I have been peeling back this very big and complicated onion called Biblical scripture and Homosexuality.  There are Greek terms like arsenkoitai, malakoi (malalos) and to add few more, erastes and eromonos.  There are too many interpretations of arsenkoitai to get into, malakoi also has several meaning but most scholars agree that it means "soft" or "effeminate."  Which if you have read my other blogs would this would be the receiver of subjugation under Roman Law and as such would be the abused slave and used for prostitution.  Now, two new words erastes, means "older man" one who initiates anal intercourse with young men and eromenos means "young boy" the recipient of said intercourse who would be a passive partner either willingly or unwillingly.  Why doesn't Paul use these words to condemn what would be considered homosexual activities?  Why use arsenkoitai? A word that is hard find a literal translation and possibly have multiple meanings?  

Let's consider the time period, cultural norms and upheaval and religious fervor.  The time period itself is somewhere in the first century A.D. After the death and resurrection of Jesus, Paul's life time ~5 to ~65 A.D.  So somewhere in there Rome had conquered what was then most of the know world and as such there was a blending of Greek and Roman culture now known today as Greco-Roman which meant slaves and the abuses that go on with masters and slaves.  Physical, psychological, and sexual.  And not just between men and women but the men (the slave owners) and women but the women slave owner with the men and of course men owning male slaves.  The television series called Sparticus has or uses a lot of these elements, although if you do watch it I will caution you that it is brutal in violence as well as the portrayal of sex and in some cases both, nudity and violence.  

The men would be erastes and their slaves could be eromenos; Active and receptive partner respectively.  However, there are some articles the elude to the fact often the cultural norm would be for tutor/teacher to take on a student and in order to train the student, the student would have to submit to the teacher sexually and that brings us to pedestry which Paul was referring to but perhaps instead of a using two different words he wanted something more impactful that covered not just the whole slave/prostitution thing but also the abuse of authority as one would have as a teacher versus a student.  Arenkoitai could address this issue as stated in an earlier post about abusing position of power and wealth as well as prostitution, adultery and idolatry.  Realistically, married men (and some women) were committing these atrocities for their own pleasure so enslaving other humans, trafficking them, forcing them to have sexual relations for gain of socio-economic status should be condemned.  Idolatry goes all the way back to the book of Genesis.  Idolatry as defined by the Harper Collins book the biblical companion (okay not the exact title) is any object that is made with human hands and worshiped such as a bull (Minoan Society/Greco-Roman Mythos) or the stars, pagan rituals or other rituals seen as "un-Godly." 

What about the romantic love?  Many scholars both secular and biblical believe that Paul was not condemning same-sex relationship of a consensual nature.  For example David and Jonathan that professed their loyalty to one another and kissed, the reader is given the impression that this is just not a kiss on the cheek but a deeply romantic kiss.  And yet, David becomes the leader of a nation and devout servant of God so how is the romantic love between two men wrong?  

I believe you love who love and you are who you are, God created us man and woman and trans people are men and women, I mean not unless there is was to be surgically altered to be a cat???  But it is still the binary, only on a spectrum and most people fall into either/or categories according to their daily habits.  A lot of men today might be seen as soft or effeminate by social standards in the time of Paul.