The Bible has no Hebrew or Greek words comparable to our "homosexual" or "heterosexual".
On the idiolect (individual's vocabulary) Koine Greek does, at least the Biblical version of it. Some people use 'homosexual' to mean someone who has sex with the same sex. Greek has arsenokoites. If that means the giver and not the taker, though, then homosexual includes arsenokoite if used in the sense of someone who performs a homosexual act.
The problem is homosexual is a psychological word and its historical roots and technical usage has to do with men who are attracted to other men. That topic is addressed as something which is against nature in Romans 1.
There are many, many words that do not have an exact one-to-one correspondence with Greek or some other language. That is the nature of langauges.
Even the word "sodomy" is nowhere to be found in the English translations. The KJV & RV use "sodomites" to represent male cult prostitutes in the OT and the KJV margin note on Deut. 23:17 reads: "whore: or, sodomitess". Both are cult prostitutes. Many modern translations use "sodomite" to translate the Greek arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 and in the modern meaning of "sodomite", which is NOT synonymous with "homosexual", it is an accurate one word translation. That also happens to match the KJV translation phrasing, if you use the 1828 Webster's to define the words.
And later in your post, you think two homosexual men performing sodomite activities, of the I Corinthians 6:9 variety, are okay? Linguistically 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 are related to the Leviticus 20 passage against two men engaging in sexual acts with one another.
My initial post, the OP emphatically pointed out that since the Bible does not have our modern word and concept, you have to get off your backside and do some study to see exactly what the sinful act is that is being condemned in the few passages used by many to condemn any and all male to male sexual expression.
And you have showed quote after quote condemning homosex, and act as if they do not.
There is NO passage for the Christian believer, the New Covenant believer; that condemns simple sexual conduct between two male friends.
First of all, that's sick. 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 do. A masculine word that means male *&%$ers as the sources you site say.
Do you think it is okay for a man and a woman to have sex outside of marriage, too, or do you just want gay sex to be allowed? What about adultery? Are you okay with that? What about sex with animals, condemned in the same context as male homo sex in Leviticus 18? Are you okay with having sex with an animal you are not married to?
Btw, in the Old Testament, two single unbethrothed young people having sex was not a death penalty crime (at least if they fessed up and did the right thing), but two men having sex was a death penalty crime. You are getting things backwards trying to make two men having sex not a sin at all. Btw, do you stop at two men? If three or four men had sex, is that all okay to you? Do you think God smiles on sex orgies, but only if they are gay? Are you familiar with that verse about calling good evil and evil good?
The idea of the whacky fundamentalists that we choose which gender we are attracted to is absurd.
You choose whether or not to act on attraction.. to yield to lust. Paul said to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. If you have lusts, that doesn't make the lusts 'natural' for you. Lust does not justify sin.
Who on earth would make that choice?
God created male and female and said be fruitful and multiply. He looked at what He had made and it was good. But you realize on some level men wanting sex with other men is not good, or you would not have made that comment.
The other idea that it is not a sin to be a homosexual, just a sin to engage in a homosexual act is the sin. That contradicts the teaching of Jesus that to desire or lust for something sinful, is a sin also, not just the act.
You seem double-minded on this. If lust is wrong, why are you justifying it elsewhere in your post?
Besides, homosexuality is supposed to be about 'orientation.' I someone engaging in lust by being 'heterosexual.' 'Heterosexual' just means one can be attracted to the opposite sex. If I see a man, a movie star, a weight lifter, etc., I am not going to feel attraction. But if I see a beautiful woman her looks might be attractive to me. But that doesn't mean I sin. A woman being pretty doesn't make me sin. My interacting with her or seeing her in my field of vision does not make me sin. Jesus said that if someone looks at a woman in order to (πρὸς) lust after her has committed adultery with her already in her heart. There is an action of the will involved. Paul says not to yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.
Having the propensity, inclination, or possibility of being attracted to the same sex is not sin. Yielding one's members-- whether eyes or other parts--to it is. A Christian tempted in this way should not embrace homosexuality as his identity because the scripture says to reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God. Christians should not make their identity 'fornicator Christian' if they happen to be attracted to women. Or if they think there is a chance they could overeat or steal, they shouldn't call themselves 'glutton Christians' or 'thief Christians'.
The idea that total, lifetime abstinence from sex is demanded of a male who is solely attracted to other males violates 1 Cor. 7:7-9 where abstinence is a gift that not all men have.
Read earlier in the passage. Paul says to prevent fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband. Wives are female and husbands are male, and is clear which sex gets each.
The argument from complementarianism, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve', is faulty because NO ONE in this day lives in the perfection of Eden before the fall.
Jesus referred back to a quote from the Adam and Eve passage when teaching in marriage. Paul referred to it about marriage as it reflects Christ and the church. Your commentary on this is no excuse.
Whatever a man is, with all his faults and defects as compared to Eden; if they were not his choice, it was how God made him, Rom. 9:20,21.
Huh? The passage deals with God hardening Pharaoh's heart and how He has mercy on whom he wills and whom He wills He hardens. Paul's imaginary interlocutor then asks why does He yet find fault for who has resisted his will... then these verses about the pot not saying to the potter, why hast thou made me thus? So are you saying that God made those engaged in homosex wicked and rebellious? This passage is not meant to be an excuse not to repent. Paul said that God is calling all men to repent. That is kind of like saying not to pray for unbelieving relatives because if God wants to save them he will, and not to get out of bed in the morning to work, because if God wants to feed you, He will. that is no the proper attitude.
Who decided the exact birth defect that many of us have? If we did not choose it, God chose if for us in his wise purpose. I am color blind and I did not choose that and it does not match the perfection of Eden.
If you think people are born with kleptomania or an inclination to murder, do you think they should steal your stuff and kill you? Should sinners stay in their sin because of the potter and the clay verse? That type of interpretation does not align with Paul's preaching on repentance elsewhere in scripture.
The Bible also says to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. You would have us believe it is okay to fulfill this shameful lust because you believe God made you with the propensity to lust in that way.
I do NOT support the LGBTQ activism and their agenda and I believe same-sex marriage is a perversion of marriage and placing orphans with gay couples is disgusting.
What is so disgusting about gay couples that you do not want orphans living with them. You seem conflicted on the issue.
Yet I will not tell a Christian brother that he sins for the simple act of a sexual expression with a willing male friend in private.
Are you afraid he will not participate if you do?
Nor will I say any man is free from sin in his sex life whatever gender he is attracted to. I, in a previous post gave a sampling of commentary out of the past, on various texts used to condemn males who love males; and you find the comments fit what we call a "sodomite", not a "homosexual". I find the Roget's Thesaurus makes it clear a sodomite is different from a homosexual in our English language:
"75.16 sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf>, bugger; pederast; paraphiliac; zoophiliac..." Seen within the category of synonyms, the meaning of the word "sodomite" in this day is more clear, and it is not "homosexual".
Not particularly relevant to what the scripture passages actually say, especially since 'sodomite' is not used in most translations.