http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/03/my-take-the-bible-really-does-condemn-homosexuality/?hpt=C2

“I don’t think you could find a work from a contrasting point of view that has as much research and substance to back it up. If there is one, someone let me know.”

Well, equally learned books from a ‘liberal’ viewpoint now exist, though they failed to attract any comment by Gagnon : Susan Ackerman, When Heroes Love. The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (New York, Columbia University Press, 2005), and Jean-Fabrice Nardelli, Homosexuality and Liminality in the ‘Gilgamesh’ and ‘Samuel’ (Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert, 2007). Both of these scholars exhibit an impressive erudition, not only in Hebrew, but, unlike Gagnon, in the cuneiform languages too, with Nardelli deploying a first-hand knowledge of Egyptian. Equally unlike Gagnon, they do not confine themselves with English-speaking scholarship, but use German and even French erudition.

For those interested in reading a detailed rebuke of Gagnon’s handling of the Leviticus ban, Nardelli has a 3000-word reply which bristles with bibliography and ancient evidence at http://eruditionis-causa.blogspot.com/2010/06/gagnon-on-condemnation-of-same-gender.html

Considering that Christianity – with the death-resurrection of Christ – may have appealed on some level to the followers of Cybele (or perhaps even been confused with a subset of the Cybele Cult), it would makes sense on some level for Paul to wish to make a distinction.

i agree that the wherefore, or therefore, or for this reason, depending on translation that begins verse 24 is critical information.

The description in verses 21-23 describe idolatry. Archeologists have documented a specific fertility religion in Rome centered on Cybele and Attis. Attis was a castrated god. Priests, at least some of whom were heterosexual according to remaining graffiti, castrated themselves to become Cybele, the goddess, and had sex with worshippers to invoke Cybele’s blessing of fertility.

It isn’t that esoteric or obscure a piece of information, there is no excuse for someone of Gagnon’s self-reported authority not knowing about, and applying, this information. Its even in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele

I don’t have “the answer” as to what Paul was trying to say, but this whole passage just sort of reminded me of the wholesale hedonism of a 70′s rock star.

As far as I can tell, it means that god turned people gay because they had already abandoned him. That was their punishment: to be made gay even though they were actually straight.

Ask anyone who has tried to be ex-gay aobut the futulity and the painof trying to be osmething you are not.

Wardell Pomeroy, half of the kinsey team, said this to me personally 30 oddyears ago: “More nonsense has been written on homosexuality than any other subject except for the true nature of God.”

End of story.

Here’s another: Romans 1:24-27

This passage begins with a concept that specifically communicates that whatever has come before is crucial to understanding what follows. Yet Gagnon deliberately avoids that information.

What is in the prior passages? An explicit context-setting description of cultic fertility rituals and idolatry.

“21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. ”

It is scholastic fraud to omit this information from his argument. Paul is arguing that the sexual abandon of fertility cults is the result of abandoning God and worshiping idols, man-made gods instead.

As readers here know, GLBTQ people do not exchange or abandon heterosexuality. But there is graffiti about the priests and priestesses of Cybele and Attis, the religion Paul was most likely addressing, that indicate that at least some, if not most, were heterosexual in their orientation.

Nor can we ignore that Paul’s point does not end where Gagnon ended it. It continues through a list of character traits that apply to just about anyone manifestation any prejudice, including homophobes, and readily visible in Gagnon’s own writings. And it concludes with the key statement that Gagnon violates:

“1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

Gagnon’s interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9 indicates a huge moral failing on his own part – the inability to distinguish between injustice and justice.

There’s another problem with the passage itself – as interpretted by Gagnon, it makes heterosexuality a condition for eternal life, yet Christ imposed no such condition.

One other thought, Gagnon’s argument about the complementality of the genders as proof that homosexuality is sin, is countered by Christ’s assertion that in heaven that marriage is irrelevant:

“29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” Matthew 22

The phrase ‘like the angels’ has oft been interpreted to indicate having no gender.

And Paul in Galations 3:28:
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And of course, we should not neglect: Revelations 14:4: “These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb.” Which though traditionally interpreted as referring to celibate also applies to gay men.