[Natsu]

With respect to homosexuality, as far as I'm aware, all of the verses that describe a punishment for it say that the person who partakes of it will end up on a sickbed. Given the times, it probably carried a high risk of STIs. Proverbs has similar warnings with respect to men who lose their vigor to prostitutes, or as a result of fornication.

[notdonspaulding]

The practical consequences of homosexuality and prostitution (STIs and reduced vigor) are of much less concern to Jesus and Paul (and other Biblical figures) than the immediate problem of ignoring God's design and intentions for sex.

Here's a quick list of passages dealing with sexual immorality:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immorality

Notice the theme where the immoral person does not get to inherit the kingdom of God. That's a way-out-in-the-future concept, not any kind of concern for the physical body of the immoral person.

Which isn't to say there aren't practical benefits to Biblical sexuality. Certainly your chance of getting an STI is dramatically reduced (eliminated?) by remaining faithful to your spouse in marriage. Abstinence for the unmarried has the same obvious benefits. Heterosexuality is clearly the easiest way to procreate, and the inherent differences between men and women gives children a broader experience of physical, mental, emotional interaction with the world (seeing how mom and dad handle the same situation in gender-unique ways, for instance).

But again, all of that is the secondary concern. The primary concern of all sin is the immediate effect it has on the spiritual condition of a man. The preeminent theme throughout the Old Testament and New is that God is Holy. He takes his holiness seriously. Man has sinned. God judges all sins. There is one way back to God, and that's by taking advantage of the path He made back to Himself, via his son, Jesus.

[oldmanjay]

so given that the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality is in direct conflict with modern observation that sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy, do you still find the bible compelling?

[notdonspaulding]

    > "the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality"

You're paraphrasing in a place where it's much more productive to be specific in what the Bible claims.

    > "sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy"

Again, source? I'm not sure I've heard this idea coming from any popular figures. In fact, the impression I get from modern mainstream observations is that spiritual health is a non-concern for most people.

If you didn't intend to make a claim about spiritual health, and instead mean the modern idea that "I should pursue whatever sexual impulses I have", then I would further argue that we haven't walked far enough along the arc of history to see the repercussions of that play out.

    > do you still find the bible compelling?

Certainly. The Bible's position on sexuality is very comprehensive, without being completely descriptive. I'm just as wary of the "modern" (Aristotlean) idea that everything is good in moderation as I am of anyone attempting to limit Christian sexuality to the Victorian ideas represented in the article. The Bible cuts a line between the two that is both more relevant across centuries, and less concerned with creating a monoculture in marital relationships.