"Sounds to me the Bible's anti-BI-sexual. "

That's a wild, baseless interpretation of it. Why on earth would bi-sexuality be "worse" than homosexuality? The Bible cracks down on non-reproductive sex, and on women having sex with men who are not their husbands. It is quite okay with a married man having sex with women who are not his wife (or wives) as long as they're single (presumptively unmarried servants, concubines or prostitutes). So it's okay to have sex with two women or two men, but not one woman and one man? Absurd.

The odd phrasing is due to the language being euphemistic.  It's like saying "know how you - lie down with - a woman (meaning having sex with her)? Don't do that with a guy.

It doesn't mean "don't have sex with a guy in the same way that you have sex with a woman". How is that even an issue? I mean, it's not like men have vaginas.

It's just a desperate reach to suggest that the Bible is somehow okay with homosexuality, and that Anti-gay christians are reading the Bible wrong.

The Bible really isn't that complicated. We're not talking about complex literary constructions with layers of encoded meaning. We're talking about fairly basic language with a bit of euphemism for sex talk.

++

Sounds to me the Bible's anti-BI-sexual. If a man lies with a man AS HE LIES WITH A WOMAN, well... how many gay guys lay with women? I think they're safe!

••

Nice try! Some even argue that the Bible is only anti-PRACTICING homosexuals -- that as long as you don't actually DO it, you're safe.

But Biblical language isn't that easy. For instance, the phrase is "If a man also lie with MANKIND…" (emphasis added). Are you safe, then, if you are a practicing homosexual but have not had sex with every man on Earth?

In the case of this nasty little rule, the word "as" means "in the same way", ie sexually, not "as well as". It was not uncommon for men to sleep together in those days, so it was very important to specify just what was meant by "lie".

So you fags are all damned abominations and should be killed! The Bible says so. You know. The book that's all about Love.

There's no such thing as a "potentially" homosexual child. That's like saying a "potentially" Chinese child. Homosexuality is in the genes. It is not something that is "triggered", tho in our still stupid and still repressive society, it is often something that has to be RECOGNIZED. A Gay child having Gay adoptive parents would get over that particular hurdle a lot more easily than do many Gay children in otherwise Straight households.

*****

Where's the proof that its genetic? What gene can be identified as the sexual orientation gene? Nada... Lets think logically. Saying that it needs to be RECOGNIZED is subjective to whoever is doing the recongnition.

As for adoption, one would need iron clad / beyond a shadow of a doubt proof of orientation before you could even entertain this notion.