"what should Lot have done in Sodom."
Ahhhh, the old Genesis 19 defense! You know, I wrote a pretty interesting article about literalist interpretation of the Bible and discussed Geneisis 19 at length in it. The article is entitled "Targeting Gays: A History of Oppression, Part II; Morality or Selective Application of Religious Doctrines?" I think you might find it interesting. In the context that the English version of Genesis 19 is most likely misinterpreted, I don't really know what Lot should have done in Sodom. I think there are many ways in which you can interpret Genesis 19. Here are a few examples:
“Some pastors cite Genesis 19, a passage that condemns homosexual rape, as proof that God hates all homosexual behavior.” However, “Some pastors switch between Bible translations in order to find the version that is most critical of homosexual behavior. When quoting Deuteronomy 23:17 some deviate from their usual usage of the New International Version (NIV). It accurately translates the original Hebrew condemnation of male and female prostitution in the temple (a common Pagan practice). They prefer the King James Version (KJV), which incorrectly translates the passage as condemning female prostitutes and male "sodomites."
David Bartlett, professor of divinity at Yale Divinity School regarding Genesis 19: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."
Reuven Kimelman, professor of near Eastern and Judaic studies at Brandeis University regarding Genesis 19: "In the Mid-east then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation, even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."
The Rev. Jill Nelson, associate pastor of the Sunshine Cathedral Metropolitan Community Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., which ministers to a largely gay congregation: “If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice."
Given that there are so many ways to interpret this passage and many others in the Bible, I don't think the Church should be trying to mandate the "morality" of homosexuality via government. It is one thing if a particular Chruch wants to take a "moral" position on the issue but it should not presume to try and mandate their particular "interpretation" of the Bible on the whole of society via governmental laws. If anything, I think the Church should acknowledge that there are many ways in which to interpret the story of Genesis 19 and teach all of them. Shouldn't the Chruch want to err on the side of caution regarding this matter? I mean, if you look at Jesus' teachings...he never mentions homosexuality at all yet the Church is fixated on some old Testament passages that were most likely misinterpreted. I find that particularly strange and leads me to question the motives behind it.
