It is amazing how many 5 star reviews there are on Jack Roger's book, it is quite clear that people do not critically evaluate what they read. There are serious problems with his arguments, primarily the use of false analogies, such as slaves, women and Gentile inclusion (Acts 15), which he mentions on p79 and p86.
There is certainly a trajectory for freedom from slavery in both the OT and NT, even Paul is egalitarian to women in 1 Cor 7:2-5 also Gal 3:28, and regarding Gentile inclusion, scripture was used to justify this (Acts 15:16), however, there is no such trajectory in either the OT and NT for inclusion in the church of practising homosexuals, see 1 Cor 6:9, when it refers to the malakos and arsenokoites, past tense. The scripture goes counter-culturally on the issue of male-male sex in both the OT and the NT.
In his discussion of "arsenokoites" (1 Cor 6:9, 1Tim 1:10) p70-71, what he fails to tell us that is that Robin Scroggs in his 1983 book (The NT and homosexuality) tells us that the Greek word "arsenokoites" was derived from the Septuagint version of the Levitical prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, a fact confirmed by David F Wright in 1984, which means that in Paul's mind the Levitical moral prohibitions applied in his day, otherwise he could not judge the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5, the problem was that the church was being too tolerant. Also Scroggs shows that the Hebrew equivalent of "arsenokoites" is "mishkav zakur" it is a technical term used by Rabbis of homosexuals. Instead, his star witness is the gay professor Dale Martin and his article "arsenokoites and malakos", who has deliberately tried to confuse the issue because it helps his cause, Martin is aware of Scroggs and Wright as he cites them, but he does not enter into a dialogue, which is a pity.
He (Rogers) also gets the definition of the Hebrew word "toevah" (abomination) wrong by saying that it only refers to ritual uncleanness (p69), a fault shared by Helminiak. A quick look at the BDB Hebrew lexicon shows that "toevah" can be used in both a ritual and an ethical way. Also, the death penalty was applied to those who commit male-male intercourse in Lev 20, so it hardly sounds like "just" ritual impurity.
In his discussion of Gen 1 and 2 on p82-83, what he neglects to tell us is that Jesus quotes Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in his treatment of marriage and divorce in Mat 19:4-6, which undermines his argument. There can be a lively debate on whether Gen 2:24, is descriptive, or prescriptive or normative, but the discussion needs to take into account what Jesus says about this, but Rogers, totally ignores Mat 19:4-6. Roger's neglect of Jesus teaching in Mat 19:4-6, either means that Rogers is ignorant of the biblical evidence (which is unlikely) or because he understands that this invalidates his case on Gen 1-2, and probably also invalidates all his arguments concerning eunuchs, which he takes at least 5 pages to discuss. Jesus in Mat 19 then goes on to deal with those who cannot accept his teaching on marriage in Mat 19:11-12, i.e. those who are unable to marry, the eunuchs made so by men, or born eunuchs and those who renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Rogers discusses the eunuchs on p 78-79 and p130-35, and it has to be taken in the context of Mat 19:4-10, Rogers takes it out of context. My understanding of Mat 19:11-12, is that those incapable of marriage, as Jesus defines it, should remain celibate. Rogers takes a different view.
In his discussion of Rom 1, what he fails to point out is that the Greek word for impurity used in Rom 1:24 (akatharsia) is also used by Paul in Rom 6:19, where he seems to be speaking to those who were formerly guilty of sexual impurity in Rom 1:24. Most people who read Romans on this issue only get as far as Rom 2. Rom 6 can be read in a new light, as Paul's teaching to those who were formerly sexually impure in Rom 1, in this light Rom 6 makes fascinating reading.
On p115, he discusses the Greek word "akathartos" (Eph 5:5), he says that "There is no suggestion of an application specifically to same sex practice". But this is a related Greek word "akatharsia", which Paul uses in Rom 1:24, when Paul discusses same-sex intercourse.
He also argues that Paul in Rom 1, is only condemning homosexuality in the context of idolatry, but in Rom 1:29-31 Paul introduces a long catalogue of sins, are we to assume that they are only wrong when associated with idolatry? I think not. Also the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9 (which contains the malakos and arsenokoitai) does not presuppose idolatry.
On p69, he quotes Jesus vice-list in Mat 15:19, which includes the sexually immoral, what he fails to tell us is that the Greek word used is "porneia" which is a catch all word for those who commit illicit sexual intercourse which would include male-male intercourse.
On p129, he discusses "love thy neighbor", which is taken from the much maligned Lev 19:18, and is sandwiched in between the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse in Lev 18 and 20. But, he neglects to mention that Lev 19:17 says, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. I conclude that, the homosexual is my neighbor; I should therefore love him and reason frankly with him.
Rogers offers us the misogyny argument on p67, 69, 74 and 75, quoting Dale Martin on homosexuality in the OT he says "To be penetrated was to be inferior because women were inferior" Rogers goes on to say "It is an expression of the "ancient horror of the feminine"". But, what I find interesting is that Paul in 1 Cor 7:3-5, is saying that within the bed, a husband and wife are equals, there is no misogyny at all, Paul, is quite egalitarian, the misogyny argument just does not hold water, the scripture stands against him.
I could go on, but people do not read very long reviews. Perhaps, people should be more like the Bereans, who examined the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.