Why is Bigamy wrong?

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, Rand, and what I was saying clearly went over your head as well. Thank you for stating something I already knew (and, by the way, already posted myself!)

The point is that certain people on this board proclaim to be Christians and yet, when it comes down to it, prefer the Old Testament and not, like, the actual teachings of Christ himself which override the old commandments pretty much.

And, you're also wrong on the non-existance of Jesus part. There's pretty strong evidence that Jesus did live. Him being God's son is another matter, of course. But if you're doubting Jesus, you might as well doubt the existance of Ptolemy or Socrates.

[RandBlade]

There's a very simple rational explanation.

The Bible is an amalgamation of different writings made by different humans from different perspectives facing different eras and issues. Therefore it is completely inconsistent. That allows today's humans to pick and choose a passage that backs what they wanted to believe anyway.

Since they believe the Bible to be inspired by God it can't be inconsistent, therefore by having one solitary passage to support them QED the rest of the Bible supports them to as its the Word Of God (TM).

[Aimless]

Those of you here who're fairly religious Christians and/or have made a study of the Bible: do you agree with that assessment? If so, do you find it problematic on a personal level? If not, what're your thoughts on the apparently rampant internal inconsistency in the Bible?

[Lewkowski]

Those of you here who're fairly religious Christians and/or have made a study of the Bible: do you agree with that assessment? If so, do you find it problematic on a personal level? If not, what're your thoughts on the apparently rampant internal inconsistency in the Bible?

The bible is remarkably internally consistent. Its easy to take things out of context of course. The most common being "Judge not lest ye be judged." This was talking about stoning someone. It is not a statement suggesting that we should not have laws. And certainly it is not a statement against pointing out the wrong doings in others in order to admonish them and show them the right path. Yet on the internet if I had a nickle for every time someone used that to say Christians shouldn't point out the wrong doings of others...

[Ominous Gamer]

Lewk is back finally, maybe he can finally explain how he took Santroum's comments out of context when constructing this thread?

[Lewkowski]

capital punishment for toothpaste theft, or during the defense of toothpaste? whether by society or by individuals. citation needed

Capital punishment in general. Obviously toothpaste theft isn't mentioned in the bible nor is the accidental killing of the criminal by the store clerk capital punishment.

[Lewkowski]

All the bible quoting is scaring Lewk away. I'm still waiting for him to explain himself on this extremely transparent attempt to justify Santroum's misquoted remark.

Boggle? My beef would be that polygamy is not wrong. How can one type of sexual relationship between consenting adults be OK with liberals if another one isn't? By the way I dislike Santorum's comment because he equates polygamy with homosexuality and the bible is clearly against homosexuality and clearly not against polygamy.

[Aimless]

Capital punishment in general. Obviously toothpaste theft isn't mentioned in the bible nor is the accidental killing of the criminal by the store clerk capital punishment.

What was accidental about it?

[Lewkowski]

What was accidental about it?

Based on the story the man was trying to hold him until police came.

[Ominous Gamer]

clearly

you keep using this word, i don't think it means what you think it means

[RandBlade]

It's crystal clear to me that the bible views polygamy as more acceptable than homosexuality.

[CitizenCain]

The point is that certain people on this board proclaim to be Christians and yet, when it comes down to it, prefer the Old Testament and not, like, the actual teachings of Christ himself which override the old commandments pretty much.

See, and this is that thing you do [again/still], where you clearly don't have half a clue about the topic at hand, but somehow don't have a problem talking out of your ass about it, as you were a well-studied expert. In point of fact, the teachings of Christ [explicitly, as said by Christ himself] do NOT override the Old Testament. ("Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." [KJV, M5.17])

Those of you here who're fairly religious Christians and/or have made a study of the Bible: do you agree with that assessment?

Rand's assessment? It's not so much an assessment of the Bible as it is an assessment of a certain vocal type of "Christian." So, enjoy trying to cram Rand's round peg into that square hole, I guess.

It's crystal clear to me that the bible views polygamy as more acceptable than homosexuality.

That's actually not the Biblical position, and regardless of what you may hear, or may come to believe by yanking something out of all of its context, there's no Biblical prohibition against either homosexuality or polygamy.

[Aimless]

Based on the story the man was trying to hold him until police came.

He chased him down, which was not accidental, and he "held" him in such a way as to choke him to death. I suppose it's possible he "accidentally" knocked him down and "accidentally" gripped him around the throat or something and then "accidentally" kept it up until the man "accidentally" died

[Lewkowski]

That's actually not the Biblical position, and regardless of what you may hear, or may come to believe by yanking something out of all of its context, there's no Biblical prohibition against either homosexuality or polygamy.

Try reading it again when it comes to homosexuality.

[Lewkowski]

He chased him down, which was not accidental, and he "held" him in such a way as to choke him to death. I suppose it's possible he "accidentally" knocked him down and "accidentally" gripped him around the throat or something and then "accidentally" kept it up until the man "accidentally" died

He purposefully chased him. He purposefully held him down. He accidently killed him, which is quite possible to do in the heat of the moment when you have someone in a choke hold.

[RandBlade]

That's actually not the Biblical position, and regardless of what you may hear, or may come to believe by yanking something out of all of its context, there's no Biblical prohibition against either homosexuality or polygamy.

Not by Christ, but it is in Leviticus isn't it? Of course Leviticus bans nearly everything, but hypocrites only highlight what they're already bigoted against for their own reason. Still as little sense as it may make to highlight it, it is there.

[Steely Glint]

Try reading it again when it comes to homosexuality.

Where exactly do you get off saying stuff like this when every time Cain has challenged you on the Bible you've run away?

[Aimless]

He purposefully chased him. He purposefully held him down. He accidently killed him, which is quite possible to do in the heat of the moment when you have someone in a choke hold.

So basically his purposeful actions led to someone's death. "I had no idea being choked could kill a person!!" And then you have the nerve to accuse "liberals" of bending over backwards to defend bad things.

[Steely Glint]

I think the issue isn't the intentions of the killer, but rather Lewkowski's expressions of approval at the outcome which clearly show that he thinks death is an appropriate punishment. There's even been one case where the guy who killed the criminal has expressed remorse and regret but Lewk was still all "no i am glad he killed that guy he might have gone on to steal some toothpaste and then where would we be huh answer that one liberals".

[CitizenCain]

Not by Christ, but it is in Leviticus isn't it?

Nope.

Wait, let me guess, you're reading it English without the relevant context, aren'tcha? (As is Lewk, apparently. Surprise, surprise )

Regarding the prohibition in Leviticus, look at the original wording (in Hebrew) - it has a very specific usage and meaning, which is not "homosexuality." (Use the Google, as I'm sacking out imminently.) Likewise, the NT allusions to that particular statute, in the original Greek, use words that are more specific in their meaning than the translation to the rather broad English term would indicate.

And while you're looking at stuff, you might want to think about why that statute is in Leviticus, but there is no condemnation of the homosexual acts recorded in Genesis (prior), and why that specific statute was one of the very few statutes that exist in Leviticus but is absent in Deuteronomy (written after Leviticus)... and what that means regarding whether or not homosexuality is actually "wrong" or "a sin" according the Bible.

Where exactly do you get off saying stuff like this when every time Cain has challenged you on the Bible you've run away?

I choose to believe he said it knowing it would give me a huge laugh, given that we've done this exact same dance on this exact same topic (with the exact same result you mentioned) at least half a dozen times that I can recall off the top of my head.

[RandBlade]

I don't speak Hebrew.

[Lewkowski]

Where exactly do you get off saying stuff like this when every time Cain has challenged you on the Bible you've run away?

We've gone round and round on it. The bible is perfectly clear both in the old testament and the new testament. Go back and visit the old Atari CC threads.

As another point since you don't believe the plain language the bible is in ask yourself why Christian denominations who put a premium on biblical doctrine almost universally view homosexuality as sinful. Sure some denominations don't but those folks tend to view the bible as being "set in stone."

[wiggin]

Nope.

Wait, let me guess, you're reading it English without the relevant context, aren'tcha? (As is Lewk, apparently. Surprise, surprise )

Regarding the prohibition in Leviticus, look at the original wording (in Hebrew) - it has a very specific usage and meaning, which is not "homosexuality." (Use the Google, as I'm sacking out imminently.) Likewise, the NT allusions to that particular statute, in the original Greek, use words that are more specific in their meaning than the translation to the rather broad English term would indicate.

Er... I do read the Bible in the original Hebrew. Homosexuality per se is not prohibited (in the sense of being sexually attracted to members of the same sex), but male homosexual sex seems to be pretty clearly. The line is this (Lev 18:22):
ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה
That translates fairly straightforwardly as "A male you shall not sleep with as you sleep with a woman"; it seems pretty clear it refers at least to penetrative sex with men. Other forms of sexual contact (e.g. oral sex) may or may not be included depending on one's interpretation.

The other commonly cited verse is two chapters later (Lev. 20:13):
ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם
This translates as "A man who sleeps with a male as one sleeps with a woman; they have done an abomination; they shall be surely put to death, their blood shall be upon them". Also fairly straightforward.

The OT does not to my knowledge include any verses prohibiting female homosexual activity. I can't speak to the original languages of the NT.

(Note I am not advocating for or against these verses; just saying that the original Hebrew is pretty clear. I'm very curious how you think the Hebrew can be read otherwise.)

And while you're looking at stuff, you might want to think about why that statute is in Leviticus, but there is no condemnation of the homosexual acts recorded in Genesis (prior), and why that specific statute was one of the very few statutes that exist in Leviticus but is absent in Deuteronomy (written after Leviticus)... and what that means regarding whether or not homosexuality is actually "wrong" or "a sin" according the Bible.

Er.. there are a lot of sexual laws missing from the sections in Deuteronomy that discuss sexual morality, not just male homosexual sex. And there are lots of laws in Leviticus more broadly that never get repeated in Deuteronomy. Reading anything into that is largely an exercise in futility.

I'm also curious where you think there's homosexual acts in Genesis that are not condemned. To my knowledge, the only possible case of homosexual intentions in Genesis is from the story of Lot in Sodom (Genesis 19), and the townspeople are not portrayed in a positive light. It's unclear whether they are being condemned for their intentions wrt rape, homosexual rape, or poor hospitality, but it definitely is seen in a negative light. What other examples were you referring to? Even if there were, there are plenty of things that happen in Genesis that go contrary to later Biblical law - perfect example being Jacob's marriage to two sisters.


I'd suggest you learn Hebrew before you start making claims about it.

[nowandthen]

Do unto others as you would do to yourself, right? Now for polygamy being wrong, I suppose is has mostly to do in what kind of society you live and what marriage is intended for, how many potential males/females are available for marriage and so on....

[CitizenCain]

We've gone round and round on it. The bible is perfectly clear both in the old testament and the new testament. Go back and visit the old Atari CC threads.

Yeah, going back to the ACC threads still shows you vanishing from threads where anyone able to demonstrate any substantial level of Biblical knowledge in a disagreement with your proclamations about what the Bible does or doesn't say.

As another point since you don't believe the plain language the bible is in ask yourself why Christian denominations who put a premium on biblical doctrine almost universally view homosexuality as sinful.

We already know the answer to that, and it's because those you mention don't actually give a shit about the Bible or the teachings of Jesus (or the older Hebrew prophets). If they did, they'd attach the same weight to the other Levitican laws and codes as they do to the killing [MALE] homosexuals thing. Those codes about agricultural efficiency being a sin, permissible hairstyles (God doesn't just hate fags, he hates shaved sideburns too!), menstruating women, etc. But the plainly obvious reason they attach to the anti-homosexual passage and ignore the rest is because they're just looking for any flimsy justification they can grab hold of to hate on gays or validate their homophobia/discomfort with the "intimate man-dance"/whatever.

And I think Jesus had something to say about those types of people... you know, the ones who follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit... I don't remember exactly, but I think it wasn't favorable.

And just real quick @ wiggin, since I'm kinda late as it is...

Er.. there are a lot of sexual laws missing from the sections in Deuteronomy that discuss sexual morality, not just male homosexual sex. And there are lots of laws in Leviticus more broadly that never get repeated in Deuteronomy. Reading anything into that is largely an exercise in futility.

Oh, is it, now?

Maybe I'm weird, or super-brilliant or something, but when I looked at the latest revision of the US federal code, and noticed that the embargo enacted against the British during the American Revolution War was no longer in there, I assumed it to mean that the US federal government no longer prohibited commerce with the British. I wonder if that same general line of thought might be applicable to other types of Law as well, and shed some light on the current question at bar.

I'd suggest you learn Hebrew before you start making claims about it.

Thanks, I'm all set on that. Greek too, by the by.

[Steely Glint]

We've gone round and round on it.

Really? When? In fact, when have you ever gone 'round and round' on anything, rather than slinking off in shame every time you encounter any kind of serious or well reasoned opposition that you can't immediately fob off with some herp derp liberals liberals talking point you parroted from some bottom of the barrel conservative pundit who makes a living by affirming the prejudices of thick people?

Go back and visit the old Atari CC threads.

Not there any more, AFAIK.

As another point since you don't believe the plain language the bible is in ask yourself why Christian denominations who put a premium on biblical doctrine almost universally view homosexuality as sinful.

Sure some denominations don't but those folks tend to view the bible as being "set in stone."

Because homosexuality makes them feel icky, and they're looking for some sort of wider justification for their gut reaction? Let me turn that on its head and instead ask you to ask yourself why if these fuckers are so "set in stone" about the bible they don't follow all the other prohibitions about, e.g. what type of seafood is ok to eat literally and to the letter? It's only something set in stone that has to be followed literally when that can be used as a weapon against people whose existence offends them.

[wiggin]

Oh, is it, now?

Maybe I'm weird, or super-brilliant or something, but when I looked at the latest revision of the US federal code, and noticed that the embargo enacted against the British during the American Revolution War was no longer in there, I assumed it to mean that the US federal government no longer prohibited commerce with the British. I wonder if that same general line of thought might be applicable to other types of Law as well, and shed some light on the current question at bar.

If you're looking at the Bible from a religious standpoint (which is the only relevant one for this discussion), Deuteronomy is not seen as a revision of Leviticus, but a brief repetition of many (but not all) laws from Exodus-Numbers. It's theoretically written by Moses (or at least transcribed from him). Obviously Biblical scholars would suggest differently, that the Deuteronomists were a much later addition to the Bible, but that's largely irrelevant.

The reason I said it was an exercise in futility, though, was that there's a lot of laws (including sexual morality laws) that are not repeated in Deuteronomy that seem just as relevant, and I find it unlikely they would be permitted now, either. For example: sex with an aunt, a sister-in-law, a stepdaughter, a daughter-in-law, and a granddaughter. Trying to read something into omission in the Bible is very challenging - regardless of your views on authorship.

Thanks, I'm all set on that. Greek too, by the by.

Okay, if you know Hebrew so well, why don't you actually respond to my post and explain your previous reasoning? You pretty much ignored my entire post.

[BalticSailor]

ask yourself why Christian denominations who put a premium on biblical doctrine almost universally view homosexuality as sinful.

Rule 12 violation here, but my guess would be "jealousy". This thought came to me after somebody asked me why do Christians dislike homosexuals so much, but don't seem to particularly mind asexuals, who go against all that "be fruitful and multiply" thing, which is the only reson people (should) fuck. According to most bible-based arguments against homosexuality, anyway.

[CitizenCain]

If you're looking at the Bible from a religious standpoint (which is the only relevant one for this discussion),

Well, no, that's not actually the case. The discussion, as I see it (or the part I'm even marginally "interested" in) is the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, "according to the Bible." The answer to that question lies not in a "religious standpoint" but in a factual analysis of what's written in the Bible, taking the relevant contextual considerations (historical, cultural, and linguistic) into account.

You can address it from a religious standpoint as well, but that frankly only complicates matters without changing much in the analysis of the specific question at bar.

And if you open up that can of worms, you have to address the reason behind "the Law," and the reasoning for specific statutes and decrees - for surely a just a merciful god (as both the Torah and Bible say Yahweh is) would need a good reason for his edicts, by definition of the terms "just" and "merciful."

And, indeed, this is an important consideration, at least as it relates to Christianity, which (unlike Judaism) is explicitly unconcerned with the legalistic "letter-of-the-Law" reading of the Torah, but focused on worshiping and honoring Yahweh by following the "spirit-of-the-Law" instead. By the very nature of that approach, one must understand the reasoning and intent of the the Law, obviously.

So throwing in the "religious standpoint" only emphasizes the need to analyze and interpret, which is what we started out doing anyway.

Deuteronomy is not seen as a revision of Leviticus, but a brief repetition of many (but not all) laws from Exodus-Numbers. It's theoretically written by Moses (or at least transcribed from him). Obviously Biblical scholars would suggest differently, that the Deuteronomists were a much later addition to the Bible, but that's largely irrelevant.

Point being?

The reason I said it was an exercise in futility, though, was that there's a lot of laws (including sexual morality laws) that are not repeated in Deuteronomy that seem just as relevant, and I find it unlikely they would be permitted now, either. For example: sex with an aunt, a sister-in-law, a stepdaughter, a daughter-in-law, and a granddaughter.

Well, first I'd ask you on what you base your reasoning for that position (unrepeated statutes being just as relevant as the repeated ones), given that the position seems to fly in the face of basic logic and the way the world (or at least human beings) "work." There's a reason some statutes were repeated and some were not - if not for the ostensible cause of continued relevance (or at least relative importance), then for what reason?

Trying to read something into omission in the Bible is very challenging - regardless of your views on authorship.

As is anything worthwhile. "If it was easy, everyone would do it." That it's not easy is hardly a valid reason to avoid doing it, or to half-ass the exercise.

Okay, if you know Hebrew so well, why don't you actually respond to my post and explain your previous reasoning? You pretty much ignored my entire post.

And what of it do you think needs addressed? As you pointed out, the Levitican statutes in the original Hebrew do not prohibit homosexuality/homosexual sexual acts, as many English-speaking bigots and homophobes using the Bible to justify their prejudices like to claim, but specifically prohibit only male-on-male coitus. Yup, exactly, thanks for saying it long, or something.

And of course, going down the path of trying to answer the question being begged (why only "fags" and not "dykes" too?) ends up in the same place as I started at - there's no Biblical prohibition against homosexuality, and in absence of the historical and cultural contexts that are the causes of the prohibition against male-on-male sexual intercourse in Leviticus, the statute has no relevance, and thus is not applicable today... much like the rest of the cleanliness codes in Leviticus and other specific Levitican statutes that modern Christians ignore as no longer being relevant/applicable. (I'd also say that there's no rational reason they should apply to the modern Jewish faith either, but that's a whole different discussion).

"be fruitful and multiply" thing, which is the only reson people (should) fuck.

Another thing you hear a lot that's just not Biblically supported. It does not follow from "be fruitful and multiply" that sexual activity is solely for the purposes of procreation.

[wiggin]

This might easily lead to fisking, but I don't see a way to respond to your post as a whole. Sorry.

Well, no, that's not actually the case. The discussion, as I see it (or the part I'm even marginally "interested" in) is the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, "according to the Bible." The answer to that question lies not in a "religious standpoint" but in a factual analysis of what's written in the Bible, taking the relevant contextual considerations (historical, cultural, and linguistic) into account.

You can address it from a religious standpoint as well, but that frankly only complicates matters without changing much in the analysis of the specific question at bar.

And if you open up that can of worms, you have to address the reason behind "the Law," and the reasoning for specific statutes and decrees - for surely a just a merciful god (as both the Torah and Bible say Yahweh is) would need a good reason for his edicts, by definition of the terms "just" and "merciful."

And, indeed, this is an important consideration, at least as it relates to Christianity, which (unlike Judaism) is explicitly unconcerned with the legalistic "letter-of-the-Law" reading of the Torah, but focused on worshiping and honoring Yahweh by following the "spirit-of-the-Law" instead. By the very nature of that approach, one must understand the reasoning and intent of the the Law, obviously.

So throwing in the "religious standpoint" only emphasizes the need to analyze and interpret, which is what we started out doing anyway.

I see what you're saying, but you're treating the Bible as a book in a vacuum and trying to apply some sort of forensic methods to determine the alleged sinfulness or not about a specific activity. The problem is you're ignoring the fact that forensic methods (including modern analytical methods) to the concept of sin, which is a religious one. Ignoring the beliefs Christianity or Judaism or Islam may have about the book, it's still clear that the book itself claims to be the direct word of Moses; from a perspective of sin, you really have to take it at its word to have a meaningful discussion. Do you see what I'm saying? A religious person may intellectually understand your argument if you base it on Biblical criticism, but they won't care one iota, as it is completely irrelevant to their understanding of the book and sins enumerated thereof.

As for the reasons behind a law, I think you're going to find that very hard to justify on a strict textual reading (which is really what we're doing - we're just asking is X considered wrong by the Bible, while Y is not). There are LOTS of very famous laws in the Bible for which no reason is given or self-evident - classical case being wearing mixtures of wool and linen (I've always thought this particular example actually wasn't as good as some others, but I won't belabor the point by that digression). The reason given for homosexual sex (that it is an 'abomination') isn't much explanation, and I think you'll be hard pressed to come up with strong evidence what that means, given its blanket application to sexual morality laws and lots of other unrelated laws. So, absent textual evidence, your entire discussion about reasons will be speculative in the extreme.

To my knowledge, BTW, I don't think we're actually discussing whether a religion in particular believes X or Y - Lewk was pretty clear in wondering about what the Bible says and contrasting it with what Christians actually believe or do. I'm just discussing the former; the latter is not my area of expertise.

Point being?

The point being that addition or subtraction in Deuteronomy compared to Exodus-Numbers is hard to justify as modification of the law if they are believed to be by the same author. Furthermore, you have an even bigger issue - the closest relationships are largely missing from Leviticus 20 (compared to Leviticus 18). Do you mean to suggest that having sex with your mother, mother-in-law, and sister is allowed just because it's said in one set of laws and omitted in another?

Well, first I'd ask you on what you base your reasoning for that position (unrepeated statutes being just as relevant as the repeated ones), given that the position seems to fly in the face of basic logic and the way the world (or at least human beings) "work." There's a reason some statutes were repeated and some were not - if not for the ostensible cause of continued relevance (or at least relative importance), then for what reason?

My position isn't that they're 'as relevant' (though I would say they were - see my point above about Lev. 20), but that they are relevant. Omission in one place doesn't mean we can ignore commission in another. Deuteronomy is missing all sorts of stuff (and it adds a few new things); do you honestly believe that you can follow a separate Deuteronomic code just because it's not a complete repetition of the laws?

As for the reasons for each and every omission or commission, I don't disagree that it's likely there are reasons (easiest answer being given by Biblical critics, though as I argued before it's irrelevant), but knowing with any degree of certainty what they are is another matter entirely. The text is pretty clear IMO, and to pretend otherwise is silly.

And what of it do you think needs addressed? As you pointed out, the Levitican statutes in the original Hebrew do not prohibit homosexuality/homosexual sexual acts, as many English-speaking bigots and homophobes using the Bible to justify their prejudices like to claim, but specifically prohibit only male-on-male coitus. Yup, exactly, thanks for saying it long, or something.

Uhm? You said there was no Biblical prohibition against homosexuality, not that some homosexual acts may be allowed. That's what I was objecting to, and it seems you agree with me. The Bible obviously says nothing about homosexual feelings, but has something to say about penetrative sex. Everything in between is a matter of interpretation - I'd say it's probably universal that no one would have a Biblical issue with homosexual hand-holding (even romantically inclined hand-holding). What about kissing? Living together chastely? Heavy petting? Mutual masturbation? Oral sex? Obviously across the spectrum of a religion some or all of these acts may be seen as allowable (depending on one's interpretation of 'mishk'vei isha'), but that doesn't mean the Bible provides a blanket allowance for homosexual acts - in fact, it specifically forbids at least one. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

You suggested there was some magical reading of the original Hebrew that would change the meaning of the verse. I have yet to see any support for your position.

(Also, you ignored my question about Genesis.)

And of course, going down the path of trying to answer the question being begged (why only "fags" and not "dykes" too?) ends up in the same place as I started at - there's no Biblical prohibition against homosexuality, and in absence of the historical and cultural contexts that are the causes of the prohibition against male-on-male sexual intercourse in Leviticus, the statute has no relevance, and thus is not applicable today... much like the rest of the cleanliness codes in Leviticus and other specific Levitican statutes that modern Christians ignore as no longer being relevant/applicable. (I'd also say that there's no rational reason they should apply to the modern Jewish faith either, but that's a whole different discussion).

Uhm, you're reading something into omission again. Two points: a conservative viewpoint would argue that Leviticus 18 is only addressed to men, and that the equivalent female sexual encounters are also forbidden. It would also point out that a man having sex with his daughter is not explicitly forbidden there, but to suggest it's allowed is absurd, suggesting that the obviousness of the prohibition renders it unnecessary to say - implying that the same could be applied to female sexual encounters. A more liberal position would argue that just because an entirely different act (lesbian sex) is not forbidden has no bearing on whether male penetrative homosexual sex is forbidden. I don't understand your lumping of the two together; they are only lumped together in the modern consciousness, and that's hardly relevant to the question of whether the Bible forbids it.

You're again making the mistake of trying to reconcile Christian behavior with the text of the Bible. It's clear the Bible does have a prohibition against some male homosexual acts. The issue of why Christians follow X and not Y is not my concern. Arguing the 'statute has no relevance' for a modern religion is completely missing the point. Does or does not the Bible specifically prohibit male homosexual sex? If you answer in the affirmative, then we agree and I'm done here.

Another thing you hear a lot that's just not Biblically supported. It does not follow from "be fruitful and multiply" that sexual activity is solely for the purposes of procreation.

This wasn't addressed at me directly, but I wanted to voice my support for this. There's nothing in the Bible suggesting that sex itself is sinful, or that sex's sole purpose is procreation. That's a much later interpretation that is ill-supported by the OT text.