the New Testament does not support an anti-gay agenda

I'm being polite.  I was going to say "insane."  Or "idiots."

There are few parts of the text that refer to sex at all.  The two that do are the woman caught in adultery, which we have addressed.

In the Johanine pericope, we are told the Pharisees "caught" her in adultery.  Presumably, this means they knew she was contracted to one man, and they caught her having sex with a man to whom she was not contracted.  That is not good.  However, they accuse her of an act that involves a double crime:  the crime of theft of progeny, and the crime of fraud in passing that progeny off as someone else's.  She has only been caught having sex (as far as we know).  Having sex is not a crime.  She has not been caught producing an infant and trying to pass it off as the progeny of another man.

The fact that she was caught having sex with a man to whom she was not contracted does not mean that she was in the act of committing either crime--because she is not found pregnant, she has not committed the crime of theft (yet).  She has not committed the crime of fraud (yet).  We do not know if she had become pregnant.  We do not know if, becoming pregnant, she would commit those two crimes.  Neither does Jesus.  He refuses to  condemn her for acts she has not (yet) committed.

Jesus says: "ο αναμαρτητος υμων, πρωτος επ αυτην βαλετω λιθον. The sinless one of you will throw the first stone at her."  ("Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone" is lovely KJV, but inaccurate translation.)  In other words, he tells them, "the one who has committed no crime will throw a stone at her who he has accused of committing two, when neither of the crimes she has been accused of has yet to occur."

The "faithful" explain the coda to this as Jesus "forgives" the woman her "sin," and counsels her "to sin no more." No part of that exegesis is accurate.  The text says, "η δε ειπεν, Ουδεις, κυριε, ειπεν δε ο Ιησους, ουδε εγω, σε κατακρινω, πορευου απο του νυν μεκτι.  And she said, no one, lord. Jesus said. nor do I condemn you.  Go, from now no more."  The problem with the argument made by the "faithful" is that there is no "forgiveness."  There is an absence of condemnation.  That is not the same thing at all.  There is no injunction to not sin.  There is no reference to sin at all.  Since he has just made a point of telling her that he is not condemning her, the inference, if any can be made at all, is that he is simply saying "don't put yourself in a situation where you can be accused of anything again."  He does not limit it to sexual situations.  He does not say "don't sin again," because referring her act is an implicit condemnation of her, and he has told her he is not condemning her.

The very fact that the text says explicitly "Nor do I," tells us not only is it not a matter of forgiveness (or, as contemporary "faithful" would have it "love the sinner, hate the sin"), but that he is not even imputing sin to her.

His coda "go, from now no more" is not an injunction to "sin" no more, but a caution to her that there are people (like those  contemporary "faithful") who are happy to read more into a situation than is actually present, and who are happy to act accordingly.

This is NOT applicable to homosexuality, because it does not concern homosexuality.  The condemnation, if any, is reserved for those who were ready to accuse her of crimes that had not yet been committed (lashon hara" evil speech--making unfounded accusations). 

The only other sexual reference that the "faithful" can haul out to attempt to construct as an implicit moral injunction against homosexuality is the Lukan and the Matthean birth narratives.  Claiming those texts as a basis for arguing against homosexuality is more of a bizarre stretch than claiming the Johanine text for the same use.  We will see why.

The Lukan birth narrative says: Εν δε τω μηνι τω εκτω, απεσταλη ο αγγελοσ Γαβριηλαπω του θεου εις πολιν της Γαλιλαιαςη ονομα Ναζαραρεθ.  προς παρθενον εμνηστευμενην ανδρι ο ονομα Ιωσηφ, εξ οικου Δαυιδ, και το ονομα της παρθενου Μαριαμ. και εισηλθων προς αυτην, ειπεν, Καιρε, κεχαριτομη, ο κθριος μετα σου.  η δε επι τω λογω δισταραχθη και διαλογιζετο ποταπος ει ο ασπασμος ουτος.  και ειπεν ο αγγελος αθτη, μη φοβου, Μαριαμ, εθρες γαρ χαριν παρα του θεου.  Και ιδου, συλλημπση εν γαστρι και τεξη υιον και καλεσεις  το ονομα αυτου Ιησουν.

In the sixth month (of Elizabeth's pregnancy), the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee whose name was Nazareth, to a young woman who had been contracted to a man named Joseph, who was of David's house, the name of the young woman was Mariam.  He said to her "greetings, favored one, the lord is with you.  She was confused by this word, and analyzed what this greeting might be.  The angel said, do not fear, you have found favor with god.  You will conceive in your belly and you will give birth to a son, and you will name him "he will save."

This is very cool.  It seems like things we have seen before elsewhere.  The introduction notes that this happened in the "sixth month."  The text refers to the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, since the last time marker we had was that Elizabeth had found herself pregnant.

We have noted that the two women Elizabeth and Mariam were of the same family.  We have noted that circumstance draws the attention of the audience to the Jacob narrative, in which Jacob has both Leah (the older sister) and Rachel (the younger sister) to produce progeny for him.

We now note that the text tells us that the man to whom Mariam is contracted is of David's family, which means he is of Jacob's family, which means he is of Abraham's family.  The relation to Jacob, of course, brings us back to the verse in Numbers that is connected to bar Cochba.  The relation to Abraham tells us that as with Elizabeths pregnancy at an advanced age, this birth narrative is linked to Sarah's production of a son.

In Gen 8:9, the pericope says "They [the angels] said to him [Abraham], "where is your wife Sarah?"  Abraham said, "She is in the tent."  The next verse, 8:10, says, "The Lord said, 'I will surely return to you at this time next year and Sarah your wife will have a son."

The text changes from "they" (the angels) to
the Lord."  We note that the Lord does not say "you will get Sarah pregnant."  It says "I will return in a year and she will give birth to a son."  The text in Luke conflates those statements: the angel Gabriel tells Mariam that the lord will give her a son.

The Matthean birth narrative makes use of the same material, but with a different spin:  Του δε Ιησου χριστου η γενεσις ουτως ην μνηστευθεισης  της μητρος αυτου Μαριαςτω Ιωσηφ, πριν η συνελθειν αυτους, εθρετη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου. Ιωσηφ δε, ο ανηρ αυτης, δικαιος ων και μ θελων αυτην δειγματισαι, εβοθληθη λαθρα απολυσαι αυτην.  Ταυτα δε αυτου ενθυμηθεντος, ιδου, αγγελος κυριου  κατ οναρ εφανη αυτω, λεγων, Ιωσηφ, υιος Δαυιδ,  μη φοβητης παραλαβειν Μαριαν την γυναικα σου, το γαρ εν αυτη γεννηθεν εκ πνεθματος εστιν αγιου.  τεξεται  δε υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου Ιησουν, αυτος γαρ σωσει τον λαον αυτου απο των αραρτιων αυτων.  Τουτο δε ολον γεγονεν, ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν  θπο κυριου  δια του προφητου λεγοντας, ιδου, η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει μαι τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν  αυτου Εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος.  Εγερθεις δε ο Ιωσηφ  απο του υπνου, εποιησεν ως προσεταξεν αυτω ο αγγελος κυριου και παρελαβεν την γυναικα αυτου, και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου εκετεν υιον , και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου Ιησουν


This was the beginning of Yehoshua the anointed:  his mother Maria, had been contracted to Joseph, before this having come together, she was found to have in her belly from the holy spirit.  Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to expose her, decided to send her away secretly.  Having pondered these things of his, an angel of the lord manifested to him in a dream, saying, Joseph son of David, do not fear to take Maria as your wife for in her has been conceived from the holy spirit.  She will give birth to a son and call his name "he will save" because he will save his people from their sins.  All of this happened so that the saying which had been spoken by the lord through the prophet would be fulfilled:  Behold, the young woman will have in her belly, and will give birth a son and they will call his name Emmanuel, which is translated "god with us." Joseph, having been awoken from sleep, did what the angel of the lord had commanded him, and took his woman, but he did not know her until she had given birth to a son, and he called his name "he will save."

The Matthean birth narrative conflates the reference to Numbers (via identification with Joseph as "son of David," i.e. of the house of Jacob), with the specific reference to the navi Isaiah (via parthenos, "young woman"), with the Abrahamic birth narrative:  the announcement of the prospective progeny is made by an angel to the father, not to the mother.

Contemporary "faithful" claim this narrative upholds their anti-homosexual agenda.  They make this claim because they argue that when Joseph finds out the woman he is contracted to is pregnant, he wants to turn her lose secretly. and when he has been told about the future child, he does not have sex with his woman.  According to them, this indicates that Joseph is taking the moral stand of refusing to have sex outside the marriage bond.  There are  problems with that argument:  It is not the case that Joseph wants to turn Maria lose before formally assuming ownership of her because she has been "unfaithful."  The text does not say that, nor does it indicate that.  Joseph wants to turn her lose because he does not want to be in the position of being presumed to be stealing progeny for which another man might assert a claim.

Joseph refuses to have sex with Maria AFTER he has taken her (i.e. after the contract has been executed and he has the right to assert right of ownership over her).  The second problem is that his refusal has nothing to do with honoring any moral scruples regarding sexual activity, and has to do with ownership of the progeny:  the angel has told him the progeny was created by someone that was not him.  Joseph refuses to have sex with Maria because if he were to do so, he would be creating a dispute of ownership of progeny with the angel/God, and thus would be jeopardizing the fulfillment of the prophecy that he was advised the child had been created for.

Joseph does not take a moral stand regarding Maria's sexual activity at all.  It is, as has been argued repeatedly, a matter of ownership of progeny.

Therefore neither of these text successfully uphold any argument made by contemporary "faithful" that texts in the New Testament implicitly support their anti-homosexual agenda.