the church demonized homosexuality to compel procreation of more christians

The tradition trajectory of New Testament scholarship begins with accepting the premise that the documents are historical, that is, that the events described are historical events, and that the documents themselves date from around the time in which those events occurred.  Scholarship addresses the matter of the development of the “community” by accepting the notion that the community had its origins in Judaism, and that belief in the tenets of the cult migrated out into the greater non-Judean populace.  Scholarship looks at how the text has been exegeted by presuming that contemporary interpretation and ancient interpretation are consistent, with the sole difference that the ancient world was “simpler” and therefore less sophisticated, more conservative, etc.

It would seem that bible scholars, in insisting on viewing the development of the cultic community as an outgrowth of Judean praxis, have neglected to remember that Judeans were not the only people involved, and Judean culture was not the sole formative element.  The proto-Christian community did not just adopt Judean text and disown the Judean owners, it had to reject its Greco-Roman socialization, with its own cultic practices as well.  To this end, the texts were redacted to include vignettes relating exorcisms of demons—demons were an essential part of the fabric of Roman social and religious life.  Because all were subject to Roman government, and because the developing cult wanted to be officially recognized, it was necessary to attach itself to an already-existing cult.  Because its members wanted to be perceived as embracing a “foreign” cult, elements of domestic Roman praxis had to be syncretized or eliminated.

Scholars have waxed eloquent on the theory that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibited homosexuality, but (in the case of Jewish scholars) that the prohibition was against Canaanite “alternate practices.”  In the case of New Testament scholars, the theory is that the prohibition was against Greek or Roman “alternate practices.”

We lack documentation concerning Canaanite sexual mores or regulations governing them, which makes speculation about Canaanite practice moot.  We do know, however, that the claim that the text was prohibiting Greek or Roman “alternate practices” is nonsense.  We know that Greeks did not consider those practices as “alternate,” but as socially acceptable and that those practices had their own social codes.  We also know that Romans not only did not perceive those practices as “alternate” but enacted legislation governing them, along with legislation governing divorce and remarriage, and stipulating the  penalties that could be incurred by failing to remarry.

Scholars are idiots.  If you ever needed proof that a PhD neither confirms nor confers intelligence, read bible scholarship.

The Judean community and the proto-Christians revised their exegeses of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 separately, yet both arrived at the interpretation that is currently in use.  The Judean community revised its interpretation because of Hadrian, who nearly annihilated the Judean population:  the import of the exegesis was “do not be like him!” The proto-Christian community revised its exegesis of the texts, not because homosexuality was wrong, but for the same reason that the proto-Christian community crafted rules governing divorce that were more stringent than those enacted by Roman legislation:  to compel procreation of more legitimate cult followers.