First,
frogza, thank you for expressing your thoughts on a charged issue in a respectful manner.
The biggest problem with the bible isn't the bible itself, it's how most people read it - i.e. without making any attempt to put it in
context.
That said, as I fall into the "movement to remove homosexuality rules from Christendom," I would like to point out that I, and the majority of respected religious scholars, believe the "mainstream Christian view" to be lacking in historical context and, by extension, wrong.
willravel: The idea that rules on homosexuality are included in the bible due to health concerns is also not quite correct. It's a popularly held thought - and one that makes sense from our modern perspective - but in my studies (both personal and academic) on the issue, it has become clear that, when looked at in historical context, the reasoning for the decree in Leviticus was actually quite different.
At the time it was written, the idea of marriage as something done out of love was not exactly the norm. Women were literally considered to be property. So, the statement in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is in reference to this. For a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman is to place the other man, sexually, in the same position as the woman, thus treating him as property is treated, which is not how men should be treated.
Now, there are a few other areas of the bible where homosexuality is criticized, and again they are almost always read out of context. For example, the statements against homosexuality in Romans have little to do with homosexuality itself and everything to do with differentiating the fledgling religion that would become "Christianity" from the dominant "pagan" religions in the area in which same sex relations were relatively common.
And, remember, we're talking about the time of the Roman Empire here. Homosexual relationships were incredibly well established, even among those who were not biologically homosexual. The same can be said for the Egyptians and the Greeks. Anyone who has studied a little history knows of the Spartan penchant for homosexual relationships among their men.
So, even if we set aside the
terrible need to at least attempt to put the bible in historical context, which I believe is ignored by 90% of those who purport to follow the bible, a logical argument can also be made against the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Jesus preached about
many things, but one thing suspiciously missing from his teachings is any mention of homosexuality! Now let's be fair here: homosexuality would have been very common in the time Jesus was teaching. Does it make any sense whatsoever that
not once did he mention that this very common practice of the time should be considered wrong?
None of this needs to challenge the idea of the bible as a holy book, the word of god, or whatever you want to believe it is. All it means is that we must recognize that, regardless of what the words of the bible represent, we are interpreting those words ourselves. If one wants to have any hope of a relatively accurate interpretation, that requires applying a great deal of historical context to everything that is written. The methods of thought prevalent across the times when the various books of the bible were written are so drastically different from our own, attempting to directly apply any sort of modern reading to the texts is a sure method of achieving failure in interpreting them.