strange flesh.” Furthermore, there is absolutely no mention of inhospitality as a capital crime in the Old Testament, or even as a severe sin. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was condemned quite strenuously. > > One might disagree with these prohibitions against homosexuality, but I think that’s beside the point. The point is that dismissing their offense as mere inhospitality requires a strained reading of the text – both the immediate passage and the greater context. It also requires inserting a harsh condemnation of inhospitality that is not echoed anywhere by any of the Biblical writers. First, it’s not strictly “inhospitality” in and of itself but the whole suite of sins associated with being selfish, greedy, living in luxury, and uncharitable towards the needy, for which Sodom is condemned. Second, we miss the importance of hospitality on the Middle East. There is a story in the Arabic literature about a sheikh who had vowed revenge on the killer of his father. Said killer became lost in the desert, and turned up half dead from starvation and thirst near the sheikh’s home. The sheikh took him in, he and his household nursed him back to health, hosted him lavishly – because it was his **duty** to do so under the law of hospitality. It’s a far different and more important thing than what our culture conceives of it as. Thirdly, it’s not altogether clear that the sexual immorality Jude condemns equals homosexuality. Strange flesh translates _heteros sarx_ – different (fleshly) body – and appears to have meant the attempted rape of **angels** , God’s messengers – whether they had appeared as young men, women, or whatever. This is not to address directly whether the Bible is, or can be, read as condemning homosexual behavior and/or desire. Rather, it’s to put the proper perspective on the Spdom and Jude passages – sin is condemned; not necessarily ‘the sin of homosexuality’. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/30 "2009-03-12T19:26:48Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I don’t think that’s clear at all. It’s certainly not how Jude understood that passage, for he described the Sodomites as going after “strange flesh.” That could easily mean the flesh of strangers, or the flesh of angels as Polycarp says. He didn’t say ‘male flesh’ after all. > [@](#): > > One might disagree with these prohibitions against homosexuality, but I think that’s beside the point. The point is that dismissing their offense as mere inhospitality requires a strained reading of the text – both the immediate passage and the greater context. It also requires inserting a harsh condemnation of inhospitality that is not echoed anywhere by any of the Biblical writers. I’m astonished that you’ve said this, you cannot have read even a significant portion of the Bible. Hospitality was esteemed as one of the most important virtues in the Jewish tradition and there’s literally dozens of references to its importance all the way through the Bible, both Old and New testaments: [[HOSPITALITY - JewishEncyclopedia.com](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=937&letter=H&search=hospitality%22%5Dhttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=937&letter=H&search=hospitality%22)][HOSPITALITY - JewishEncyclopedia.com](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=937&letter=H&search=hospitality)]([HOSPITALITY - JewishEncyclopedia.com](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=937&letter=H&search=hospitality)) > [@](#): > > The [stranger] … was assured by the Biblical law not only of protection against oppression (Ex. xxiii. 9) and deceit (Lev. xix. 33), but also of love from the natives (Deut. xvi. 14), who were to love him even as themselves (Lev. xix. 34). > > … > From these scattered references an idea can be formed of the manner in which a guest was received in an ancient Jewish household and of the relations that existed between guest and host. The latter would go out to meet the stranger on his way, and would ask no questions as to his name and condition until his first needs had been satisfied (Gen. xxiv. 33). On entering the house he was given water to wash his feet, and a meal was then put before him, his animals being meanwhile attended to (ib. xviii. 4; xix. 2; xxiv. 25, 32). During his stay the host felt himself personally responsible for any injury that might befall his guest (ib. xix. 8). On leaving, another repast was served (ib. xxvi. 30; Judges xix. 3), when a covenant was sometimes entered into by the guest and his host (Gen. xxvi. 31), and the latter again accompanied the stranger some distance on his way (ib. xviii. 16). On his part, the guest blessed the host before taking leave (ib. 10), and asked him whether he stood in need of anything (II Kings iv. 13). If the guest wished to remain in the clan or in the locality, he was permitted to select a dwelling-place (Gen. xx. 15). > > **The practise of hospitality did not decline with the changes in social conditions. Even in later times, when the Jews were settled in cities, this virtue was held in highest esteem**. Isaiah (Isa. lviii. 7) preferred charity and hospitality to fasting. Job, in complaining of his misfortunes in spite of the fact that he had led a virtuous life, mentions among other things that he had always opened his door to the stranger (Job xxxi. 32); while Eliphaz accounts for the misery which had befallen Job on the ground that he had not been hospitable (ib. xxii. 7).. That link refers to dozens of other references scattered throughout the Bible as well. There’s a story in Judges where a civil war was started because of a breach of hospitality laws. So - completely contrary to what you have said - given the fact that hospitality was valued so highly throughout the entire Bible, and given that there’s not even a clear reference to homosexuality in the Sodom story, I think it’s almost a strained reading _not_ to view the passage as being a condemnation of inhospitality. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/31 "2009-03-12T19:31:51Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > 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 In what way is heterosexual intercourse any different? Nothing you quoted specifically mentions homosexuality or could even be interpreted as a reference to homosexuality. > [@](#): > > Amen- The gay reading on this actually has Christ affirming a pederastic relatonship. > > Hogwash is a mild term for it. > [@](#): > > You are right. I was being kind when I said hogwash. > > Before you play the fundie card, let me assure you that if I was absolutely convinced that Christ had nothing against homosexuality, and gay myself ,I’d still be offended by this tripe. > > It’s intellectually dishonest. It’s not a “stretch”; it’s a “stench.” This being GQ and all, you might want to try a little bit harder than, “this conflicts with my worldview, and is therefore wrong!” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/32 "2009-03-12T19:41:46Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Amen- The gay reading on this actually has Christ affirming a pederastic relatonship. > > Hogwash is a mild term for it. Pederastic my left earlobe! We do not know the age of the person for whose healing the Centurion asks, only that he’s described as “boy” (Matthew) or “favored youth” (Luke) in terms that denotatively mean “not-yet-adult male” (including adolescents) and connotatively were used for servants. We do know – because the Gospel writers **tell** us – that the Centurion loved his _pais_ or _doulos_ – we do not know if that love was affectionate, compassionate, romantic/sexual, or what. **Tbonham** gave one reading as an example of where Christ might have dealt compassionately with someone gay – and if that reading is accurate, it was an erastes/eromenos relationship, not child molestation. Me, as with the David/Jonathan story, I take a neutral view: It might mean something completely non-sexual, it might mean something romantic/sexual, and **we don’t know**. It is a mistake to read back our cultural preconceptions to try to understand an earlier culture’s behavior patterns – this leads to things like the Sermon on the Mount passage in Matthew being taken as a verbatim transcription of one of Jesus’s sermons. (We know, as surely as such things can be known, that it was not, but a probably-mostly-accurate reconstruction.) The _pais_ may have been a boy being raised in the Centurion’s household, he may have been a beloved favorite servant, he may have been the Centurion’s _eromenos_ – and we don’t know which is true. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/33 "2009-03-12T20:33:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In what way is heterosexual intercourse any different? Nothing you quoted specifically mentions homosexuality or could even be interpreted as a reference to homosexuality. It’s not one vs the other, it’s that violation of the first commandment will lead to other violations of the law. Whenever we put our own desire ahead of God’s will for our lives it will lead to sin of one type or another. This particular path we are discussing just leads to homosexuality as the method of dealing with pain of sin. From the NT scriptures it appears that all sexual perversion, including homosexuality/lesbianism is a result of prior sin. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/34 "2009-03-12T23:10:50Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > From the NT scriptures it appears that all sexual perversion, including homosexuality/lesbianism is a result of prior sin. I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with that. The NT makes it pretty clear that all sin is a result of prior sin. The book of Hebrews goes all the way back to Adam as the one man who introduced it and Jesus as the one man who removed it. In an OT passage, there’s talk of the sins of the father being carried down seven generations. The fact that homosexuality results from this chain of sin doesn’t really tell us anything about homosexuality itself and/or why there would be a ban on it. I’d consider a shoe fetish a form of sexual perversion and we can argue about the source of that desire, but there is an appropriate context for it. (i.e. there’s nothing wrong with having your wife dress up in sexy shoes). In contrast, there are passages that state (or have been interpreted to state) that homosexuality is a sin in any context. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/35 "2009-03-12T23:50:43Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Pederastic my left earlobe! We do not know the age of the person for whose healing the Centurion asks Maybe I’m getting confused with the French word, but I’ve always thought that “pederastic” meant “homosexual” and would apply to a relationship between two adults also, not meaning only “pedophilic tendencies by an adult male but only directed toward young persons of the same sex”. With that being said, I don’t see why Jesus would have such an objection towards gay couples. Unless somewhere in the Bible Jesus himself speaks out against homosexuality? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/36 "2009-03-12T23:57:29Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > [I don’t think that’s clear at all.](http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702) It’s certainly not how Jude understood that passage, for he described the Sodomites as going after “strange flesh.” Furthermore, there is absolutely no mention of inhospitality as a capital crime in the Old Testament, or even as a severe sin. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was condemned quite strenuously. Homosexuality gets condemned a total of what, twice? in the OT? > [@](#): > > One might disagree with these prohibitions against homosexuality, but I think that’s beside the point. The point is that dismissing their offense as mere inhospitality requires a strained reading of the text – both the immediate passage and the greater context. It also requires inserting a harsh condemnation of inhospitality that is not echoed anywhere by any of the Biblical writers. Say what? Centuries of Jewish scholars (who have almost universally condemned homosexuality) have said that Sodom’s crime was not being kind to strangers. It’s a strained reading of the text to say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/37 "2009-03-13T00:15:10Z")
Pederasty is sex between an adult male and an adolescent boy (i.e. Michael Jackson style relationships). With regards to Sodom. The story about the angels is irrelevant. God had already made the decision to destroy Sodom before the angels ever even showed up. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/38 "2009-03-13T02:36:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > With regards to Sodom. The story about the angels is irrelevant. God had already made the decision to destroy Sodom before the angels ever even showed up. Well, it’s not irrelevant, because it shows the sinfulness of Sodom, whether that sinfulness is homosexual rape particularly, or inhospitality generally. It’s not in itself the reason that Sodom (and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim…everyone forgets those cities) is destroyed, but it’s an example of their wickedness. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/39 "2009-03-13T02:46:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Pederasty is sex between an adult male and an adolescent boy (i.e. Michael Jackson style relationships). Just for the record, MJ did not apparently have sex with those boys, even though we all know there was _something_ skeevy and unnatural going on. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/40 "2009-03-13T02:56:03Z")
[Quote=Diogenes the Cynic] Pederasty is sex between an adult male and an adolescent boy (i.e. Michael Jackson style relationships). [/quote] > [@DrDeth](#): > > Just for the record, MJ did not apparently have sex with those boys, even though we all know there was _something_ skeevy and unnatural going on. :eek: Nor were they adolescent, as I recall. They were ages 9-12, which is usually called pre-adolescent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128.md?page=3)