Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

It is right that they are excluded from the assembly. You would exclude somebody who was actively engaged in murder or any other serious sin.

If they repent and turn away from their sin they are accepted.

1. Corintians. 6.
... and such some of you were but you were made clean

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate(malakos), nor abusers of themselves with mankind(arsenokoites)," (1Cor 6:9, KJV)

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind(arsenokoites), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (1Tim 1:9-10, KJV)

The KJV is very accurate in these translations as you use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary to seek the definitions. Our KJV is the last corrected edition of 1769, so the 1828 dictionary is closest in time.

"EFFEM'INATE, a. [L. effoeminatus, from effoeminor, to grow or make womanish, from foemina, a woman. See Woman.]
1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor.
2. Womanish; weak; resembling the practice or qualities of the sex; as an effeminate peace; an effeminate life."

There is nothing about sexual relations in the definition of effeminate. I've yet to see an English dictionary that defines "effeminate" in anyway as sexual conduct between males! When you look up the phrase "abusers (and defile) of themselves with mankind" in the Young's Analytical Concordance, you must look up the key words, "abuser" and "defile" therefore in the Webster's we have the meanings.

ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.
a sodomite is a ravisher
RAV'ISHER, n.
1. One that takes by violence.
2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace.

DEFILE, v.t.
5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34.
DEFILER, n. One who defiles; one who corrupts or violates; that which pollutes.

LEWD'NESS, n.
1. The unlawful indulgence of lust; fornication, or adultery.

FORNICA'TION, n. [L. fornicatio.]
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Mat 5.
3. Incest. 1 Cor 5.

I believe the KJV was accurate in its translations of malakos and arsenokoites for the following reasons.

The word malakos is used 4 times in the NT, and the other 3 times refer to soft clothing, luxurious clothing. The Classical Greek dictionary Liddell-Scott-Jones has long entry for malakos and nowhere is it defined as a "catamite".
https://lsj.gr/wiki/μαλακός

If Paul wished to mean a male prostitute, a "catamite", the exact word was available as also in the LSJ-
https://lsj.gr/wiki/κίναιδος

The 19th century German scholar Heinrich Meyer states on this question of malakos in 1 Cor. 6:9 -

"μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers. Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν, Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς, iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία, Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."

On the word, apparently coined by Paul, arsenokiotes, it is a compound word made up of arsen=male and koites=couch. The etymology of a word when dealing with the author who coined the word, is critical in understanding the word. That Greek koites is used in Hebrews 13:4 figuratively for the marriage bed; and in Romans 9:10 for conception. But the word is found also in a vice list, a listing of sins as follows:

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering(koites) and wantonness, not in strife and envying." (Rom 13:13, KJV)
The word "chambering" as in the 1828 Webster's is defined thus:

CHAMBERING, n. Wanton, lewd, immodest behavior. Rom 13.

WANTON, n.
1. A lewd person; a lascivious man or woman.

LEWD, a. [Heb.]
1. Given to the unlawful indulgence of lust; addicted to fornication or adultery; dissolute; lustful; libidinous.

IMMOD'EST, a. [L. immodestus; in and modestus, modest. see the latter.]
1. Literally, not limited to due bounds. Hence, in a general sense, immoderate; exorbitant, unreasonable; arrogant.

So from Rom. 13:13 we can learn that when applied to male-male sexual conduct; it refers to unlimited sexual promiscuity. While 1 Cor. 6:9 does not list the sins in any order or system by which we can get a hint of the meaning, Paul does list it in categories in 1 Tim. 1:9, 10 as follows:

A. the lawless and disobedient
B. the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane
C. murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
D. whoremongers, arsenokoites, for menstealers
E. for liars, for perjured persons

By being included with the vilest of fornicators being whoremongers, and along with menstealers; along with unlimited sexual promiscuity we have an abusive and violent element added. If we were to look at the definition of "sodomite" today, as seen in its category of synonyms, we'll see it fits close if we are to use a single word as translation.

The most accurate translation in today's language I believe is by Reverend Arthur Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear, with the literal rendering:

"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites,"

Paul's use of malakos and arsenokoites does not describe a relationship between two male friends, together for companionship, mutual support and whatever sexual relations they choose to have between themselves.

Complementarianism, or the argument from the Created Order is a last ditch attempt to condemn all male to male relationships. This argument is often expressed by the entertainment preachers with the sarcastic line, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." But, the perfection of the created order does not define sin; and in addition, since the fall no one lives in the perfection of Eden. As Jesus himself explained about divorce:

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matt 19:7-9, KJV)

The hardness of their hearts describes living in a fallen world, and Jesus says divorce was not the created order or intent; yet, Jesus goes on and permits divorce where a spouse commits fornication. Jesus will not permit something that is sin. Jesus understands the situations of his children living in a fallen world.

I see I've been described as an unregenerate homosexual, and someone coming out of left field with odd, heretical ideas. Those are typical responses when they can't discuss the scriptures intelligently; so it comes to name calling. The following shows I'm far from out of line with biblical scholarship:

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, Copyright 2001, Baker Reference Library
"Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term 'sodomy.' This interpretation depends upon uncertain translation, while Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Sirach 16:8-9 give other reasons for the judgment. The assumption of homosexuality in Sodom dates from the Greek occupation of Palestine, when 'the Greek sin' seriously endangered Jewish youth and strong scriptural warning was necessary... It is usually assumed that the male cult prostitutes common in heathen shrines but forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23:17), though sometimes prevalent (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), were homosexual." page 574

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Vol. 4, 1988, Eerdmans
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')." page 437

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647; which is considered the 'gold standard' of Christian confessions
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship."

The 1689 Second London Confession of Faith of Baptists
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it." Retained almost identical wording from the Westminster

It is my sincere prayer that any Christian parent or family member who is burdened with the stress of not knowing how to deal scripturally with a loved one or Christian friend who for whatever reason, is attracted to and loves his own sex rather than the opposite sex, can find the comfort in God's word and escape the bigotry in so much of conservative Christianity. I imagine many people read who do not post. A review of the tone and inferences made in many of these posts does explain why Christians are so often called "homophobic". There is another reason as well. It is known that the extremely homophobic person is usually repressing or hiding his own same-sex inclinations.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/

you can make excuses blame the abuse of homosexuals on a false narrative and say it is love when it is not.
LGBTQ is a false narrative cognitive dilemma and abandonment from reality.

God said marriage is as He planned in Genesis chapter 2: 24 and Jesus again held up the standard of God in Matthew . It is not homophobe like so many liberal Christians have embraced to accept this sin when it is called a sin by those who are Christians as the word of God says.

In fact, transgender is also child abuse that parents and teachers, and others in the church will answer to for abusing their own children.



It is my sincere prayer that any Christian parent or family member who is burdened with the stress of not knowing how to deal scripturally with a loved one or Christian friend who for whatever reason, is attracted to and loves his own sex rather than the opposite sex, can find the comfort in God's word and escape the bigotry in so much of conservative Christianity. I imagine many people read who do not post.


there are no scriptures that support homosexuality or the LGBTQ LIE. None. Unless in context as the word of God calls it is: SIN, disobedience, perversion, lust, no self-control, deceived, Bound, or stronghold.
The false narrative of saying one is a Bigoit or racist when giving a sexual preference an ethnic status or is a race of people is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard of. Conservative Christians mean one who holds to tradition. The word of God. God's plan for man and women has not changed, man has.

Jonathan and David in the OT were normal men, valiant warriors. David had several wives and many concubines and Jonathan was married and had sons. There is something about their love that is obvious, but denied and ignored by most.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved(H157 ahab) him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved(H160 ahabah) him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1-3, KJV)

The first "loved" is the Hebrew ahab and it is very broad in meaning, human to human or even human love to an object. The second "loved" is ahabah and tracing that word, it is more pointed in meaning when used of human love to another human. The first occurrence of the word is the following:

"And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had(H160 ahabah) to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her." (Gen 29:20-21, KJV)

The next 3 occurrences of this (H160 ahabah) are about the love of Jonathan for David, 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:17; 2 Sam. 1:26. Then this word is used in 2 Sam. 13:15 of the sort of love Amnon had for Tamar which was rape, certainly sexual. The first use for the 5 occurrences of ahabah in human to human love was Jacob's love for Rachel; and the last was the rape of Tamar by Amnon. The 3 other occurrences are of Jonathan and David. Then there is the phrase "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David", and the Hebrew for "knit" is (H7194 qashar). It is often pointed out that this same word used in the following of the love of father for a son:

"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up(H7194 qashar) in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30, KJV)

Therefore it is reasoned that the knitting of souls, qashar, is platonic, not in any way sexual. Yet, the REB translates v1 as:

"1–2 That same day, when Saul had finished talking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father’s house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself." (1Sam 18:1, REB)

On what basis did the REB have for translating with such a romantic sounding phrase? The reason can be found in a Hebrew-English Interlinear. The literal translation of this phrase is:

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" I put the words in proper English order.
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa18.pdf

The female pronoun "she" is included to describe the tie of Jonathan's soul to David. The pronoun "she" is missing in Gen. 44:30. It is interesting where the pronouns "she" and "he" are found in various verses in connection with the Hebrew qashar. The pronoun "she" is used in the Zondervan OT Hebrew-English Interlinear also, a 1987 Edition, placed exactly as given in the following:

H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. It has "she" in only 3 verses, 2 speaking of females, and the one speaking of Jonathan.
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".

The gender "he" is joined to qashar in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)

Context again shows in the preceding that these are referring to men, males; the pronouns being of the male gender. Moving up to the next verse in consideration:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26, KJV)

Every standard translation renders this "love of women", nowhere is it translated "love of father", "love of mother", "love of brother", "love of wife" or "love of wives"! If the verse meant love of a wife or wives the words were readily available from Genesis forward. The early Latin translations solved the perceived problem by adding a spurious sentence to the verse and this was followed in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims translation thus:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26, DRC)

That underlined sentence is not in the original and no translations since have added that fraudulent sentence. The purpose of adding "mother love" to this verse is glaringly obvious and the idea that the verse means wife or wives is as ridiculous as those who insist the "wine" in the Bible is truly "grape juice" not wine. It is claimed by some, Jesus certainly would not turn 120-180 gallons of water into a wine, a beverage containing alcohol. The same evasion as that is used trying to transform "love of women" into love of a wife or wives.

You have nowhere seen me write in support of the LGBTQ movement or same-sex marriage! You write "there are no scriptures that support homosexuality" and that is true, the word and concept did not exist in biblical times. But, you should look in detail of the account of Jonathan's love for David, which I just posted.

many homosexuals deceived try to use David and Johnathan and even Jesus love for John the apostle as some kind of homosexuality

IT is a lie from the pit of hell.

I love my son, I love my dad and I have friends who I love as much and even more than that is my expression to them that is different than my son or dad, YET it is not homosexuality. The revisionist narrative of those who are liberal progressive plans has always been to destroy the family as God intended it to be. Which liberal progression is demonic and the spirit of anti-christ.

Repeatedly I see replies accusing me of twisting scripture. Yet, I've not seen the exegesis of any verse I've examined that points out my error that makes it dishonest to the written word in the verse. Claims I am twisting a verse of scripture are meaningless unless you point out how I twisted a verse. For 50 years I've studied the Bible in large part in debate and disagreement over verses and passages of many topics in God's word. It is in the challenges and debate that you are driven to study, instead of giving just an opinion. Oddly, the most difficult errors to release myself from was dispensationalism. That took years of reading the debates, the arguments made on each side. The topic of predictive prophecy has been turned into such a convoluted, man-made system it is tough to study out of it. So, I welcome a serious rebuttal to what I've written about any verse and let's discuss it. I'm still learning and refining my beliefs on various topics. The reason I'm focusing on this particular topic is, all the postings I'd seen on it were totally of the one side, condemnation. I know from family and extended family situations within the faith and church, that called for difficult study into this. The Bible does indeed give some guidance to the person whose love and attraction is solely toward his same gender, and I shall write what I have come to see on that score as well.

Yes, you did,

in your false attack of those who are called conservative. YOU are a homosexual supporter. That is clear in your words. You took the word of God out of context then tried to make some weak defense statement to shut down those who would disagree by saying:

"A review of the tone and inferences made in many of these posts does explain why Christians are so often called "homophobic." There is another reason as well. It is known that the extremely homophobic person is usually repressing or hiding his own same-sex inclinations."


FYI, many who were homosexuals who came out of it say something just like drug addicts, drunkards, fornicators, and adulters.

mush of homosexual issues came from abuse of apparent, or no father in the home or mad women who gave birth to children that remind them of the man who did not want them. A school system is not held accountable for teaching youth how to read and tell time. 70 % of transgender commit suicide and is still happening. Gay is no happier

with laws that support this sin.
They are empty, angry, depressed, and abused. Those who did this to their children will answer to God for that. As will pastors teachers, and leaders in GOV. The devil HAS DECEIVED THEM AND LGBTQ brings ONLY torment that Christ alone can remove.

Many like you use the word of God and prompt up the victim mentality because as you said are suffering from this sin. Trying to lay it at the feet of others will not work.

You have.

you can't see what you don't know what it is. Exegesis ? You are not wanting to accept the context within the text as it is written.

Just come out and say you are gay and struggle with it. That is what I get from you or you have a close family member who is gay. Most of us do and are able to love them and call it sin as the word of God does. it is those like you who are in the way of God who works to set them free by supporting the lie, by twisting the word of God. Shame on you.

My quote from Paul was nothing to do with you except to complete the scripture 1. Corinthians 6. What you call here love and attraction the bible calls lust. Lust is always wrong whether hetro or homo.

Paul was speaking about homosexuals and transgenderism.

This will be my last post in this thread, unless I actually see someone demonstrate, show where I have twisted a verse, used an incorrect definition or taken it out of context. I will respond and discuss if I ever see a serious exegetical response instead of bigoted opinions propped up incorrectly on various texts. So, here is my last reply here, to the job of many I suppose.

A Biblical Guide for Male to Male Love

The background or culture of the Bible is based upon the family unit; male/man/husband wed to female/woman/wife with the children. The instructions for a happy married life are found in the the Bible, but there are no direct instructions to males who love only other males. The sins against marriage in the Bible are opposite sex sins, fornication and adultery. The few times sins of males with males involve sex involve rape, idolatry, promiscuity and abuse; sins found in today's definition of a "sodomite" But the Bible does have teaching that is indirectly of great help to the man who loves another man.


"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21, REB)

1. A man did not choose his race, hair color, height, family into which he was born; and likewise he does not choose who he loves, for that is an absurdity. Therefore, the sexual orientation of a man is determined by God, how He made him.
2. It is an impudence to think we can argue or challenge how God has given us the sex nature, therefore reparative therapy not only does not work, it causes one to argue with God over His decision.
3. The law of Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21 is still the law for men who love men and this verse does not alter that.
4. Why God would make a man to love other men, we are not told. Maybe it is to make the man more compassionate toward others who face life's difficulties through no fault of their own. The account of Job comes to mind; he suffered great difficulties that were not because of his sin; yet his religious, pharisaical three friends spouted doctrine and theology at him; as if they knew he sinned and brought this upon himself, misapplying God's law. The male who loves only other males will experience this same thing, especially if he attends certain churches, whether they are called fundamentalist, conservative, evangelical or right-wing.

"For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’" (Matt 19:12, REB)

While the literal word found here is "eunuch", its usage is not literal in this verse. A male who loves males is certainly not capable of a biblical allowed/described marriage, and to attempt it is a sin against himself and especially toward the unsuspecting woman. This male was determined by birth to be same-sex oriented, even if other uncertain factors may have figured in.

"I should like everyone to be as I myself am; but each person has the gift God has granted him, one this gift and another that. To the unmarried and to widows I say this: it is a good thing if like me they stay as they are; but if they do not have self-control, they should marry. It is better to be married than burn with desire." (1Cor 7:7-9, REB)

1. The oft heard solution "It's not a sin to be homosexual, just a sin to perform a homosexual act" is contradicted because abstinence from sex for a lifetime, is clearly a "gift" that not all men have, and verse 26 of this chapter shows Paul was speaking of only a temporary time of troubles where he advised the single life, not a lifetime of celibacy.
2. By definition a homosexual is one who desires sex with his same gender; but if the act is sinful; the desire or lust for it is sinful. "But what I tell you is this: If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:28, REB) The "lust" mentioned here is the Greek epithumeo and it is translated "desire" as well as "lust" in the Bible. So if the homosexual act is sin, the desire for it is sin.
3. Paul speaks of opposite sex relations here, and marriage is given as the answer if one does not have the ability to abstain from sex. But, marriage is not an option or solution to the Bible believer. But there is an answer in a wisdom book.

"Here again I saw futility under the sun: someone without a friend, without son or brother, toiling endlessly yet never satisfied with his wealth—‘For whom’, he asks, ‘am I toiling and denying myself the good things of life?’ This too is futile, a worthless task. Two are better than one, for their partnership yields this advantage: if one falls, the other can help his companion up again; but woe betide the solitary person who when down has no partner to help him up. And if two lie side by side they keep each other warm; but how can one keep warm by himself? If anyone is alone, an assailant may overpower him, but two can resist; and a cord of three strands is not quickly snapped." (Eccl 4:7-12, REB)

1. The gender indicators in this paragraph are all male so it is not speaking of marriage, even though some have thought so.
2. Some translations like the KJV, RSV, ESV add translator's words in v8 similar to "he never asks", but the ERV, ASV, NRSV and REB I've quoted stick with the Hebrew text as written.
3. This passage certainly teaches it is not good for a man to be alone, isolated so the next verse applies to him as well.

"Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I shall make a partner suited to him.’" (Gen 2:18, REB)

For a man whose desire for companionship, emotional connection and physical intimacy is solely toward other men, he must have a "partner suited to him", another man, not a woman.

"Some companions are good only for idle talk, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24, REB)

The Puritan John Trapp has an interesting comment on the last phrase of this verse:
"Such a friend is as one’s own soul, a piece so just cut for him, as answers him rightly in every joint. This is a rare happiness."

The Methodist Adam Clarke also comments on the last phrase of the verse:
"Some apply this to God; others to Christ; but the text has no such meaning."

"Love is patient and kind. Love envies no one, is never boastful, never conceited, never rude; love is never selfish, never quick to take offence. Love keeps no score of wrongs, takes no pleasure in the sins of others, but delights in the truth. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, its endurance." (1Cor 13:4-7, REB)

This description of true love must be kept in mind in any relationship, including that of male to male companionships.

Conclusion:

While each person's character, individuality may determine how the man who loves men forms his life and relationships, there is one thing I believe is of high importance; using the idea "Don't ask, don't tell" about male to male relationships. This is especially true of most churches, most families, jobs, and best in schools, grades 1-12. Once going to university, there may be more flexibility.

Just as bars and cocktail lounges are not the place for men to find a wife, it is equally true with the man seeking a male mate. Caution is advised on seeking a partner, and maybe the Internet gives a safe way to seek a suitable friend/mate. Definitely seek friendship first, don't go looking for a 'hook up'.

Even for those Christian men who only love men, and can't get away from the teaching "it is sin!"; I suggest the following by Dr. Smedes for consideration:

"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.
I think that, as a class, homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.
I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California... a Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. book.

thanks for finally cutting to the chase as someone said, and revealing what is really in your heart

appreciate it, even though we all knew pretty much that is the road you travel

I think we can sierra foxtrot tango tango now.

It does seem the real hidden issue is not a person identifying as lbgt&q, but the [ACT] of same sex people being intimate. [Clearly God made us to procreate], and same sex can never achieve the intentions of God.

But I think an even more issue exists beyond that ^

I think the lifestyle and choices become a Mental Illness to those involved [Demon Possession as well]

I've read where some altar boys, after being molested by Priests and such, believed they were born to be Same Sex Preference. So, a tragedy happened, but the end result even gets more twisted [typical of Sin cause/effect]. That is Classic Mental Illness.

I wonder how God views the Mental Illness aspect of it all, because choices are no longer being made by a SOUND mind?

If someone becomes Homosexual after being sexually Abused and Mentally Traumatized, how does a [Compassionate and Understanding God] view this?

We should apply the maximum amount of bigotry to this nonsense.