That said, most people are really twisted when they interpret what the Bible tells them. In the first place, they hand defining the words they read over to people. Does God define the word AND the same way people do? The ways of God are not the ways of people, so, don't depend on what your second grade teacher taught you for your salvation. Check everything with God.
Someone asked me about Romans 1:26-7,
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.
|KJV word||Strongs||Greek Word||Word Translation|
|of the woman,||g2338||θῆλυς||female|
|one toward another;||g1519||εἰς||in|
|working||g2716||κατεργάζομαι||achieve through labor|
|that which is unseemly,||g808||ἀσχημοσύνη||nakedness, indecency|
|themselves||g1438||ἑαυτοῦ||himself or herself|
|which||g3739||ὅς||who, which, that|
Being the kind of guy I am, I do not take anyone's word, except the Holy Ghost, for anything. I am not saying that the Holy Ghost gave me this specific interpretation, but, I am suggesting that not everything is translated exactly as God would have liked it to be. If we look at the individual words we can see there was some interpretation of how the Greek was translated into English. This is pretty common, and when we include how word definitions have changed since King James had the Bible translated it becomes even more important to pray for understanding over every single word of the Bible.
So 1:27 tells us mano-e-mano is a bad thing, right? I don't think so. In fact, I translate it (in context with 1:26) a little more like this:
"also Men misusing women, inflamed in lust, with (encouraging) each other to take them (women) immorally and straying from that which is (commonly) seen"
Huh? What? You mean, maybe Paul was continuing on with the previous passage and discussing how women are misused and wasn't discussing men misusing each other? WTF?
Yep, I think this particular passage is mis-translated big time. In Judaism a Rabbi would often suck the blood off an infant boy's penis during a circumcision. With all the issues about transmittable diseases and gay politics that is frowned on these days, but, Rabbinical Scholars determined this kind of contact, non-lustful, was permissible and even required at times.
What about when we add in the lust stuff? Yes and no, lot of disagreement among scholars every where.
I am no Greek scholar, but, I remember reading about this translation and controversy before. I am not confident this passage is correctly translated. It is not as straight forward as some would make it appear. It is discussing unnatural lusts, and men working together to achieve unnatural lusts, but, I think the exact nature of the immorality is not as clear cut as it sounds. Since the context of the previous passage seems to be about misusing women, in some vile and unnatural way I'm not sure how the translators jump to the conclusion that men are using each other unnaturally as opposed to encouraging each other to use women unnaturally. It may even be talking about "menage de trois".
Leviticus 18:22 is a better passage against men having intercourse. The only contact strictly forbidden in the Bible, between males, is intercourse. Anyhow, in my opinion, this passage is not quite as clear cut as it appears.
For your own direction I would suggest prayer and listening to the Holy Ghost. Trusting our salvation to people is never a good idea, even trusting your salvation to me would be a bad idea. Prayer and focus on the Holy Spirit is the only way to Christ and Christ is the way. :-)