How one interprets “Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman,” as a mandate to establish homosexual unions, and “Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman,” as a mandate to identify as homosexual is beyond all reason. Clearly, the verse is a prohibition of receptive anal intercourse, because to be penetrated is to be in the sexual role of a woman. So not only is the verse in question homophobic, it is misogynistic as well.
Do not confuse our modern understanding of interpersonal relationships and culture with our understanding of life in those days. In the thread that does not exist, in the discussion we never had, you would have learned that this does indeed make a great deal of sense to someone living in those times.
"Unions," were always male and female. No matter how much any person desired members of their own sex, they were married. The only exceptions to this were members of the highest upper classes (and then only gentiles) who were younger sons and prostitutes. Everyone but everyone married. It was a necessity. Adultery was limited to having a male (married or unmarried) having intercourse with a married or virgin female. It did not apply to widows beyond the age of child bearing. It did not apply to men (married or unmarried) having sex with prostitutes of either sex. Adultery laws protected a man's property and that property included his virgin daughters and wives. A defiled daughter would be difficult to marry-off successfully. A defiled wife could give birth to a child which did not belong to her husband.
Let's think of how conception was perceived in those times. A man's semen was thought to be the essence of a child. The woman only provided a womb in which that essence, what they called a, "homunculus," could grow and be born. Women were not known to have eggs or to contribute 50% of her genetic material to the child. It was thought women determined what sex the child would be. A woman was as a field. She was to be plowed, seeded, and a good woman would have a fertile womb capable of bearing many healthy sons and when enough sons were born, a girl child or two would be good to marry off to create alliances or to stay home and care for the parents in their old age.
Without the fertility of the womb, the homunculus was no more a person than a clod of dirt. It had no purpose, no anything. It was incomplete and without life as an unfertilized bird egg.
Men were believed to have an amorous ardor not entirely within their control. Women too were seen to be very sexual and willing and also uncontrollable in their lusts. This is because of the extreme misogyny that you rightfully note existed in those days. Greek and Roman women lived fairly cloistered lives, not unlike those in more conservative Islamic countries today. Women had to be chaperoned, kept locked-up, and then follow a rigid code of what men they might or might not associate with. This was done for two reasons. The first is that if they were raped they would be blamed for the rape, possibly divorced for it, and even killed. The second is that it was believed that no woman could deny the amorous advances of a man. They were so weak as to be incapable of containing their desire and so might willingly submit to adultery. They might then have sex with their husbands, a child appears, and it may never be known that the child is not his.
It's difficult to understand to us, but property and blood line was the highest point of honor to a man as was protecting his progeny in the form of legitimate children and the virtue of his maiden daughters for whom he would demand dowries. Since marriage was a social contract, not an act of love, couples would not necessarily feel any sort of loving devotion to each other and so men might reasonably expect that a wife would not necessarily feel any compunction to sleep with other men based upon anything than the fear of what would happen if discovered.
Sexual orientation is a modern concept. For the authors of Leviticus, it was not in the nature of one to be homosexual. Ergo, the verses in question do not consider the nature of the parties involved or their relationship to one another, only their behavior.
It is indeed. It was expected in those days that a man would desire beautiful women and youthful men or boys. It was not expected that women would necessarily desire each other because a) women could not give birth without a male (and isn't that, as they believed, what women really want??) and b) women were of such arduous capacity that they would seek physical affection with each other. Sex throughout the entire Bible is about men save for that one passage in Romans which you raise. Women are not mentioned sexually in the Old Testament at all save for one completely shocking incident with Noah and his daughters. That women might find sexual comfort with each other was a given all throughout the Hellenic world yet it was of so little consequence to the world of men that it wasn't even worthy of comment or rabbinical law. Virginal girls had to be careful, they couldn't rupture their hymen, but otherwise, they were free to experiment with each other just as, and I know this sounds horribly sexist, people would see same sex dogs hump each other and laugh or tolerate without comment.
The true sexual object in any home were the boys. Even in cultures today, mothers and daughters will stroke the genitals of young boys to encourage them to urinate or gain an erection to please and quiet them. This was, and in some middle eastern cultures today, still is nothing unusual. They focus upon the boys to become amorous, potent, strong, and acknowledge that a child's sexuality is not confined to masturbation, father-son talks, and females outside the home.
When women and virgin girls are so completely off-limits except at the time of formal parent-arranged and chaperoned marriage courtship, there is a vacuum of sexual outlet for boys. Prostitutes fulfill this position and did in ancient times as well. Recall the scene in Rome where the young Augustus is praised by his mother for seducing Julius Caesar. In the odd dichotomy of Hellenic culture, a male was seen as requiring sexual outlet and experience before his marriage. He should be taught how to have sex, that ejaculation in the womb is necessary, that a wise man wants to help keep his wife's eye from wandering by pleasing her, that a very young bride may not be ready for sexual intercourse and, that should he engage her too young, may ruin her fertility and so needs to seek sexual outlets elsewhere.
Throughout the middle eastern world and despite modern laws to that effect, this is still quite the norm. Unmarried males, those below the age of marriage, engaging in sexual play with each other is quite normal and expected. This is also reflected in the Hellenic ideal that only males can love each other with the most noble of loves. Love for women was paternalistic and base. A man can love his daughter, may even love his wife and mother, but then so do some of the animals and love between men and women was not of the highest order of love as love between two men could be. English itself is a large constraint in understanding this. The Greeks had numerous words for various sorts of love. We have but one.
If the verses in question are a prohibition of temple prostitution, then why is sexual intercourse between men singled out? If that is the case, then one would expect heterosexual and lesbian sexual intercourse to also be mentioned.
Women did not go to prostitutes. Simple as that. Women could go outside of the home in groups of other older women, with eunuch slaves, or with male relatives who were of age. In some cases, women had particular times where men cleared themselves from the agora and women were permitted out to shop or to go to temple -- in groups. An unchaperoned woman risked being labeled a prostitute. The Greeks themselves even permitted women to have one time a year where they would celebrate the mysteries of Demeter. During this time women left their towns to gather from all over at various places and spend a fortnight worshiping Demeter and engaging in rituals. No man was permitted to attend and, miraculously, to this day, we still don't know what went on at these rituals. It is probably one of the best kept secrets of all time.
In yet another turn on sexism, it wasn't the responsibility of women to conduct rites of worship in the home. They were assigned various tasks which we see to this day in various Jewish rituals, but it was the husband and of-age males in the home who took on priestly functions. Women could pray to God, but they could not worship. "Where three or more of you gather together," only applied to three males. If a Hebrew woman broke a commandment, a pharisee would immediately look to her husband or father or son and ask, "How could you allow this?" Remember that women were permitted next to no property. They owned their jewelry, their bed, and had right to expect their husband or father or of-age son to provide for everything else. They could not inherit without specific gift and, even then, required male representation in court and social interaction. A widow with no sons or gracious sons-in-law was well and truly fucked if she had no other family to live with. In such cases she could well sell herself into servitude and then only if the lady of the house found her old and unattractive enough not to distract her husband or other family members. In later years, among the Roman patrician classes, women did hold a number of rights (such as owning property in their own right), that earlier women did not. Roman rights depended upon being a citizen of Rome and what class you belonged to. Not all laws applied to all people subject to Rome.
