What does the Bible say about Homosexuality? Part 2-2

What does the Bible say about Homosexuality? Part 2-2
In part 2 of this writing I will be looking at what the New testament has to say about homosexuality and address those people that are born homosexual, with a genuine attraction to members of the same sex. (Yes there really are genuinely homosexual people)
Like in the OT there are 3 main passages that are used to prove or disprove the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality in the NT. They are Romans 1-26/27 ,1 corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 timothy 1-10 
So let’s start with the verses in Romans.

Romans 1-26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 
This by the way is the only passage in the Bible that can be used to include lesbianism, although when we actually break it down it actually doesn’t.
This verse is often used by those trying to prove the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality pointing to the men and woman leaving the natural use of the other and going against nature when they engaged in homosexuality. The natural being the form of relationship that God ordained as we already saw and outlined in part 1. 
An argument against this is that a homosexual either male or female who is genuinely attracted to members of the same sex do not possess “natural” uses of the opposite sex and therefore one cannot give up or leave the natural if one does not indeed possess the natural in the first place.
Another argument is that this is again not referencing loving monogamous homosexual relationships and only referencing homosexual sex engaged in by men and woman with shrine prostitutes and or amongst themselves during fertility rituals which often included young boys and girls. Im sure that both sides of the argument would agree that these things would be condemned.
Let’s look at the passage with some context

Romans 1- 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
So here Paul is stating that the people knew who God was but that they did not glorify him as such. They became self focused. Paul continues
Romans 1-22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

The people made their own “gods” and worshipped them. They turned away from the true God for their own. 
Now notice that Paul next says WHEREFORE highlighting THIS, the worship of other gods changing the glory of God is why God gave them up to uncleanness and it was through the lusts of their own hearts that they dishonoured themselves with each other. 
Romans 1- 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Then in verse 26 again we have FOR THIS CAUSE so Paul is referring BACK to the previous verses. Then after this we are told that the woman changed the natural use and likewise the man leaving the natural use of the woman burning in their lust for one another.

Romans 1-26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
So it was because they were worshipping other “gods” that God gave them up to their vile affections.

There is as much to gain from what this verse doesn’t say as what it does. Notice how the verse doesn’t state the woman left the natural use of the man unlike how it states that the men leaving the natural use of the woman. It simply says that the woman changed the natural use which is against nature. There is no reference to a person’s “natural” sexual inclinations. The natural being referred to is the original creation, vaginal sex between men and woman. This was not women changing to lesbianism. The woman changed this natural use to that what is unnatural, anal sex. They didn’t leave the natural use of the man, they changed their own natural use. It was the men LEAVING the natural use of the woman, vaginal sex and engaged in anal sex both with females and as the verse states with other males. It is this that Paul is condemning in these verses. And it is this that God calls vile.
Many pagan cultures including the Romans engaged in sexual fertility rituals to the “gods”. These would include Anal sex rituals where men and women prostitutes would be used in order to make the dominant sexually fertile. 
Romans also had a system in place that would allow freeborn men to engage in any kind of sex including rape of slaves. Slave sex had no boundaries. As well as rape, a freeman could have sex with any slave at anytime in anyway regardless of gender or age. Young children especially boys would be forced to have sex with their masters (dominus). They would have anal sex with the slaves to “proclaim” their masculinity, their dominance over their subjects. The submissive party losing their masculinity and taking on femininity. 
I will expand more on this in another writing. 
The ritualistic sexual acts that many Romans and other pagan cultures such as the Egyptians and Greeks performed to their “gods” and dominant slave sex is almost certainly what is being referenced and condemned by Paul here in this passage. Basically non male female vaginal sex.

The New Testament does have 2 more verses that address “homosexuality”. Both these verse include a highly debatable Greek word arsenokoitai which we will look at.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
In this list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God we see both effeminate and nor abusers of themselves with mankind
It is often argued that both of these are referring to homosexuals which would be strange in itself to list the same thing twice in one verse but simply state it in a different way. It’s like saying Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male homosexuals, nor Gay men
This doesn’t make any sense at all. 
The Greek word translated as Effeminate here is μαλακοὶ malakoi and it means (a) soft, (b) of persons: soft, delicate, effeminate.
1611 definition
EFFEM’INATE, a. L. effoeminatus, from effoeminor, to grow or make womanish, from foemina, a woman. See Woman.
1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor.
2. Womanish; weak; resembling the practice or qualities of the sex; as an effeminate peace; an effeminate life.
3. Womanlike, tender, in a sense not reproachful.
EFFEM’INATE, v.t. To make womanish; to unman; to weaken; as to effeminate children.
EFFEM’INATE, v.i. To grow womanish or weak; to melt into weakness.
In a slothful peace courage will effeminate.
There is nothing in this definition that would give the correct meaning as to a homosexual male. Only those that engage in submissive homosexual acts and or demasculinize themselves.

This is actually referring to those that made themselves woman-like. Male prostitutes who would allow themselves to be the submissive for the pleasure of their clients. 
There was also a sect of Romans who were following the Phrygian Goddess Cybele. Without going into too much detail in this writing for purposes of time, they called her Magna Mater (“Great Mother”). Galli Priests would self castrate themselves to the Goddess. The Priests would put on woman’s clothes, wear Jewellery and wore their hair long. It was said that Attis the grandson and love interest of Cybele had castrated himself in a spate of madness. The Galli Priests would copy this. 
This is why the bible also has the teaching
1 corinthians 11-14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
These eunuchs/Priests would then prostitute themselves to men. 
The word is referring to a completely different practice than that of “homosexuality” although it did include homosexual sex.

It is even translated as soft in Matthew 11-7 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.
So that leaves abusers of themselves with men.
Those who claim that homosexuality is not a sin claim that this is also only referring to men that used male prostitutes defiling themselves. However unlike in the verse in Romans this cannot be substantiated here. This would also be the case if men used female prostitutes, they would defile themselves just as much. It is a very weak argument that this is referring only to male male prostitution. Male prostitution has already been covered by Paul in the effeminate. 
The Greek word used in 1 corinthians 6-9 is ἀρσενοκοῖται arsenokoitai its definition in strong’s is a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity. The word makes no distinction between prostitution or non prostitutional sex. 
The word is made up from 2 Greek words Arseno meaning man and koite meaning bed which was used by the Greeks as a euphemism for having sex. 
A major argument against this word meaning homosexual is that the word itself is a neologism a new word. It is a combination of two words together and to take each word’s literal meaning and simply imposing the 2 literal meanings together would be disingenuous. It is also claimed that a word’s meaning should be dictated by its usage at any given time. Gay for example which for the vast majority of its history meant happy now refers to a homosexual person. It would be wrong to impose a modern day meaning on a usage 100 years ago and vise versa. Doing so would corrupt the actual meaning that was meant when it was used. Paul however did not define the word in its usage therefore we cannot impose its definition upon its usage.
It is further argued that no outside of the bible usage of the word indicates that homosexual is what was being referenced.

The word is only used a handful of times in Greek writings outside of the Bible and only twice in the Bible. It is a very rarely used word indeed. 
So what did Paul mean when he used the word. Did he refer to homosexuality in general or was he simply trying to convey the condemnation of shrine prostitution and pederasty. Notice that the definition given (strongs) does not refer to homosexuals but males that participated in same sex sexual activity. Paul himself didn’t define the word so this would give the impression that what Paul was referring to needed no defining. His audience would be so aware of the thing that Paul was condemning that Paul felt no need to expand on the words usage with any further definition of it. 
Firstly we need to understand that ancient Jews and Jews at the time of Paul’s writings believed that homosexual sex (specifically male homosexual sex) was condemned by God. The existence of such a teaching therefore would not be new in itself. The Jews had many incorrect understandings regarding their own laws. Jesus corrected them on many. However Jesus never corrected them on their understanding of same sex sexual intercourse. In fact the only reference Jesus makes was to reiterate the original creation. 
Matthew 19-4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
So homosexual sex, general homosexual sex was already viewed as a sin based on the Mosaic law and against that law. Jesus rather than correcting this reiterated the original creation.

Even if we were to say that Paul was not condemning general male homosexual sex in his use there is already enough evidence to show that general male homosexual sex and not simply male shrine prostitution was condemned and viewed as wrong.

One option given is that Paul coined the word based on the rendering of the verses in Leviticus in the Greek septuagint.

Leviticus 18:22 – meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos
Leviticus 20:13 – hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos 
He simply put together the 2 words from these verses to create his new word. 
It would be like Paul saying, that thing in these verses, this is what I am referring to.

Those that oppose the view that Paul was condemning general homosexuality will state that the context of these 2 verses was male shrine prostitutes and therefore Male shrine prostitution is what is being referenced by Paul in his new words usage. However that was already disproved in part 1. So in fact actually if this is the correct assumption of how Paul did in fact coin the word then it would indeed be condemning that which was condemned in those verses which actually was the sexual act of male homosexuality and therefore substantiating the claim that general act of homosexual sex is what is being condemned by Paul in this verse. 
The word is translated to mean 2 males engaging in homosexual sex in basically every version of the NT ever written. 
The NIV and ESV for example.
1 corinthians 6-9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN. NIV
1 corinthians 6-9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor MEN WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY, ESV

However the NASB takes it further declaring simply being homosexual would be considered a sin
1 Corinthians 6-9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, NASB
Interestingly both the NIV and ESV have separated homosexuality and to that matter adulterers from sexual immorality (see my writing on sex before marriage for further details) 
In an article regarding the word arsenokoit Gaychristian101.com argues that the word did not mean homosexual and then give an example of where the word was not used to reference homosexual. 
Gaychristian 101.com states “An ancient example where the arsenokoit stem did not mean homosexual” They then quote John the faster and his use of the word in the context of a man and his wife. 
“One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling, and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). [Jacob with Leah and Rachel]
Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one’s son; another the wife of one’s brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father’s concubine.
Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”
John the Faster, Penitential, about AD 575

However it must be pointed out that although it is impossible for a man to have homosexual sex with his wife and therefore the usage here would clearly not be a reference to homosexuality , the usage of the word here equally refutes the meaning male shrine prostitution as again it is impossible to engage in male/male shrine prostitution with one’s wife.

So what did John the faster refer to as the sin of arsenokoitia. If we understand that Paul was referring to the act of male/male anal sex in Leviticus when he used the word in 1 corinthians and John the faster stated that the men were committing this with their wives obviously this can’t be the act of homosexuality but the act that male and male partners would perform anal sex. Therefore it is logical to assume that it is the act of anal sex that John the faster understood the word to mean and then used it in that context. The men were even committing this sin, anal sex, with their wives. 
This usage being some near 500 years after Paul wrote his epistles. 
When we look at the verse in some context we will see that Paul is arguing against the law

1 corinthians 6- 1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
1 Corinthians 6- 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 
Paul states that even though a person may be one of these people that they are all washed, justified in the name of Jesus. 
1 corinthians 6- 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Paul then states that as we are no longer under the law EVERYTHING is therefore lawful (as we saw homosexual sex was forbidden under the law) 
1 corinthians 6- 12All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 
There is NO law so nothing is against the law.

Romans 5-13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

But Paul also stated in the verse that although nothing is unlawful for him as there is no law that not everything was expedient for him meaning profitable or good for him. He also claims he will not be brought under their power. Simply saying that although now nothing is unlawful he will not do that which is not good. He continues that the body is for the Lord.

1 corinthians 6- 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 
As we are members of Christ and are joined to him Paul states that a harlot, a prostitute would not be made a member of Christ otherwise this would make Christ one with and therefore a prostitute.
1 corinthians 6- 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh
So although it would no longer be unlawful for a person to be a prostitute via the Mosaic law which was no longer in effect being a prostitute would still not be good or a proper thing to be. It would be against Christ and could not be joined to Christ.

The same would go to those that practiced homosexual, non male female sex, which was against the law. Although it was no longer unlawful to engage in homosexual sex a partaker would not be doing that which was Christlike and therefore could not be joined to Christ. 
The words only other use is found in the last verse used as proof. 
1 timothy 1-10 
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; KJV

1 timothy 1-10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine NIV
1 timothy 1-10 he sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ESV
1 timothy 1-10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, NASB
Again the NASB would have it that merely being homosexual is condemned while the NIV and ESV would at least imply it is only practicing homosexuals. 
Again it is claimed by those who say the Bible does not condemn natural loving homosexual relationships that these verses are not referencing natural homosexuality but again referring to homosexual prostitution and or pederasty 
So again we have to put the verse back into some context.

Paul is teaching about false teachers claiming in verse 7 that some desire to teach the law but do not understand it.

1 Timothy 1- 3As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
Then he states the law is good if it is used lawfully. And then lists those that are considered not righteous but unlawful which includes those that defile themselves with mankind. 
1 Timothy 1-8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
As we know from part one homosexual sex was against the Law given by God. Paul referring back to the law then references that which was against the law. With the understanding that this was the sexual act of non male female sex, defiling themselves with mankind would mean those that performed non male female sex. 
There simply is no reference to any kind of prostitution in this verse. This is a general condemnation of same gender sexual acts. Paul’s use of the word here would be the same as it was in 1 corinthians 6-9 and therefore referring to the act.
Paul does not condemn being homosexual as such and neither does he refer to the natural as a person’s inclination towards one sex or another. He does refer to fertility rituals but this as part of his condemnation of non natural sex. Paul specifically condemns the sexual act of non male female sex.

So in conclusion to the verses the Bible does not condemn simply being homosexual It specifically condemns the sexual act engaged in by 2 homosexuals which it also condemns between males and females. Paul who while teaching made reference to the act of homosexual sex condemned by the law elaborated on this through the condemnation of any kind of anal sex male and female. There really is no way of getting around the fact. 
Now it is also a fact that some people are born homosexual with a genuine attraction to the members of the same sex. I won’t deal with the science behind it I am not a Psychiatrist nor brain expert so I would highly recommend watching Dr Tim Jennings on youtube or reading his books. Whilst I certainly don’t agree with all his theology he is most assuredly an expert in the field of the brain and in my humble opinion very interesting to watch. So if homosexuality is condemned not condoned by the Bible but people genuinely are born homosexual how do we deal with that. What should a homosexual person do?

How can it be wrong for a “naturally” homosexual person to engage in an act that is “natural” to them even if it is unnatural to a hetrosexual person. As we have seen the act of non male female sex is deemed unnatural and therefore even if a person has “natural” tendencies towards the same sex it is still an unnatural act to practice same gender sex.

The most important thing to point out is that God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves anyone else. He does not approve of or love the act of practicing homosexual sex but to say that God does not love a person who is born homosexual through no fault of their own is an error. To say that God hates “fags” like some cults teach is a downright lie. Homosexuals have done nothing wrong. They were simply born with a predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. This however does not mean that they should engage in sexual practices with members of the same sex.
Some points that Matthew Vines makes on his video The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality
available on youtube . Gay Christians are destined to be alone . and “I would like to build a family of my own ” “to have children of my own”

Addressing the point of starting a family. It cannot go unstated that it is impossible for a homosexual person who is in a homosexual relationship to have a family, children, without going outside of that relationship in order “start” a family. Not through any defect or abnormality but through physical incapability through physical incompatibility. . Either a child must be conceived by a surrogate mother in the case of 2 males, a sperm donor in the case of 2 females or the adoption of a child by either couple.

As for is a gay christian meant to be alone without a partner. The honest and biblical answer to this is If you cannot be in a biblical relationship one with a member of the opposite sex then YES!!! Now this may seem at first like an unfair answer. An answer that most homosexuals will not like. But it is a biblical answer.

The statement am I meant to be alone is actually a selfish one. It focuses on self on the flesh. It makes a sexual relationship the priority over the relationship with God.

However Jesus says that we should not love the world and not live for the flesh 
1 John 2-15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Our body is not for fornication but for God.

1 corinthians 6- 13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
Living for God and NOT for ourselves is what living a christian life is all about. 
Jesus also tells us to deny ourselves take up our cross and to follow him. 
Matthew 16-24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
There are many people who abstain from sexual acts with others. 
Paul even states that it is good that a man to be single. Even as he was. But in order to avoid fornication they should marry, One husband and one wife. 
1 corinthians 7- 1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1 corinthians 7-8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

What about those people who are attracted to young children. Can we use the same argument regarding these people. They are born that way, with a predisposition to be attracted to young boys and or girls. Should they also ask should I have to be alone? Of course an obvious answer to this comparison is to simply point out that 2 homosexuals who are above legal age are engaging in consensual sex whereas in the case of the adult and child the child would not consent and therefore the comparison is not an equal one. However this would now bring us into a completely different question. When does one have the authority over themselves to consent? There is no universal consensus on this matter. What defines a person’s ability to consent? In the UK and USA the age of consent is 16 in Niger it is 13, Angola it is 12 and in Nigeria the age of sexual consent is 11. However in south Korea that goes to 20 and in Bahrain its 21. An adult male or female who is attracted to young boys or girls from the USA or UK would be breaking the law by having sex with an 11 year year old where that same person would be doing nothing wrong if they were in Nigeria. There are even some countries where there is no legal age for consent but a person must be married. Meaning a 30 year man and woman would NOT be allowed to have sex unless they were married. As we can see “consensual” is all down to where a person is born, imposed legal laws governing the rights of a person, telling them when they have the right to their own body.. Even if every country agreed on a certain age this age would still be totally and utterly arbitrary. Having an imposed age of consent necessitates the need for “someone” to arbitrarily dictate that age.
But if “consensual” is the argument then an argument can be made for those who would want more than 1 husband or wife. Most people are attracted to more than one person. Why should they not be allowed to have more than one wife or husband. If that’s the way we are born, with a predisposition to be attracted to more than one person at any one time. If all parties are consensual to the relationship what should stop a loving consensual polygamous relationship. Again the answer is simple. Because the Bible says that a marriage is between one man and one woman. So a person must deny their natural urge to have more than one partner. It is not about what WE want, what our flesh desires but that we live for God and follow him. 
A homosexual may say that it is unfair, a heterosexual may not be allowed multiple partners but at least they are allowed one. They are not expected to live without love, without a partner at all. It is their right to have such. Well as already stated if they wish to go against the teaching of God then they can do so but this would not make that relationship or their choice Biblical. They would be living in sin, just as much as a murderer who commits murder. All sin is the same. 
James 2-10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I would also point them no further than to a Muslim who has converted to Christianity. A Muslim converting to Christianity has to give up much in order to follow Christ. Most are disowned by their entire family and their friends. They are often in fear of their life. If found out they can be jailed or even worse executed. They often have to leave everything behind them, their whole life which often includes children. 
This is the true understanding of what Jesus said in matthew 10
Matthew 10-34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
What about their “right” to their life. Should they deny Christ and stay Muslim where they do not have to make such sacrifices? They do not have to deny themselves their wants and needs? They do not have to forsake their families? 
We must follow after Jesus, not after the lusts of the flesh. A person must be willing to sacrifice his family, his friends his own self in order to follow Jesus. 
John 15-18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Lastly i shall touch on the question Should a homosexual be accepted at church? The simple answer to this is yes. Everyone has sinned regardless of what that sin may be. If being a sinner stopped a person from being welcomed to church the church would be empty and there would be no pastor. Being a homosexual is nobody’s fault. They didn’t choose it, they simply are. Just as being white, black, oriental or any other ethnicity is nobody’s choice. You simply are born as you are.

The Bibles condemnation is the ACT of not FACT of homosexuality.