Infinite_Loser, you act like abomination is such a clear-cut term, biblically speaking. I'd be interested to know whether or not you consume shellfish. After all, they're an abomination too. (Lev 11:10-12)
I'm actually not sure you're comprehending anything
Gilda is saying though. At the core of her posts lies one important fact: the bible has been translated over...and over...and over again.
This doesn't necessarily devalue it. What it does mean, however, is that it takes a certain level of bullheadedness to claim one is certain of the message intended to be conveyed. In fact, Gilda utterly trounced your repeated claims that the bible blanketly condemns homosexuality - and I'll add nothing she stated is anything I haven't heard said before, both in my numerous classes focusing on religious studies, and from a number of clergy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you haven't gone out of your way to read each book of the bible in the original language they were written in (sometimes more than one per book!). That's OK. I wouldn't expect you to, and neither have I. However, I do recognize that there are people who HAVE studied the bible with careful consideration of both language and context, and every person I have come across that has done so has echoed Gilda's primary points.
You also conveniently ignore Gilda's point that lack of support does not equal condemnation. You're right that the bible does not expressly condone homosexuality. Seeing as how it also does not universally condemn it, it is impossible to draw a clear and certain teaching on the issue. However, there is one predominant thread in Christianity, and that is love. With that in mind, a well-educated person would be hard-pressed to claim the bible explicitly and universally condemns homosexuality, especially with regard to committed, monogamous relationships.
Perhaps it's time I revived an old signature of mine which serves to point out, among other things, that relying strictly on the face value of words is a highly flawed method of understanding a message that is being conveyed:
"There is always a gap between what is experienced within the cave of the human heart and what is expressed through words and symbols." - Stanley J. Samartha
Finally, this is all setting aside the very important point that what is appropriate for Christians in one cultural context is not necessarily appropriate for Christians in another. Regardless of the debate over how clear the bible is on homosexuality and what exactly it's trying to say, there is something the bible is very clear about
: women ought to cover their heads when in church (1 Cor 11). I hope you speak out against uncovered female heads in church with the same kind of dedication as it seems you speak out against homosexuality.
Of course, I'm being facetious. I know full well the odds are you don't believe women are required to cover their heads in church. It just goes to show, no matter how explicitly clear the text of the bible is, there are other factors to be considered as well. Most significantly, cultural context. Even if we accept that the bible is clear in its condemnation of homosexuality - which it is not - it then follows that that is not necessarily a condemnation
for our time. And that leads us to an entirely different debate altogether.
----------------------------
As an aside, while I enjoy debate that has a point, the fact is there's nothing you're going to say which will convince persons such as Gilda or myself that what you are saying is correct. No offense intended to you - I'm sure you're a nice guy - but in this particular case, I frankly think your view is uneducated. Likewise, I must also recognize that it seems nothing that is said, no matter how much is cited to support it, will serve to alter your viewpoint. So, let's just agree to disagree and allow this thread to either die, or be continued with the efforts of another member who is interested in mutual discussion and understanding as opposed to proselytizing.