Hi - 
At the risk of cutting off scholarly discussion, might I offer one word: 
dayenu! Enough, already. I feel that both sides have analyzed, exegesised, 
interpreted, and cited enough sources and lexicons to stock the New York City 
Public library.  
I find it very difficult to believe that there is really anything new under 
the sun linguistically speaking; if Leviticus 18:22 really only referred to 
male prostitution, then why hasn't one of the commentators of the past come up 
with this interpretation (especially as this type of behaviour was certainly 
not unknown in the Hellenistic period)? Seems to me that most of the Jewish 
commentators in particular loved to interpret, argue, and expound on what the 
scripture meant - not unlike the discussions that have ensued on b-greek on 
this topic.  
Has one single reputable commentator (i.e. non-Boswell, whose motives are 
suspect and scholarship appears sloppy) ever come up with this interpretation 
before? If not, then perhaps it is because A is A; Leviticus 18:22 is exactly 
what it appears to be. 
PLease, let's move on to another topic - like reinterpreting the 10 
commandments as '10 helpful suggestions for self-empowerment.' 
Mary Ann Davidson