The Bible and homosexuality

A good portion over the debate on homosexual clergy and the church's acceptance of homosexuality in general is going to revolve around Bible's teaching on the matter. As I mentioned on Aug 6, there are those who argue that the the core texts of Christianity are not generally applicable to the modern world. I'm not quite sure what these people mean when they call themselves Christians. There are, however, two important readings of the Bible which stake out two opposing sides on the issue of homosexuality. First off, I don't have a dog in this fight. I regard the Bible as a source of ancient wisdom and have studied it for that wisdom. I don't hold it to be a better source than Aristotle, Confucius, Seneca, Zeno, Diogenes, or a host of other sources of ancient wisdom. If it doesn't agree with me I am OK with that. I do want to know what the book says for its own sake, and that's how I present it here. I rather think that many disputants on this issue will tend to select the outcome they want and then select the interpretation that agrees with their desired outcome.

One interpretation holds that what appear to be injunctions against homosexuality are in fact attacks on temple prostitution in foreign religions. Being strictly monotheist, neither the early Jews nor Christians get along well with those worshiping other gods or people as gods. It was the early Christians refusal to humor the emperors that got them condemned to the lions, you may recall. Likewise with eating meat with gentiles, fashioning golden calves, and marrying foreign women. Early Jews had observed that in a sufficient number of cases, adopting foreign customs led to worshiping foreign gods. So an injunction against behaving like they do in cult X or temple Y is not a criticism of homosexuality itself, but in adopting the customs of those who worshiped false gods.

The other interpretation is that we are commanded to be procreative. Certainly there are texts that fit this case. But are they specific or general? Its one thing to be fruitful and multiply in a frontier area like 19th century Utah or 2nd millennium BCE Galilee. Its another thing to be pro-natal all the time. If we are commanded by the deity to have children, then at best homosexuality is not proscribed conduct, at worst it is against the right order of things. Then again so is a celibate priesthood.

Which of these interpretations is primary? I'm willing to grant that both have some truth. What is harder to discern, and will take further reading is how general are these principles, does one have primacy over the other? Possibilities logically incude the following:
1) Both are general rules, we must not be homosexual and we must procreate
2) We must not be homosexual, procreation is optional (the Catholic anti-sex position, sex is a product of the fall, its an easy route to sin, unless procreatuve)
3) Procreation is mandatory, homosexuality is acceptable as long as it doesn't prevent procreation (or bisexuality is OK, exclusive homosexuality isn't)
4) Procreation is not required, but is good, homosexuality is fine, unless it leads to the worship of false gods.

What is most important in terms of the text is to know what the text actually says. Pretending it says what you want it to day is intellectually dishonest, even if you regard it as no more sacred than Sapho's poetry.