Funny how you first say that we "cannot make any certain statements about how the biblical authors would see homosexuality if they lived today," but go on to argue "that the authors really knew nothing about" homosexuality as we know it today. Which is it - can we or can we not make any certain statements? If not, then your arguments are just as useless as any I can make.
There's nothing funny about it. I said
" the authors really knew nothing about homosexuality as we know it today" and since they knew nothing of the modern gay relationship
"we cannot make any certain statements about how the biblical authors would see homosexuality if they lived today"
But perhaps you did not understand my point, so I will devulge into further detail. What I was articulating was that the modern notion of a homosexual relationship was non-existant in the society in which the bible was written. When the bible was written the authors knew of same-sex sexual acts, however, they
had no grasp of a "homosexual", as in a person who is soley attracted to a member of the same sex and seeks to engage in a romantic, life long relationship akin to the idea of a heterosexual couple. Again, the biblical writers did not see persons who engaged in same-sex sex as "homosexuals", rather they saw them as heterosexuals (for everyone's heterosexuality was assumed) who engaged in sexual relations of a homosexual nature out of excessive lust, as a consequence of idolatory, as a part of a pagan cultic practice, or to establish dominance over a male opponent.
Since we do know that the biblical authors saw homosexual acts in this context, we can recognize that they are considerably removed from the modern idea of a homosexual couple. Thus, while we can use the bible to condemn homosexual acts that are exploitive, degrading, used to dominate or associated with cults, we can not say with any degree of certainty what the Bible would have to say about a committed, monogomous, loving homosexual couple (in the sense of orientation, not soley the sexual act, as well as "couple" in the sense of two people engaged in a romantic relationship, not simply two people engaging in sex) Simply because the Bible has nothing to say about this.
Ideas about human sexuality in ancient societies are radically different from today. For example, it was assumed that in sexual intercourse, the female was always the passive partner and the male the agressive conqueror, this assumption being based on the anatomical functions of the respective sexes. However, this ignores the reciprocal nature of sex in which both partners are offering eachother up to one another, both giving and both recieving at the same time.
Secondly, ancient societies believed that the male alone produced the substance of reproduction. The semen was believed to contain all the matierial neccessary to create a child. Females were seen soley as the vehicle through which a child would be born. Hence, semen is refered to as "seed", for it was thought that the uterus was "soil" in which the child would grow.
Both of these assumptions had dramatic implications as to how society functioned and how sex was viewed. The notion of a female as the passive reciever who contributed no substance to the creation of a child helped to create and re-inforce a patriarchial society in which everything was passed through the male (as only a male was capable of passing on "genes")
When we return to homosexuality, we can see that flawed notions, such as homosexual acts arise out of excessive lust and that they always involve heterosexual people, undoubtly influenced how those societies would understand the morality of same-sex sexual interaction. This was not an issue of one person oriented to one sex or another, this was an issue of men or women choosing to be attratced to the same sex and acting upon it. They were willingly "going against nature", not only in the act but in very decision to have those attractions.
If we look to Paul, he says
"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, men abandoned their natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for another" Romans 1:26
The key words here are "exchanged" and "abandoned". What these societies assumed were that these sexual desires were the perogative of any human being; heterosexual people (the ONLY sexuality) choosing to engage in homosexual acts. Notice that Paul does not simply say that men engaged in unnatural acts, but first comments that they were "inflamed with lust". If you read Paul closely, he makes it clear that these bad choices, both the act of sex and the desire to, were the result of worshipping false gods and turning away from God.
We often look to the Bible as though it is some kind of encyclopedia, or question and answer book. - insert moral dilemna here and you will recieve the appropriate instruction. However, to study the bible without being thoroughly aware of the context in which it was written, without understanding how the author viewed human sexuality, the natural world, society, law ect. is to actually overlook the author's intentions and blindly apply things to the modern world which do not neccessarily apply and were not neccessarily the author's original intention.
Thus we can reasonably say that the bible offers no real proclaimation on the issue of modern homosexual relationships.
